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?

But it does record her legal parents and importantly her social parents

But long form birth certificates don't very often don't record either social or legal parents. They are a simple record of birth. Many people are not parented by their birth parents and many people lose contact with a parent before the end of their childhood. If you insist that a birth certificate is a reflection of a child's life, where does that leave people for whom it very much isn't?

The question becomes whether birth certificates are required at all. It's as reasonable to have that argument as it is to have any other argument. However, if we going to discuss the point of birth certificates, then we need to involve everyone and discuss all the implications, not just change the meaning by default.

The alternative is to go back to the previous position where the non-birth mum had to adopt the child in court proceedings.

Why? The non birth parent has never had to demonstrate a genetic relationship to the child, and anyone married to the birth parent automatically becomes a legal guardian of the child. Why should that change?

The issue being discussed is the language used to describe the birth parent.

And how does it help the child to tell her that she has a dad?

I don't understand why this is relevant. As far as I know Birth certificates have never had to name a second parent, male, female, genetically related or otherwise.

The purpose of a birth certificate is to ensure nationality.

Millions of children grow up without a legal nationality and thus lacking basic human rights, because the birthing mother is not recognised as a person capable of passing on nationality.

It is essential to children’s and women’s rights that a woman who gave birth to a child is named on the birth certificate.

Think for example the consequences it will have for trafficking children if you can legally leave the mother section blank on a birth certificate.

On the half-brother and half-sister-surrogate case:

"She will not have any reason to pursue any maternal relationship with Chapelle."

How on earth do they know that she won't want to? Why would they assume she doesn't want to?

My guess is that those men didn't want to (or were refused due to their attitude to birth parents) go through the process to become adopters. They could have been approved to be adopters barring any convictions (maybe they have convictions that would prevent them from being adopters but not from being parents through surrogacy?) and it is still possible at their ages to adopt quite a young child in the UK. Or there are a few countries where there is more of a need for adopters for babies, apart from the cost of course (cheaper to get your baby from your sister).

Sorry, RedToothbrush, you feel that lesbian mums want to be named on the birth certificate instead of the anonymous sperm donor because of "ownership" issues? You think lesbian mums think they own their kids and don't want anyone else to own them? That is an odd perspective - I don't own my daughter and neither does my wife. But I am legally responsible for her and so is she.

How can you name an anonymous sperm donor on a birth certificate? I don't know his name. My daughter will be able to find out when she is 18 and can find out other information about him before then. Do you want to end anonymous sperm donation? That seems to be the upshot of what you are saying.

Then you've misinterpreted what I've said.

I've treated to be clear in stating that legal parents should be named as part of the decision making involved in having that child and to reflect their legal and emotional commitment to bringing a child into the world BUT this should not be viewed as 'lesser' merely a statement of fact. And should be in addition to, not in replacement of.

If you choose to view it through the lens of me saying it's 'lesser' then I do feel that's coming from you and certainly not reflective of how I feel about lesbian parents.

However I do think it is a sore point about anonymous donors and I'm not convinced it's ultimately to the child's benefit for them to be anonymous. Especially when there's been abuses of the system and men fathering 50 kids through donation. There are health implications and there are potentially relationship implications. The only reason I'm not completely against it, is because the alternative is perhaps worse. (And there issues relating the recording of a father in traditional heterosexual relationships, cases of rape, cases of not knowing who the father is and deliberately concealing the identity of the father). I generally think that a child should have the right to know their heritage and have it reflected where ever possible because its their history.

At the very least a child should have the right to add an anonymous donor to their birth certificate if they want upon reaching 18. So there needs to be space to do this rather than just having room for two parents.

A child's dna IS part of who they are and their identity. There will be curiousity about whether they share traits or look like their biological parent. And I do worry about the erasure of this, even if there is no legal parental status whilst growing up. An anonymous donor WILL be their father.

No amount of identity politics or support/dislike of LGBT parents changes that.

It just is.

The political erosion of our realities is not a good thing because it doesn't stop them being the case.

If there is a way to reflect both biological and emotional/legal parents I think that should be preferable. I want LGBT parents to have legitimacy and equal status. But you can not ignore it where there is complications to someone's identity through the involvement of additional parties.

Do those of you unhappy about the potential removal of mother feel the same about father being removed?

I do not think the intention is to pretend that nobody gave birth to this child.

I think the intention is to say that both mothers and fathers can give birth.

I object to this because it's forcing gender ideology onto an official document and redefines the purpose of that document.

@merrymouse You make some good points.

I think you're arguing that non-birth mums should no longer be named on the child's birth certificate but should retain automatic parental responsibility when married to the birth mum. And you're right - that could be done. Whilst the change to birth certificates for lesbian mums and automatic parental responsibility for non-birth mums in marriages/civil partnerships with the birth mum were reforms that happened at the same time, and parental responsibility for a child usually comes initially from being named on the birth certificate until something changes that later - they are not necessarily tied together - I hadn't thought of that. You could take away the right of non-birth mums to be named on the birth certificate without taking away the parental responsibility. Would you also stop non-genetic, infertile dads from being named on the birth certificate, where there was a sperm donor? I suppose logically you would.

It's true that a birth certificate often does not reflect the social and legal parents of a child over the course of the child's life. My wife could die and another woman or man could parent my daughter and would not be named on the birth certificate. But nonetheless my daughter's birth certificate does reflect the facts of her birth and her social and legal parentage at her birth - she was conceived intentionally in a lesbian couple who both formally consented to the fertility treatment which resulted in her birth. She was born to that couple who at the moment of her birth intended to and did take responsibility for her and parent her. Those are the facts of her birth that the birth certificate records and which are worth recording.

I think you're arguing that non-birth mums should no longer be named on the child's birth certificate but should retain automatic parental responsibility when married to the birth mum.

No, I'm not. I am saying that as men have never had to prove that they are genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate, there is no reason for a women to prove that she is genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate. Nobody on the birth certificate, including the birth mother needs to prove a genetic relationship to the child and I don't think that is a problem, because a birth certificate is a record of birth not genetics.

If it were decided that all children needed a record of their genetic heritage on their birth certificate, that would be quite complicated and for many impossible, but either way, it's more information than a UK birth certificate currently provides.

But nonetheless my daughter's birth certificate does reflect the facts of her birth and her social and legal parentage at her birth - she was conceived intentionally in a lesbian couple who both formally consented to the fertility treatment which resulted in her birth. She was born to that couple who at the moment of her birth intended to and did take responsibility for her and parent her. Those are the facts of her birth that the birth certificate records and which are worth recording.

Birth certificates routinely record some, but not all of those things. Many parents on birth certificates do not intend to take legal responsibility for their children and some never intended to have children at all. Sometimes this is because the birth mother is acting as a surrogate, and sometime it's because they intend to give the child up for adoption. Sometimes it's because the parent is abusive or irresponsible.

The nature of same sex parents is that their decision to parent is likely to be more intentional than opposite sex parents, but that doesn't mean that a birth certificate actually records anything more than the circumstances of a birth and a child's first legal parents.

I'm not sure I understand the debate on this thread.

While the paternity of a child might be questionable and hence it is not necessary to name the father on a birth certificate, it is part of biological reality that a child always has a mother. Unless the child was abandoned in a cardboard box somewhere, it is impossible not to know who the mother is. Only females can gestate and give birth to a child and therefore the mother always has to be recorded on the birth certificate, irrespective of how they identify. It can have implications for genealogical records, citizenship, claims to nationality based on ancestry records etc.

Birth certificates are not for validation of parental feelings or even that of the child. They simply record factual information about the origins of each person that is born.

In a lesbian relationship, there is still a mother that gave birth to the child, irrespective of who else is named in the BC. So I don't see what the issue is here.

I'm assuming when a child is adopted, this doesn't alter the BC in any way? What happens in this case?
Similarly, when two gay men have a child via a surrogate, does it still include the mother's name on the BC?

Why is this person so ashamed to be named as the mother on the BC? They were perfectly happy to go through the entire biological process. They can continue to bring up their child as a single dad without any fuss. BCs are not something children concern themselves with anyway. In due course, if the child has any questions, then they can decide on an appropriate response.
Rather than manipulating and hiding the biological history of a person, surely the best way to teach your child about acceptance and understanding of trans people is to sensitively discuss that although you identify as a man and their father, you decided to use your own female body to bring them into this world.

I am a mum through egg donation and I agree that sometimes reading threads like this can be uncomfortable where they touch on who is a real mum and sometimes whether egg donation should be allowed at all. I still think these kinds of discussions about birth certificate and parentage are important though and I also think other people are allowed to discuss matters that might make me uncomfortable.

For what it’s worth (not much) I would prefer a system where my child’s egg donor parentage could also be recorded so that parents couldn’t try to keep something important like that secret from their child. But the reality is that people have been keeping genetic parentage (of the father) a secret forever and will continue to do so. Even so I agree with previous commentors that the person who gives birth should at a minimum be accurately recorded.

Similarly, when two gay men have a child via a surrogate, does it still include the mother's name on the BC?

I think this is the way it works, although happy to be corrected:

A long form birth certificate is a certified copy of an entry in the register of births. I don't think the register of births can be changed so a long form birth certificate will always contain the details of birth although it can note that a child was later adopted.

A short birth certificate will list adoptive parents or parents who have become legal parents following the grant of a parental order, e.g. in the case of surrogacy.

No, I'm not. I am saying that as men have never had to prove that they are genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate, there is no reason for a women to prove that she is genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate.

Oh I see. Sorry Merrymouse, I understand what you mean now!

I am a mum through egg donation and I agree that sometimes reading threads like this can be uncomfortable where they touch on who is a real mum and sometimes whether egg donation should be allowed at all. I still think these kinds of discussions about birth certificate and parentage are important though and I also think other people are allowed to discuss matters that might make me uncomfortable.

I agree with this. Of course people can discuss things that make us uncomfortable. It's hard to hear I think because we love our children more than anything and thinking about the fact of having voluntarily introduced a complication into their lives is hard - even when you can see the reality of happy, thriving children in front of you, and know happy well-adjusted donor-conceived adults.

I hope that parents of donor-conceived children are honest nowadays about their conception, regardless of what the birth certificates say. There isn't much scope not to be honest about sperm donation in a lesbian family. There's more scope for 'who is the real mum' questions from others though.

Thanks for clarifying that merrymouse .

I guess in this particular case, the long form BC records the transman as the mother, and the short form BC can record them as the legal parent. There's very few instances someone would need access to the long form BC and the trans parent can decide on an appropriate age to discuss with their child. Seems like a sensible compromise instead of the growing movement of denying biological reality that seems popular these days.

A short birth certificate will list adoptive parents or parents who have become legal parents following the grant of a parental order, e.g. in the case of surrogacy.
For our children (adopted) the short form doesn't have our names on - only their name.

Do those of you unhappy about the potential removal of mother feel the same about father being removed?

Ah, yeah. I don't think it should be allowed either, and for that matter it's morally incumbent on the mother to put the father's name there if she knows who he is.

I don't think anonymous sperm donation should be legal, it infringes on the rights of the child. Much the same way I think adopted children shouldn't have their birth parents hidden from them, which is increasing the law

Adoptive parents should be recorded as legal guardians, it doesn't mean there are no birth parents.

it's morally incumbent on the mother to put the father's name there if she knows who he is.
Only if this doesn't need his consent (many don't consent) or attendance (some would consent in theory but CBA to turn up) and if it doesn't lead to PR (some are clearly the biological father but, and let's start with this and go on downwards, not suitable fathers e.g. rapists, incest).

Adoptive parents should be recorded as legal guardians, it doesn't mean there are no birth parents.
Legal parents (like me and DH) are not the same as legal guardians (e.g. via SGO) but my DCs' long form adoption certificate reflects that a) there are birth parents and b) they are not DH and I.
When my DCs are 18 they can legally access their original birth certificates (in fact, we have through some odd route a copy of one of them, and we know who is named on the other, and in both cases we know who the biological father is though he's not named for either DC, and clearly we tell them, like donor conceived parents should tell their children before 18).

For our children (adopted) the short form doesn't have our names on - only their name.

Just checked DD's 'certificate of birth' (must get on with my actual to do list and leave this thread!) and you are right dr spouse. DD's birth certificate just lists name, sex, place and date of birth. No details of parents.

I am saying that as men have never had to prove that they are genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate, there is no reason for a women to prove that she is genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate.

No, but this can be challenged, if someone wants to take the time to show they are not in fact the named father, or they are the father and weren't named.

On the face of it, the non-birthing mother in a lesbian relationship cannot be related genetically to the child. I don't think that is really the same as a father being recorded erroneously, you are asking people to ignore what they know must be true and pretend that it isn't so. I think it's that kind of thing that has gotten us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

I think it's that kind of thing that has gotten us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

Which mess?

drspouse

Yes, there can be practical complications if the father doesn't agree that he is the father. I believe in most places it is possible to get around this though it ends up being expensive.

I understand why someone might not want to record a father who was dangerous or otherwise a significant problem. I wish that doing so would not cause the problems involved in them claiming paternity as I think it is still useful to have that information recorded, but in the end people work with the system they find themselves in and what is ideal and what is possible are often mismatched.

As far as who is a legal guardian vs an adoptive parent, I'm not really trying to be very specific - only to say that birth parents are significant, as are genetic parents in cases of egg donation. It's not all about who raises the child as if the physical body is just an extra bit of oneself.

Which mess?

Messes like, what I feel is my real gender, or, I want to be recorded as the father even though I carried this child in my womb.

What's seen as important and real is the social and legal acknowledgement or role, or the appearance, not what we know can and cannot be materially true.
A huge part of the reason people have easily accepted the arguments of trans advocacy is that they have already come to believe all kinds of roles, acknowledged in some way by society or the authorities, are the "real" truth, as if it just erases the material facts.

I don't think that is really the same as a father being recorded erroneously, you are asking people to ignore what they know must be true and pretend that it isn't so.

That depends what you think the purpose of a birth certificate is.

I think it is to record a birth and a child's first legal parents. As two women can be a child's legal parents, a birth certificate is an accurate documentation of what is know to be true.

The law recognises both a same sex spouse and the unrelated spouse of a surrogate as a parents by default, so I don't think it is currently very concerned with proving a genetic relationship. You might think it should be, but that isn't the current situation.

It's true that a birth can be re-registered if it is later proven that a particular person is or definitely isn't the genetic father. However, that doesn't therefore imply that all parents on birth certificates must be genetically related to their children. At the point of birth I think it's more important to establish a legal parent relationship than a genetic relationship. Certainly labour wards would be much more tense places if all births were immediately followed by a DNA test.

But there are different sorts of facts. There is biological parenthood which is material and real and has genetic and health and other consequences. And there is social and legal parenthood which is real as well - there are consequences for the child in who cares for you and how, and legal consequences if you don't meet your responsibilities.

Lesbian parents aren't claiming, in appearing as "second parent" on a birth certificate that the woman concerned has biologically fathered the child. Are they?

A huge part of the reason people have easily accepted the arguments of trans advocacy is that they have already come to believe all kinds of roles, acknowledged in some way by society or the authorities, are the "real" truth, as if it just erases the material facts.

This is interesting because it illustrates a tension in the GC movement. This strand seems to be "trans rights have come from gay rights gone too far" - the argument that people have been softened up by being told that a woman can have a wife or a child can have two mums, and now look what's happened. This appears to be socially conservative and frankly unlikely to be immediately attractive to lesbians.

Then you have an entirely different strand of arguments that seem or claim to be progressive/pro-lesbian.