“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.

Meanwhile, nobody seems concerned about the potential harm to the foetus, caused by the Mother having elevated levels of T before IVF....is this safe for the baby?

This is definitely an enormous concern but as the child is born I think the focus has to be on their well-being.

But to your point, I wonder the same - I hope that there won't be enough instances of this that we will end up with any decent data set. I'm not in a medical discipline professionally (endocrinologist/physician/researcher/et al) so I refrain from any conjecture on impact.

Once again lesbians being thrown under a bus by feminists because they have an issue with trans folk!

No!

My statement stands regardless of trans parents.

Biological parents only should be on the certificate. This is the child's record, not a certificate to massage someone's ego or to make them feel better about something (ie. not really being a biological relations. In the case of anonymous donation, then it would have to be classed as 'unknown".

An addendum could surely be created/ added to record the second parent.

I probably sound unfeeling, but feelings have no place on birth certificate registrations.

To be fair, the birth certificate of lesbian parents does not contain a father and names them as mother and second parent.

Well then. That’s very clear (like the addendum idea I mentioned). It’s very clear and records are factual.

Not to mention the large number of birth certificates that do not list a father at all.

Which is better than a lie.

But what about sperm donation? They are the biological father but someone else can be listed in their place as the father. There is no need to even list a father yet this is a biological impossibility.

Birnam Wood didn't really move to Dunsinane either.

And re lesbian parents, this is not an addendum. It lists the person as second parent and there is no mention of a father.

Birth certificates are not biological records at all!

LemonGingerCakes assume you think adoption certificates shouldn't replace birth certificates then? Or oppose adoption certificates altogether as they go against biological fact?

If lesbian couples have the option to list one as a parent I have no idea why trans parents are not allowed to do this

I did not know this and it does kind of make a mockery of the whole notion of keeping records. What if that couple split - this leaves the child with a certificate containing mother/current lover details? Sorry if I'm being dense, I just thought the whole point of keeping records of births/deaths/marriages was to keep track of factual information

Wonder what this child will call its parent when it's older?

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC.

The judge should just have said that. End of story.

feebeecat they are a record of the birth not of all the facts of conception. There are so many exceptions that I have listed. If they were to be a valid biological record there would need to be a DNA test post birth and sperm donors would be listed as the father. Also there would need to be a duty on mothers to name the father as immaculate conception is not a possibility.

Also if a lesbian mother and second parent split, the second parent is still the parent. That doesn’t stop. It’s no different from if a het couple splits.

In a still from the documentary, a scan displayed the usual F35 (or whatever her age was) at the top. Glad the sonographer wasn't strong-armed into writing anything else.

Parents deliberately falsifying a child’s identification documents is very disturbing stuff. Whatever the reason.

I’m glad this was squashed. As said above, this document belongs to the child alone. The parents’ identity or how they feel is entirely irrelevant and their intense desire to impose this has nothing to do with the interests of the child and everything to do with getting legal weight behind an aggressive political and ideological movement.

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC.

The judge should just have said that. End of story.

Datun, I wish I could communicate so efficiently! To the point, no fluff and perfectly easy to understand.

What if that couple split - this leaves the child with a certificate containing mother/current lover details?

Exactly the same as if a straight couple split. The 'current lover' is the child's legal parent.

Surprised at the insinuation that a lesbian partner would be any less committed than a biological father. Current lover indeed!

Scarlett indeed.

And interesting that nobody seems very fussed about the largest group where records are biologically inaccurate: where a heterosexual couple uses donated sperm.

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC

And would it not follow then, that this person has no more legal right to be recognised as a man than, any random woman?

I'm so pleased with this verdict - thankfully common sense prevailed and these days that's no small thing given how much gaslighting and phobia shouts mean that the truth is not allowed to be spoken.

There is also the question of parental responsibility, under the law prior to registration of a child's birth the biological mother has parental responsibility which is why babies are called baby (mothers surname). A father married to the mother also has parental responsibility prior to registration of the birth (responsibility assumed as child assumed to be of the marriage). Unmarried fathers do not. This has an effect on medical care for the baby if it is an emergency and the biological mother is too unwell as the unmarried father cannot give consent for treatment. If the biological mother is named as the unmarried father then they would lose that automatic parental responsibility until the birth was registered. The biological father could not take their place as they have not given birth and the baby is not registered under their name, they are also not a patient in the hospital as they have not given birth. It is legally complex.

A birth mother automatically has PR and her name goes in the mother box, regardless of who the other parent is (or isn't). That doesn't change whether you're in a lesbian relationship or anything else. That bit records the truth.

There will no doubt be an appeal or maybe even draft legislation saying that he can be named as the father. Be careful what you wish for.

I would have thought the largest group of people where the birth certificate is biologically inaccurate is where the married mother has had an affair.

But birth certificates have always, I think, contained the legal facts. And regardless of the biological facts the husband of the mother is the legal father.

Hence the presence or absence of the unmarried father on a birth certificate being crucial to parental responsibility.

If a lesbian partner is, from birth of the child, that child’s legal parent it makes sense to have her recorded as such.

I presume what this judgement says is that a person who gives birth is, at that moment, the legal mother of the child.

Does anyone have a link to the actual judgement?

But what about sperm donation? They are the biological father but someone else can be listed in their place as the father. There is no need to even list a father yet this is a biological impossibility.

I think sperm donation should be labelled as such:

Saying ‘Father: anonymous donor’, doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t be recorded somehow to show who the person is who will bring up the child.

A blank in the certificate is not a lie - it just shows the information is not available.

In two minds here.

The birth certificate traditionally registers the mother and father - though historically we know pre conceptual aid the only person who knew was the real father was the mother and even then she might have had to guess.

With the advent of conceptual aid I think in most countries a sperm donor is anonymous AFAIK. Not sure about egg donation.

So clearly the birth certificate while normally helpful for a child tracing their parents for personal or medical reasons can be actually either unhelpful or actively misleading.

gestational parent/sperm donor seems to cover it. But to call yourself father when you've given birth is bizarre.

Those birth certificates are going to be sooo long if they cover the 100 genders.