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?

I know that. My point was the certificate does not record 2 mothers. If it had, that might strengthen this person's case as "mother" would not imply person who gives birth.

Is it bad that every time I open this thread, I see the title as Trans-man who gave birth TO a Guardian Journalist?

I suspect that this is one of those strategic court cases (funded by TELI?) to try and set a precedent that then becomes law.

This is the result of the legal fiction of the GRA that says gender identity is equal to sex.

Which is of course nonsense.

I would have hoped child protection issues would come into this. What type of reality will this child grow up in knowing that the person who gave birth to them says they are their father.

I loathe it when parents try to indoctrinate their children with their beliefs. (I feel this as strongly as I do about children bought up in religious households!)

Trying to pin down a definition of what it means to "live as a man" (or woman) isn't going to be improved any by a situation in which giving birth has been legally recognised as part and parcel of living as a man. Words are meaningless, definitions are meaningless. You'd almost think this was all completely deliberate. 🙄

Agree with the ruling but disagree with the “poor kid” comments. Someone can be a loving and competent parent while having a different belief system.

However, I am concerned by the push to reconfigure society around gender instead of sex (of which this was part) because it hurts girls and women.

So I agree with the ruling.

Doesn’t this tend to give the lie to any suggestion that birth certificates are a record of the (biological) truth?

I think it's largely practical, and assumes that generally speaking people will be truthful about registering on the birth certificate, and most of the time if a couple is married the husband is the father. Given that most people won't be having genetic testing to confirm this - it wasn't even always possible - it's the most sensible assumption.

If it's challenged in some way, then tests can be done and it can be modified to reflect what's true.

Placemarking. Will be interested to learn the result of the second court case.

I can't get over the idea that this journalist sued for anonymity while making a documentary about their situation. Surely if anything is going to harm the child the publicity surrounding the documentary will do the trick.

Many people have birth certificates that list parents from whom they are estranged, or have to list a previous name that relates to an abusive past relationship when they fill in forms. If McConnell wins this case, will the courts allow all of us to discard life details that no longer fit with our current sense of self?

It's easy to understand why a birth certificate can be distressing, but at the moment they provide limited, neutral information about an event. However, McConnell's case (and trans ideology) suggest that they make a judgement about identity and I really, really resist the idea that official documents can or should record identity.

It’s the possibility of the space for “mother” being left blank that worries me- not just for this specific child, but for the precedent that sets.

For this child, what will happen if it ever wants to apply for a passport, a visa, residency in another country? The UK could as a result of this ruling reconfigure systems and processes to accommodate a no-mother birth certificate, but the rest of the world probably won’t. I can foresee quite a lot of difficulty there.

As for the precedent, I worry in a Handmaids tale sort of a theme about there being the possibility of severing the link between giving birth and being the child’s mother. Possibly this can be justly accommodated for this child, as we do with adoption, but again, the knock on effect of setting the precedent that men can give birth- what might that do to maternity protections?

The thing I can get my head round is how female bodies get in the news for giving birth, and male bodies hit the headlines for sporting prowess, and this is apparently progress

what will happen if it ever wants to apply for a passport, a visa, residency in another country? The UK could as a result of this ruling reconfigure systems and processes to accommodate a no-mother birth certificate, but the rest of the world probably won’t. I can foresee quite a lot of difficulty there

Foundling children have no parents listed. The short form birth certificate of all children in the UK only has the child's details and no mention of the parents. You don't need the full certificate.

A birth certificate is a statement of biological fact. Not a piece of fiction to bolster the parents personal version of ‘reality’.

Possibly, but I’m thinking of a family member who is current,y applying for an eu member state passport based on their parents being from that country. There was a lot of proof needed to demonstrate that specifically their mother had been born in that country, and that they were their birth mother. This child’s papers would have proved very problematic in that regard.

If you start saying people who belong to a particular group shouldn't have children

I know, and I'm not really an extremist I promise It just makes me so angry that this poor kid is going to grow up being gaslit from the start by their mother, and that poor baby who was "breastfeeding" from their father who was on some horrific cocktail nod drugs to force lactation. These people are totally selfish and not thinking about their children at all. But of course lots of parents are like that.

For my residency visa in a non eu country I also needed an apostilled full birth certificate. This was in a Middle Eastern country and I can only imagine what they might make of a child with no recorded mother. At best, it would make the process more difficult. At worst, impossible.

Sorry apparently you do. I'm not sure that was always the case.

You don't need the full certificate

You do in some circumstances. Registering DD for the school system specifically required the full birth certificate...

trans people should not be allowed to have children.

That's one of the most unpleasant, unreasonable things I have read on MN. Nothing gives you the right to say that.

I thought you did need the long form birth cert to get a passport. I seem to remember in the dim and distant past getting a copy in order to get mine.

Also, if this person wants to pick and choose the origins of their child on the birth cert, can I remove my DS’s father from his, considering he’s an abusive alcoholic twat who has been forbidden by SS to see his child. DS wants to change his last name to mine. At the moment he can’t because he needs both parents’ permission. If this parent is allowed to piss about with what’s on their child’s birth cert, then all parents should be allowed to, at any point they choose, because facts don’t matter anymore.

The mind boggles at some people’s entitlement to think that what they want trumps science

I strongly disagree on the “not having children” statement - trans people include a vast spectrum of people (like any other group) and there’s no reason why they cannot be as loving parents as anyone else.

Ah, Fred McConnell, I'd forgotten about Fred.

One of the two self obsessed teeds (the other being Paris Lees) who caused me to ditch the Graun many moons ago.

The ruling should reflect the interests of the baby and only the baby. I'm not confident it will though, such is the guddle lying about sex has created.