“Person who gave birth” turns out to be mother.

[aliasundercover]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/25/transgender-man-loses-court-battle-to-be-registered-as-father-freddy-mcconnell

It’s just not fair he says.

It’s not hearsay and rumour. It’s clearly stated in the full 163 page Cas report.

Is it NotBadConsidering? I have not read the report and didn't want to state something as fact when I was not sure of it.

I've mostly tried to avoid delving too deeply as I'm very uncomfortable with the way Semenya has been treated by the South African sports authorities.

www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_-redacted-_Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf

Semenya needs to shoulder responsibility too, but that’s a whole other thread of which there are many.

I would say that sex on the birth certificate is a matter of record. It’s not a legal status to be a woman or a man. If it was then the law would technically be able to be changed to make it mean different things. The only legal status is in terms of a trans person having a GRC. There, them being a man or woman comes from law, not biology.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here Pota. A birth certificate is a matter of record, which records a biological fact as well as being a legal record of the birth and the sex of the child.

The sex on a birth certificate can be changed if someone has a GRC, so the GRC is a legal record which is related to the birth certificate.

It’s not a legal status to be a woman or a man.
them being a man or woman comes from law

This looks like two contradictory statements. Either being a man or a woman is or isn't a legal status. It can't be a legal status sometimes and not others.

Sex has a legal status. You can sue for sex discrimination on the basis of being female (your sex). This requires female (sex) to have a legal meaning.

Freddy losing in the courts is part of the plan because it then shows the need for wholescale law reform. Had he won, few would have cared. Then you will wish that they had made a small exception for a small number of people rather than abolishing record-keeping of biological sex and therefore discrimination and violence against one of the sexes.

It's probably me, but I don't quite understand this.

If Freddie had won, it wouldn't be a small number of people. It would have been every transactivist parent in the land. Surely.

The terms mother and father would be completely meaningless, in as much as being severed from biology. Which is what they want. So I don't understand why not getting that, is a win.

It's also abundantly clear that there isn't a person in the land who agrees with the neutralising of biological roles.

And whereas I can see a possibility of reform to the birth certificate to reflect the issues resulting from IUI, parental responsibility for non-biological parents etc, it's an addition, not a substitution.

Why does this court case mean they are going to abandon biological recordkeeping?

The terms mother and father would be completely meaningless, in as much as being severed from biology. Which is what they want.

Exactly. Every AGP male in the land would be getting their children's birth certificates changed to show that they are the mother of their children.

Law reform:

Bill introduced, debated, passed by House of Commons, passed by House of Lords (Ruth Hunt). Nothing apart from Brexit is getting debated in the House of Commons any time soon.

Then you will wish that they had made a small exception for a small number of people

The fundamental problem with this is that the 'people' who would be having their record changed are the children, and the 'people' being made a 'small exception' are the parents.

Society has to decide whose benefit a birth certificate is for. I was under the impression that it is for the benefit of the child, not the parent, so why should the parent's wish to be 'exceptional' even come in to it?

Yes, they change their Twitter bio within days to “mom/mum/mother”.

Scarlett, Freddie feels he is a man and has a GRC and becoming pregnant is the opposite of this. It wasn't an accident he planned it. He could have had a biological child through surrogacy or (as in the case of your wife) had a child which was not genetically his if he did not wish to go down the surrogacy route. This is the same choices gay men have which is what he claims to be. No one is saying he can only be trans or a parent, but as he feels he is a gay man this limits his choices.

I am concerned that now because mother can be female or someone who is legally recognized in law as male with a grc, the next challenge will come from transwomen claiming the title of mother. The judge only seemed to rule on the birth certificate in relation to the person who gave birth, which means that if it is the case that the rest of the parents can be called whatever they want it discriminates against mothers.

To Datun and OldCrone.

Research ongoing that has been funded: Sally Hines on pregnant men. Also a legal gender project that will propose legislation. They want to abolish reference to sex in law, a bit like in Tasmania where it is not mentioned on birth certificates. Instead, they think people should be free to choose their gender identity, possibly at 18, and it should be upheld by law. Their aim is to get legislative change. The whole thing is a shitshow but they got loads of money for it and there is a lot of support for it because they’re so woke and inclusive etc.

If Freddy loses in court then it creates the conditions necessary to suggest law reform. It’s what happened with the GRA- it came out of a court case. Therefore this is actually better for them than winning because they don’t just want an exception for trans men, they would prefer to abolish the term mother or redefine it as anyone identifying as mother.

If the courts had interpreted the law in such a way as to allow only those with a GRC to be registered as parent and not mother (not make a general rule) then Freddy would no longer have anything to complain about and nor would Sally and others have any ‘barbaric law’ to attack. Now they do.

It’s up to you whether you choose to believe me.

Arnold it’s a record of birth, it’s not for anyone’s ‘benefit’ as such. Birth certificates existed back in the days when you could sell your children. They were never intended to benefit anyone, just to record an event.

I get your point but would you rather a small exception or the kind of change these people really want which I have written about above? I have seen them present on this and they are pretty dogged and this case and the ‘injustice’ of it all creates perfect conditions. Team that with spineless MPs who won’t stand up for women’s rights and bingo.

So a compromise would be to have sex obsevered at birth and then at 18 be allowed to choose your gender, but sex would remain the same as at birth.

twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1176915492000403457?s=20

the legal undoing of binary understandings of reproduction

Sally Hines is an idiot, or at least talks like one. Reproduction in humans is sexual, it is factually binary. There may be some variation if detail due to IVF methods (donated ova and/or mitochondria) but that has precisely nothing to do with 'gender' - the ova still has to come from a woman, the gestation has to be done by a woman, the sperm has to come from a man. Binary.

There is then a completely separate issue - of accepting that ' all families of all genders and all bodies will be recognised.'. Is that in any way controversial at this point in history?

People clearly feel very strongly about making gender declarations, so maybe we can have both. I don' se why we can't retain the Births Registry document as strictly non-fictional record of historical record, and for those who need to have personal commitments and declarations officially acknowledged, there can also be a stat dec, type certificate. Freddy can self-declare and commit to a Father role, extended families and other non-nuclear family units can be acknowledged, and there we have diversity embraced and celebrated, and the child retains his/her right to a factual record of birth.

While we're at it, passports and driving licenses can record sex, and if someone wants to list a gender identity, they can have that option too; just not 'instead of.,'.

We should extend it to:

sex
self ids as... (so very open - can be anything). It means nothing anyway.

pota I can kind of see what yr concerned about but I think the ruling just lays clear the absurdity of the current situation. That a trans man can have the legal status of being male and also be a Mother....can you elaborate on why this is a negative? My bran quite can’t compute how this is bad for women.

Freddy can self-declare and commit to a Father role

Other than breastfeeding, which can only be done by the mother (if she is able to), what is the difference between a 'mother role' and a 'father role'?

Well it’s evident Freddie can’t commit to any particular role, given Freddie committed to “living as a man” then immediately did the most woman thing possible.

Still can’t get my head around why the GRC panel aren’t asking questions. Given the fact they probably can’t and can't challenge someone, a GRC isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. This is also why the new law in Victoria in Australia isn’t worth anything, you just have to get a friend to say you intend to “live as man/woman”.

happy because it will get superseded by legislation. The perceived injustice of the case will create the necessary conditions for new law to be proposed, some of it already having been thought up by the academics getting million pound grants. You don’t get that money for nothing. They have promised significant impact in the form of a change in the law.

Just whatever a Father role is in Fred's belief system. That's Freddy's faith, Freddy can have it. Just n it impose it on the rest of us.
I'm with you, as far as I'm concerned gender is woo. But if people can have their other beliefs e.g. Religion recorded on official documents, maybe I think just let them have it. It keeps gender and sex separate, they have their gender confirmation, and other family types have their own acknowledgment as well. And we still record sex.

The perceived injustice of the case

The only injustice here is that Freddy isn't being prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining a GRC, by stating that Freddy was going to 'live as a man' for the rest of Freddy's life, just days before taking steps to become pregnant - an act that had been planned well before the GRC was granted.

Pota But isn't it more likely that due to the unintended consequences of creating legal fiction, such as GRC's, the GRA will need to be repealed?

Laws do need to be founded on truth and fact after all?

I feel I'm missing some own goal though-what are you thinking the new law might possibly be?

But if people can have their other beliefs e.g. Religion recorded on official documents, maybe I think just let them have it. It keeps gender and sex separate, they have their gender confirmation, and other family types have their own acknowledgment as well. And we still record sex.

Yes, separate recording of sex and gender would be one solution. But as Pota has pointed out, people like Hines want to get rid of the category of sex. But I don't understand the argument that this ruling helps their cause, and I don't understand why they want to get rid of the category of sex.