Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

[maeb]

Transgender man who gave birth loses high court privacy ruling

Why am I not surprised?

Seadragonusgiganticusmaximus
See section 12 of the GRA
12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.
Here the argument would be that having acquired the male gender makes him a father. But to acquire a GRC one has to commit to live in the acquired gender permanently. How does this square with having a child, which men do not do? Again, this is extremist trans ideology trying to find a legal basis, that male/female distinction is irrelevant, and transmen can give birth and transwomen can impregnate women. I sincerely hope the court stops this.

In the case of an adopted child, where the Legal Fiction that is the adoptive parents exists, the child always has the right to discover its natural parent[s].

In relation to the GRA 2004, no such right exists because it was never anticipated that anyone would obtain a GRC before becoming a parent. So, if this person is permitted to record herself as this child's father, the child has no right yet to discover the truth about its mother, given the 'no disclosure' clauses contained within GRA 2004.

I sincerely hope the court stops this.

I agree .. and the GRC should also be rescinded, in my view.

@JackyHolyoake
is there a provision for rescinding the GRC for having given false information? I cannot find it in the GRA.

So there may well be enough legal mud for this one to wallow very happily

I don't know but they could argue that in cases of AID, surrogacy and egg donation the law permits birth certificates which are not genetically true. Such certificates are not patently untrue where the parents bringing up a child are a man and a woman. The law also permits "2 mother" birth certificates - which are patently untrue.

All of these are allowing the persons who will be caring for the child to be recognised as parents - although possibly many of these parents have no biological link to the child.

This person has a biological link so the argument would be are their rights lesser than all the other non- biological parents?

In all of these other situations parents are advised that the child should be told the truth- in the case of the 2 mothers it's impossible to hide it.

Why are you (you meaning anyone who thinks this person should not get their way) content that all of these persons can be trusted to explain the situation to their children , but you won't trust this person?

JackyHolyoake

But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors). So calling this person father doesn’t seem a big stretch does it? I don’t like it, but it seems all the required conditions are in place

More succinct than my ramble - but I agree..

is there a provision for rescinding the GRC for having given false information? I cannot find it in the GRA.

Not so far as I am aware. There would need to be a referral back to the original GRC panel in this case for the full information, I suspect.

If that panel decides it was deceived it may have power to rescind their decision to grant a GRC.

So ridiculous that a person claims to be male, decides to get pregnant and then insists all of society should lie to the child and tell him he’s the only human not to be born of a biological woman, his mother.

This is where the ridiculous twisting around of ideology and vocabulary to gaslight a nation stops. Thank God.

I was shocked to read about anonymity given that we have discussed the documentary after an article was published in the Guardian about it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3564619-The-Dad-who-gave-Birth-Seahorse-Documentary

But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors

I know it can seem as though having two women on a birth certificate is a legal fiction, but as the law has never required that a father is named on a birth certificate, and as the second person on the birth certificate has never routinely had to show a genetic relationship with the baby, really the law hasn't really changed that much.

Somebody married to somebody who has given birth will become the baby's legal guardian by default, even if neither of them have a genetic relationship to the child and even if they are another woman.

A birth certificate is a record of birth, not genetics. The only two people who must be on a birth certificate are the baby and the mother, 'mother' simply meaning the person who gave birth.

If the law is changed to say that a father can give birth, it is a fundamental change of the meaning of the words 'mother' and 'father', giving them values that they don't currently have in law.

A birth certificate does not predict whether somebody will be a good or bad parent, or define their parenting role or predict that they will have any long term role in the child's life at all. It is a simple statement of fact. This person gave birth. The word for a person who gave birth is a mother.

Clearly the Guardian journalist has all sorts of issues with the words 'mother' and 'woman'. That must be very difficult. However, the proposed change fundamentally alters the purpose of a birth certificate and we should all have a say in that.

However, the proposed change fundamentally alters the purpose of a birth certificate and we should all have a say in that.

Very well said, merrymouse.

merrymouse

Thank you. That does go a long way towards addressing my concerns.

It’s going to be very interesting to see the judgement.

Lass

More succinct than my ramble - but I agree..

I’ll take that as a compliment - thanks!

So if he was in a relationship with another man and conceived naturally. Who would be dad? Technically the partner would be, but the transman also wants to be dad.
That’s one of the questions I would have been asking in court.

A person cannot have two biological same sex parents.

And how messed up will the child be in a few years time. Nothing for mother and wants to know more about the donor.
That’s of course after years of bullying even if the case never went public. Kids are encouraged to talk about their family.
The child will be called a liar when they say my dad gave birth to me, I have no mother, and the sperm donor is called Brian.

I don't think the problem is lying - I suspect McConnell would be completely honest about being trans.

I think the problem is legally defining 'mother' on a birth certificate in terms of gender and parenting role, rather than biology.

I think parents come in all shapes and sizes, and I don't care how people refer to the people who parent them. However, if the law is too squeamish to use language that describes the biological reality of birth itself, it becomes less and less possible to talk about the unavoidable consequences of being somebody with the potential to give birth.

The birth of a baby is a wonderful thing. Congratulations to the family.

I hope that the whole legal and media shenanigans that undoubtedly follow remember that this is about a baby. The baby didn't ask for this and hopefully won't end up being used to make a point .

I also hope the legal implications for what it means to be a woman and mother are taken into account when determining the legal paperwork for the child. Am not holding my breath.

He certainly did not intend to live as a man for the rest of his life, which he committed to do when he got his GRC, because men do not give birth. And herein lies the problem. He wants the court to say that men can give birth. I do not care how delusional these people are, God knows Scientologists exist, but we cannot have legislators and courts pander to these delusions and design law and policy around their delusions.

Everything Merrymouse said.

Yes allesandria. He committed to live as a guy. Then well he didn’t

As I understand it, the other legal fiction birth certificate issues are around the 2nd parent - because without DNA testing the genetic truth of the father/second parent is not 100% apparent upon birth.
However, the baby literally exiting the body of the mother is and has always been a very clear line. The baby belongs to the mother, no question, because it was inside of her.
Father/Parent 2 is more of a record of the mother's partner, ie, the person who will be involved in raising the child. This seems like a practical solution, unless DNA testing of newborns and named fathers becomes routine. I don't know how that fits with the child's right to know their genetic parent...

This case, as I understand it, is about wanting the mother - the one from whom the baby issued - listed in the father/Parent 2 slot and leaving the mother/born-of slot empty. If we must, couldn't we change the 'slot' names to include a gender neutral option if the word mother is so triggering (more triggering than, ya know, being pregnant and birthing a child ). Mother/Born of/Birthing Parent and Father/Parent 2 for example? I don't love it, but it's a compromise that keeps in mind the child's right to an accurate record of who birthed them.

As for surrogacy/adoption - the surrogate mother would still be named as mother on the birth certificate. The intended mother would be named as adoptive mother on the adoption certificate. I think that is ethically right.

Just checked something- in the case of a lesbian couple the certificate does not have 2 mothers. It has mother and parent. Referring to "2 mothers" is colloquial.

He certainly did not intend to live as a man for the rest of his life, which he committed to do when he got his GRC, because men do not give birth.

And this is where I get stuck. Currently, you can only get a GRC because you have lived as a man.

If you stopped taking testosterone, conceived a child, carried that child and gave birth, you are not living as a man.

jacky that is so interesting. I agree, there is no provision in the 2004 Act for a grc to be rescinded. Since a grc is entirely a creature of statute, this means that it can’t be rescinded. I can’t see that even deliberate fraud would permit this(and this particular case looks like one involving an unhappy and mixed up person rather than fraud).

What this demonstrates is the astonishing naïveté involved when the 2004 Act was enacted. The possibility of this situation, and of one involving deliberate fraud (for instance in order to access women’s prison estate), simply wasn’t considered. So now the courts are facing a very unpleasant situation - either face trans opprobrium for maintaining the accuracy of the birth certificate, or surrender the child’s interests in an having accurate record of his/her mother’s identity. Particularly hideous given that in this case, given the restrictions on disclosure of a grc, the effect of the 2004 Act seems to be that the child can never even be informed, even as an adult, of the identity of his/her biological mother- something not the case in any other context.

This piece of legislation was well meaning but is completely unable to deal with the pressure now being put on it. It should be repealed - or at least amended to provide for compulsory revocation of a grc in specified circumstances, and spelling it out that issue of a grc does not affect the birth certificate record in the case of subsequent birth of a child (but also that such birth should normally be grounds for revocation).

Poor child. A parent’s energies would be far better focused on the day to day care of the child, and enjoying his/herbabyhood, than on complex and presumably stressful legal action aimed at withholding information from the child.

We inherit DNA from our parents. Some DNA we inherit equally from our parents, but mitochondrial dna is only passed from our mother. Therefore the child has a mother.

Just checked something- in the case of a lesbian couple the certificate does not have 2 mothers. It has mother and parent. Referring to "2 mothers" is colloquial.

That's the case if the child is the result of being treated at a licensed fertlity clinic. If it's a result of a privately arranged pregnancy then the 2nd parent has to apply for PR. If it's a fertility clinic pregnancy then a letter from the birth mother to the other parent means they can go on the birth certificate.