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 wouldn't have a problem if a transman could ask for an alternative to "mother" on the birth certificate - "parent who gave birth" for example.

I am not sure I have followed all the arguements on this thread and some of the issues I am not informed enough about.

However, the initial response to the article and court case is about the simple biological fact that a female person who actually gave birth to a child is the biological mother.

To try and argue that you can be registered as the "father" is as non-sensical as saying we are "assigned" our gender (euphamism for sex) at birth.

Birth certificates have all sorts of signifigance but particularly for the child itself. And any bending of the truth is not in their interests.

Also, though a bit off topic, many children who are fostered out and / or adopted out of their birth family often only find their true story through their birth certificate. And in some cases are also important in terms of inherited health issues.

This is a futher example of the unintended consequences of the fairy story of the GRA.

I think birth certificates should not be allowed to have the "sex" of the child changed, and have the birth mother recorded.

And it is these facts that should be used when recording crimes, health statistics, housing, income levels, etc.. (Not forgetting the "man" who turned up at A&E with stomach pains which nobody could explain until the "man" give birth. Hospitals shouldn't be put in this sort of make believe.)

If it means we now need to have additional paper work for "identity" issues, so that those who want to imposed their internal vision on others let that happen.

Not RTFT yet so apologies if I have missed something but I don’t recognise posters on FWR as saying ‘gay rights have gone too far’ at all. There are regular posts concerned that a men’s sexual rights agenda is actively erasing and undermining lesbian and gay rights in various ways though. Many posters on here are worried that lesbian and gay rights are being rolled back.

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?

I wouldn't think that would be usual.

I think my issue is that there are all kinds of reasons to have a record of the biological parents, even in infant adoption, or other situations. You could I suppose have it recorded elsewhere, but that ads a complication for anyone trying to follow the paper trail back, especially if it's a less recent paper trail.

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.

I think there is this tension though I'd not place it in the same place. It is certainly the conservative argument about marriage equality that the basis of the social institution is built around managing reproduction. So you could carry on in the way you suggest from there.

On the other hand, most coherent arguments for it make the claim that reproduction is not the basis of the institution, rather than saying that two men or women can actually reproduce together, obviously pretty much everyone knows that isn't true. I think from this POV you could still look back at the gay rights movement and ask if all of the ideas it proposed to support it's position were actually good ones, or if some were convenient or pithy rather than true, and perhaps might have set unfortunate and unexpected precedents.

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

A short form only lists that a baby was born and its birth has been registered. It used to be the case they were issued free but you had to pay for the long form. I'm pretty sure that in the dim and distant past I got my first passport with a short form.

Because of immigration/fraud/fake ID, long forms will be asked for for many purposes.

When I registered my daughter’s birth last year, I wanted to buy a long form and a short form of her birth certificate. I was really disappointed to be told by the Registrar that they didn’t offer the short form anymore. I’ve only ever had the short form of my birth certificate. DD’s father isn’t on her BC and I wanted DD to have the choice of which version to use (when possible), for privacy reasons.

there are all kinds of reasons to have a record of the biological parents, even in infant adoption, or other situations. You could I suppose have it recorded elsewhere, but that ads a complication for anyone trying to follow the paper trail back, especially if it's a less recent paper trail.

But an older child or adult who has to produce their birth certificate does NOT want it to immediately be different from everyone else's in stating that they have been adopted. Adoptees report this as being very othering.

It's absolutely fine to have the birth parents recorded elsewhere (different birth certificate, in the case of adopted people).

www.gov.uk/register-birth/birth-certificates

According to this it should still be possible to get a short birth certificate that only gives the child's details.

I really don't get how you can so strongly feel that you are 'male on the inside' and then do such a 'female' thing like getting pregnant? And then decide that you want to be registered as 'father' on the birth certificate?!

That really sums it up for me. It’s very “having your cake and eating it too”. Entitlement springs to mind for sure

Excellent sleuthing with regard to the intentions of the GRA from Vulvamort on Twitter:

twitter.com/hairyleggdharpy/status/1151783026176778241?s=21

It seems that both the Hansard debates and the GRA itself tried to ensure that birth certificates could not be changed.

Can you imagine the emotional consequences if a transexual parent later tried to have their child's birth certificate amended.

I remain convinced that this case is designed to set precedents in other areas including surrogacy. Surely good law is law that is simple. Mothers give birth.

The next thing for transwidows and there children to deal with...

Lang that is (rightly) true in relation to already-born kids’ birth certificates if the parent/s get a GRA after they have become a parent. Those kids/adults BCs can’t be changed under GRA if their parent gets a GRA certificate.

But as PP have said, sounds like the GRA was invented after high powered lobbying, which was seemingly unquestioningly accepted by the government. It seems inevitable if that is the case that it will be poorly or naively worded as an Act and as we can now see some of the obvious applicable scenarios are not covered by it at all. Like in this court case, of a female-born GRC-holder (now legally male) giving birth and wanting to be registered as the baby’s father instead of mother.

Feels like gaps in GRA keep on being spotted- like the GRA having no possibility of revocation (for anyone who doesn’t behave as it is laid out that a GRA-holder must). Plus that there is no review point on built in on the GRA being kept in UK law as a permanent thing (despite saying GRA was needed to be put in place to rectify inequality on pensions and marriage rights - which have since, rightly, been sorted out).

And as we know from this case, the GRA also didn't say anything about the rights of kids whose parents get a GRA before they have those kids. Perhaps because that scenario would have made the GRA itself look a bit questionable, if getting the certification requires people to have to ‘live as’ their acquired legal sex?

The whole thing honestly looks a lot like it was designed by and for the benefit of older mid-life transitioning blokes, with no further thought about women or children.

The whole thing honestly looks a lot like it was designed by and for the benefit of older mid-life transitioning blokes, with no further thought about women or children.

Doesn't it just.

It becomes more painfully obvious by the day.

It seems to me that the birth certificate's purpose is to give a child a legal identity. It's not a genetic history. Adopted children get a new birth certificate where their adoptive parents are shown as the parents. There is no mention of the biological parents. So, if biology is so important, why is it okay when it's adoption but not when a transman gives birth ?

I think it's not the biological thing that really disturbs people, just the fact that their traditional views on gender and sex are being challenged.

It would be simpler to just list the parent who gave birth and the second parent, without mention of gender.

As for people who say the grc should be revoked, what do you mean exactly ? Trans people are not allowed to want kids ? It's not like there is a whole lot of options to have kids they can choose from. Adoption is not always possible, and it's also not the same as having a child of your own blood. It's not less, but it's different. So what exactly should trans people do ? Give up on having kids because how dare they use their reproductive system ?

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

Adopted children get an adoption certificate which is not the same as a birth certificate. All children have mothers. Recording this child's mother as its father is a lie because only women give birth.

And as far as fathers not being recorded, they are if a) they are married to the mother or b) they attend the registry office to register the birth. Many women would love to have their child's father recorded but unfortunately a lot of men don't want to be financially responsible for their children.

And should transpeople have children? Well many men come out after they have fathered children so perhaps ask their children how they feel that daddy is now Barbara. If they're younger then their sperm may not be of sufficient quality to fertilise an egg.

As for women who transition, then no, I don't think they should. Only women can give birth. If you are trans and would prefer to be a man, don't give birth.

Fred told the board that he was planning on living as a man for the rest of his life to get his GRC. He lied. He had no intention of doing that because he was already talking to a fertility clinic.

The current system doesn't work and is being abused by people who are pushing a queer agenda which has nothing to do with dysphoria. So yes, I think it should be repealed. Women were lied to when the legislation was out in place and it is causing us enormous harm.

Mother's are listed on the birth certificate for the protection of the child.

Fathers are only allowed to register a birth alone if they are married to the mother.

If transmen are allowed to register as a father then you allow all father's to register on their own. After all, how is a registrar to know that the man registering the birth is a transman or a male?

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

I don't think it's less important, this is why I would say the father also should be the genetic father, unless it isn't possible to know who that is.

Adoption can happen years after a child is born, they would already have a birth certificate with the biological parents at that point so the documentation must be able to account for the change already. I would tend to treat it the same way whether adoption happened at birth or later. (I don't know about the UK, but adoption right at birth is almost non-eistent here anyway.)

It seems to me that the birth certificate's purpose is to give a child a legal identity. It's not a genetic history. Adopted children get a new birth certificate where their adoptive parents are shown as the parents. There is no mention of the biological parents. So, if biology is so important, why is it okay when it's adoption but not when a transman gives birth ?

You are wrong, this doesn’t happen in the Uk.

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

In terms of recording the birth of a child, for reasons I would have thought fairly obvious, yes it is.

A woman may not know who her child's father is. Or she may know but he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact. and refuses to sign the birth cert. However, there is no denying who a child's mother is, because the child is born from her body. Or perhaps I should say, there used to be no denying who a child's mother is.

So what exactly should trans people do ? Give up on having kids because how dare they use their reproductive system ?

Where has anyone said that anyone else shouldn’t have kids?

It would be easier to understand if we colloquially called it a certificate of birth rather than a birth certificate. It is there to accurately record the details, as far as they are known, of a child's birth. Not to pander to someone's particular demands.

One of the things people particularly worry about on here is that the choice to have their own kids naturally may be removed from kids and young people who identify as being trans, by them taking puberty blockers, then cross sex hormones or having surgery or by the various side effects of these interventions. Which some of those young people may then come to bitterly regret having been done to them, in future.

Many people think that permanently removing an individual’s capacity to have children naturally is a choice that that individual can only make for themselves, once they have become a mature adult themselves.