“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.

The birth certificate affects who has parental responsibility. That is part of the facts it captures. It is obvious that in a lesbian relationship where both will have parental responsibility then both should be on the birth certificate.

Sperm donors do not have PR so shouldn't be on the birth certificate.

But as regards this verdict - great news. Any other verdict would have redefined 'mother' and I don't consent to my status being redefined.

Same here Scarlett

"Current lover" FFS, did we just return to the 80s where all gay people were supposedly promiscuous and women had doomed angst-ridden partner after doomed angst-ridden partner before eventually dying lonely and surrounded by cats? Because that was the justification for taking lesbians' children away from them so that they didn't keep children in their inevitably-dysfunctional "pretended" families.

I can see why this has upset trans people. It makes clear that the "for all purposes" in the GRA is not true at all for anything sex-related. It may be the right result but I can understand why someone in that position might feel lied to, because this "for all purposes" turns out to be "for some purposes" only.

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

Once again?

Can anybody think of a time when this has happened?

I guess my point is that the birth mother is always given pr because they gave birth and you can't erase that from the record because of the legal implications of not recording the biological mother who gave birth. In a lesbian relationship if they are married then both have pr from birth if not then it would be the same as unmarried fathers on registration. I agree with the verdict.

Not everyone who posts on this board is a feminist

I can see why this has upset trans people. It makes clear that the "for all purposes" in the GRA is not true at all for anything sex-related

That's because - no matter how much someone would like it to be different - men cannot become pregnant and give birth to a child. If you do something that can only be done by women you can expect reality to shift around you to spare your sensitivities.

oops
'Can' should of course read 'cannot'.

aliasundercover moaning about Pride and the NHS rainbow lanyards are two recent examples I've seen on here

It would be perfectly feasible to devise an electronic form with various fields which would only be visible as required, and labelled as apt.

The simplest would have mother (father unknown). Birth parent, and one person with parental responsibility.

The commonest would have mother and father - birth parents autocopied to the fields for adults with parental responsibility.

Lesbian couple - mother. Father (if known ie the sperm donor). But the other woman fills the second parental responsibility slot.

And so on, to account for egg donor, gestational mother, heck even mitochondrial donor .... all the relevant information that the child might need.

The biological parentage should be unambiguous fact, as far as it's known, but the 'parental responsibility' part could allow a transman mother to be shown there just as one of the parents.

That sort of thing, but always with the need of the owner of that document ie the child first and foremost.

Scarlett - that isn't anti lesbian, it's anti the trans agenda taking over pride and the rainbow.

I don't know any lesbians who still feel represented by either

Scarlett555
Hang on, you are claiming that feminists 'moaning about pride' is anti-lesbian?
Many - if not most - of the feminists criticising Pride are lesbians.

Either way, Pride ≠ lesbianism. You can criticise pride while supporting lesbians.

Plenty of lesbians complaining about Pride. Maybe they were anti lesbian 🤯

I know that alias - like I said, it may be the right result, but those who were made that promise in 2004 are now finding it collapse around them. Sex is changed 'for all purposes,' except for the sex exemptions of the Equality Act, except for parental status, and I have some sympathy with the perception that this is going back on what was initially legislated for.

The fact that it shouldn't have been legislated in the first place is going to be cold comfort. I think it's possible to agree with the judgment while also having a level of empathy for those whom it finds against.

I can see why this has upset trans people. It makes clear that the "for all purposes" in the GRA is not true at all for anything sex-related. It may be the right result but I can understand why someone in that position might feel lied to, because this "for all purposes" turns out to be "for some purposes" only.

Hang on... the person who has demonstrated the lie in the GRA is Freddie. Having a GRA made no difference to Freddie doing something that only someone of the female sex can. Freddie would probably have been very upset if the letter of the GRA had been upheld and Freddie hadn't been able to access the help available to women to get pregnant.

I've read the article twice, now, and still do not understand something. They talk about being fair to the child, but do they mean that 'fair' is to accurately record the child's biological parentage, or to accurately reflect the social constructs of the child's parentage?

What is fair?

I’d like to see birth certificates record biological parents and legal parents as separate line items. I’m fine with the legal parents being listed as parent 1 and parent 2. Biological parents obviously must reflect the sex of the parents.

Child's right to a factual legal record and a legally identified mother trumps the personal preference for language choice of the adult. Which may well fluctuate and change anyway in the next couple of decades.

The BBC report said that he was living as a man "after surgery". Fair enough, but the surgery was breast removal. His genitals and reproductive organs are still female. Hence the pregnancy!

Having watched the mermaid documentary I was seriously concerned by Freddy. He struck me as a very confused person , whose identity was muddled, he wants to be a man, but also wants to give birth to a child, calls himself gay but has a relationship with another transgender man with female genitals. The fact that he applied to a sperm bank only days after promising to live as a man seems to me that he has his own agenda, having a child is proving something to himself, I'm not sure what, but it seems to be a means to an end.

Personally IDGAF what sexual orientation mix of people are looking to parent a child or children (bi, homo, hetero, etc) and I agree that if a couple is married (or similarly legally bound to each other) regardless of their sexual orientation (or gender identity in the case of a partner/spouse that does not birth the child) they should be listed as a legal parent of the child.

That does not distort facts in any way shape or form.... but both gamete contributors should be listed (when possible). And if the birth mother won't be a parent responsible (i.e. surrogacy and/or adoption) they should be listed as well as the fetus develops of her blood and tissue. A solution like what Errol suggested is on point and would give the child (the only party whose existence is being documented) all available information about their biological as well as parental makeup.

We all have a human right to know where we came from and just because some people lie or distort the truth does not make it okay to willfully distort facts in legal documents (some mothers lie about who fathered a child but that doesn't make it okay to document their or any child's existence via legal fiction).

Again, what matters most here? Feelings of parents or children's legal recorded existence? Children are not chattel they are people.

As an aside...

In the US (unless you take part in a study or aren't paying for IVF) you access different databases of egg donors (local or national) and gain access to their names, professions, education level, ethnic background, and their genetic testing. I don't know if the same applies to sperm donors.

The fact that he applied to a sperm bank only days after promising to live as a man

These points people are raising are really interesting. McConnell has made a complete mockery of "living as a man" whatever that means, because pretty much the only thing no man can do is give birth. McConnell had no intention of living as a man at all.

jelyslice

Being fair is to accurately record the circumstances of the child's birth.

Fathered from donated sperm (so I imagine this was recorded as-)

Child was conceived, gestated and delivered from a womb. Therefore mother.

Since most people use a shortened form of their birth certificate, which only records date and place of birth this document is not going to cause public embarrassment to the child, and explanations can be made later.

You know you lurk on the feminist board too much when you read a buzzfeed article which says that this case is likely to unite 'TRAs, anti trans activists, and feminists of all persuasions' and you thought it definitely will not

I'm conflicted, really. When I read about it earlier, my first thoughts reflected most of the PPs - that the judgement was a good, and correct one. But then I thought about one of my best friends, a trans man, who was in a relationship with one of my other friends who had a 2 year old son (who has no involvement from his biological dad). They broke up after a couple of years, but for all intents and purposes, he has been the boy's dad ever since. He's 11 now - and my friend pays maintenance, has him near on 50/50 etc.

I don't think it's right that the person in question is listed as the father. But I don't have an issue with him being listed as 'parent'. I understand he said he would be happy with this outcome. This outcome would seem pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things (e.g. males in refuges and women's prisons; giving dangerous drugs to 10yos etc).

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

If your wife did not provide the sperm to create your child she is not the father, and if she did not provide the egg and did not gestate the child for nine months she is not the mother. The state has no role in recording your feelings on an official document. If there needs to be a third space for "other parent" so be it but it's not the mother or father box.

I am gay for what it's worth but I suppose in these discussions I identify as Douglas Murray because I'm far more on the side of truth and reality than validating my feelings.

You can be a lesbian and a feminist you know. And since lesbians are getting the message - men can be lesbians too and if you don’t accept this you are a nazi - well I guess that makes them a feminist...

@viques - if you read the court judgement, you will see that Freddie had already started the process of fertility treatment before even applying for the GRC. As soon as the GRC was issued, Freddie had IUI and conceived the baby which is the subject of this ruling.