“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.

Apologies if this was mentioned already:

The ruling means that transgender people will not be recognised as their trans identities in all areas of their lives; in some circumstances, like this, they will now be forced to "out" their birth gender.

I would have thought the fact that he gave birth was somehow outing?

Freddie needs to stop contemplating their own belly button and focus on bringing up that child.

They will be taking drugs. The have had surgery? This is a daily reminder that their body is female. Getting pregnant and having a baby is evidence enough surely.

So be a trans man. Why pretend to be anything else? But it does not change stone cold facts.

There are too many variables for biological fact to be recorded on one form. What about lesbian couples who egg share with IVF so the embryo from partner 1's egg is transferred to partner 2 who grows the baby and gives birth? Who should be recorded as the mother then?

Re the claim that Freddie has broken the terms of his GRC by giving birth - what a shame a person should feel forced to decide whether to live life as their authentic self or have a biological child. As long as the child is loved and well cared for who cares?!

Re the claim that Freddie has broken the terms of his GRC by giving birth - what a shame a person should feel forced to decide whether to live life as their authentic self

The point is that McConnell is a woman with gender identity issues.

I am not suggesting she shouldn't give birth, or live dressed up in traditionally male clothing, take hormones and use a male name.

I am suggesting that giving birth and saying you absolutely believe you are a man is ridiculous. Your body is precisely what defines your sex.

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

I am fussed. That was my point. I don’t think donated sperm should be hidden on a birth certificate. Even if the donor is anonymous, it could be recorded as such and not put a lie on.

This absolute bollocks has gone far enough.

Its imperative that Freddie is listed as the Mother, as that is the truth-imagine they were listed as Father and years down the line realised they'd made a huge mistake and actually wanted to live as a woman again....Biological truths matter

The judgment actually says that mother doesn’t have to mean woman. I don’t think it’s the triumph that is being claimed.

Some one asked for the actual judgment and I don't think it's been listed yet so here it is:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-23.9.19.pdf

I am very relieved that the courts now have a legal definition of the term ‘mother’. Well done to all those who worked hard in this ruling, to protect this.

Yes Pota the mother doesn't have to be recognised in law as a woman but they do have to be a woman biologically. The judge's conclusion says:

"The principal conclusion at the centre of this extensive judgment can be shortly stated. It is that there is a material difference between a person’s gender and their status as a parent. Being a ‘mother’, whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person’s gender is ‘male’, their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of ‘mother’."

@123bananas

Unmarried fathers legally have parental responsibility if they are named on the certificate, it wasn't the case until sometime in the last decade or so.

I think the Birth certificate is generally used to ascertain parental responsibility. This is fallable too... The unmarried father on my dd1's birth certificate is NC with her and was abusive to me so generally I would want to wipe away his assumed 'parental responsibility' that he has gained by default. So to me, the birth certificate doesn't mean much, really.

With scientific advancements, surely any genetic history that a person might need to know will be easy to ascertain in the not toi distant future?

I guess it depends how much value you hold in a birth certificate and the words on it.

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).

Yes!

Sorry I know the discussion has moved on but

a rainbow family is when a child has LGBT parents

So, a family then?

Why the requirement to tag rainbow on to it ?

If Freddie was living as their 'authentic self' @Scarlett555, they wouldn't have pursued. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, men - authentic or otherwise -can't become pregnant if someone squirts sperm up their vagina.

Well give it a few years and children, as they tend to do, grow up to believe that their parents know nothing and are actually very stupid. And tell them so.

Let’s hope Freddie has a thick skin because they’re are some home truths coming their way that definitely trump ‘I always wanted a
Spider-Man cake for my birthdays but you always got chocolate and I hate chocolate’.

There is another consideration - nothing to do with the status of gay or trans or donor parents - which makes this an extremely important verdict, I think.

Currently only married fathers can register a birth on their own because married men are automatically assumed to be the biological father of any child their wife bears.

Unmarried fathers can only register a birth if accompanied by the mother of their child. Women can also register a birth with "father unknown". Many womens groups fought for the right for women to continue to do this, mainly to protect women who may have good reason - eg abuse or rape.

If Freddy is allowed to register his child's birth as an unmarried father them surely that right has to be extended to all unmarried fathers. Which would be a terrible thing for women.

TheMost Freddie is asking to be named a parent, not father. And the unmarried example doesn’t work here because in other cases, there will be another parent (the mother). So I cannot see how letting Freddie have the status of parent will have anything to do with unmarried fathers.

Most on this thread seem to lack the understanding of what a huge privilege it is to get pregnant by the person you are in love with.

It is often impossible for LGBT people to do this and I therefore have a lot of empathy for Freddie.

ArabellaDoreenFig The rainbow flag symbolizes LGBT hence those with kids are known as rainbow families 🏳️‍🌈

There are too many variables for biological fact to be recorded on one form. What about lesbian couples who egg share with IVF so the embryo from partner 1's egg is transferred to partner 2 who grows the baby and gives birth? Who should be recorded as the mother then?

I've given some thought to that upthread. Electronic tax forms can be as short or long as necessary to cover a multitude of options which may or may not apply - there's no technical reason that the same type of thing couldn't be devised for birth certificates.

Scarlett555 There are too many variables for biological fact to be recorded on one form. What about lesbian couples who egg share with IVF so the embryo from partner 1's egg is transferred to partner 2 who grows the baby and gives birth? Who should be recorded as the mother then?

At the moment the law says it's the person who gives birth who is the mother. As the judgment makes clear, in law mother=person who gives birth. Of course, the law also recognises that other women can become parents, have equal parental status and be a parent on the birth certificate. Socially and (most importantly) for the child, the 'other' female parent is just as much a mother as the mother who gave birth.

Scarlett555 this is the definition of mother in your scenario www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/27

"Freddie is asking to be named a parent, not father. And the unmarried example doesn’t work here because in other cases, there will be another parent (the mother). So I cannot see how letting Freddie have the status of parent will have anything to do with unmarried fathers."

No, McDonnell applied to registered as the child's father - the court summary is here www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-Summary.pdf

In any case applying to be "parent" makes no difference to my point, which was about the removal of the requirement for a child'd mother to be recorded (either in person or by virture of being married to the child's father).

No @Pota2 - Freddie wanted to have the mother section replaced by father or - at a push - parent.

The term mother on a birth certificate refers to the person who gives birth to you. It means something. The other parent (if named) is often a legal fiction but that is a whole other debate.

Every child deserves to have a mother named as such on their certificate. Only women can give birth, only women can be mothers

It was biology that was behind Freddy's strong desire to become a parent. It was Freddy's biology that allowed Freddy to become a parent. I can't understand why there is such a denial about the biology that brought this child about.

I'm glad about the ruling. Once we have men giving birth it further erodes what it is to be female. Having Freddy as father on the BC would only be another step on the slippery slope.