“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.

Perhaps an alternative would be for there to be two documents. One would include all the biological factual information about parentage available, and could constitute the start of the child's medical record. As such, it would be subject to the normal rules of medical confidentiality. It would belong solely to the child, there would be no reason for alteration after birth except if it was proved that the father had been misidentified. The second document would be the 'social' data. This would be the public document used for passport applications etc. It would work for adoption, gay parents etc. Under this arrangement, Freddie could be the mother on the former and one of the parents on the latter.

Would there be any significant downside to this?

so...can a GRC be revoked?
Aren't they supposed to declare their intention of living in the assumed gender permanently?
And hasn't this person just gone and done the complete opposite?
strikes me that Freddie (along with many trans people and I'm thinking especially of TW sports players) hasn't faced up to what 'changing gender' really means. Fine if you want to be a TM. But then you won't be able to have uniquely female experiences like pregnancy. Fine if you want to be a TW. But you can't then compete in womens sport. Just decide which is most important to you because you can't have both.

ErrolTheDragon I quite like your idea but I don't think a child should be able to access details of an anonymous sperm donor until they are 18 - which is the law now.

If a document contained sperm donor details it would be too much information for a child imo.

Intereting Errol, though your biological identity is also important to your descendants and that would be lost if you had it is a personal medical record rather than a matter of public record. E.g. the children of a person who was adopted might want to trace their biological grandparents even if the adoptee didn't.

Scarlett555

You missed my point. Why does a family who has gay or lesbian parents need to be defined as anything other than ‘a family’ ?

It feels identity politics is dragging us all backwards as a society.

Let's get rid of the legal fiction that is a GRC. It causes too much confusion and is irrelevant

If a document contained sperm donor details it would be too much information for a child imo.

But not for the adult they will become.

You can’t run away from facts because of #feelings

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.

I understand it completely but that doesn't change my perspective on facts. We can't break down truth and only use the pieces that suit us - the whole truth is necessary in this situation.

Again, it isn't about the parents or potential parents feelings FFS; it's about the child's biological and parental history. No one has a right to keep those facts from a child. Keeping those facts from a child is in fact a human rights violation.

My cousin recently found out (post her dad's death) that she was conceived using a sperm donor and IVF (I didn't know she didn't know... my mother told me about 20yrs ago). Leaving her to assume until recently that her male parent was her biological father... he was her father/dad/parent but not biologically so it does have an impact on her reality. If this was listed on her birth certificate she would have been aware even if not told directly but through the legal documentation of her existence. She doesn't believe it would have affected how she saw her dad just like it doesn't affect it now. What it has done though is caused her to turn away from her mother (who has brain cancer) as she is the only living parent that has been harboring this lie. If she would have found out by way of legal documentation she could have sat down and spoken to her parents (while her dad was alive) to understand the story of her conception and why a sperm donor was necessary. The truth is that they loved each other deeply and wanted a child but he was infertile so they as a couple decided to employ IVF and use a sperm donor. The truth is that her mother loves her and her father loved her so deeply that for him she was his child regardless of genetics. It is a beautiful story that has now been irreparably tarnished. The story of her creation and her existence has been distorted and hijacked by the adults' feelings of inadequacy. And now her mother is being seen through a new negative lens when she needs her daughters love and support more than ever.

This new found info about the sperm donor didn't change how she sees her father or how she loves him or how important he was to her in her life. But it does impact what she communicates to her children about their ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Not listing the sperm donor on her birth certificate forced her unknowingly to lie to her own children. By way of her parents' omissions she has lied to her own children which weighs more heavily on her than I can imagine.

A birth certificate records the circumstances of a birth. The mother spot is not negotiable, it is reserved for the female person from who's body the child issued. This is an observable fact apparent at the time of the birth, as are other things listed on the birth certificate, like the place & date etc.

The birth certificate is not a DNA certificate, it is not a record of a person's genetic heritage.

Therefore the purpose of the father/second parent spot is not to list the gene supplier, but to record who is the second legal parent at the time of birth, ie. the circumstances of a birth

Adoption cases already have adoption certificates, they don't delete the birth certificate. In female same sex couples, it works well to list partner of the woman who gave birth as the second parent. In male same sex couples the process for an adoption certificate works well, it is very important to make sure the woman who's body birthed the child is not erased - because, again, the birth certificate records the circumstances of a birth

^^this, basically

ArabellaDoreenFig why on earth would you have a problem with the term rainbow family?

It's simply a way of indicating a family has same sex or trans parents.

As a rainbow family we like to do things with other rainbow families - it means our kids know other kids with two mums / two dads.

How on earth is this dragging us backwards as a society? It's progressive!

I'm confused about this, at least as reported on the BBC, I'm not so sure this is a victory for sex over gender. It seems to be yet more wheels within wheels and another crank of the madness away from fact. I'm thinking of this in particular: "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."

So it seems to me just creating more confusion around the terminology - it's saying that men have to call themselves mothers, and mothers no longer have to be female ifyswim. Can anyone with a clearer brain work it out and explain it in words of one syllable, or are we doomed to these kind of shenanigans of language reinventions forever??

It's simply a way of indicating a family has same sex or trans parents

It is also a way of labelling a family as different from the norm.

As an aside I had never heard rainbow family used in that way before - I always thought it was some weird hippy cult...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Family

The judgement concludes

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’

This is what the GRA has caused. And in my opinion this is why it should be scrapped.

I’d be willing to bet that this is only the first step. That GRA wedge has now been shoved in the door. There are now opportunities for Freddie to appeal and unfortunately, due to the GRA, there’s a good chance they will be backed. The guardian article today named two legal firms backing this. Such a massive legal coup is catnip for some firms.

Pota/Scarlett555 - apologies & no offence meant, told you - I'm a bit dense & very simple, way too many variables that I've obviously not considered. Apologies again.

BC's have nothing to do with biology they are for parental responsibility and nothing else so the state knows who is responsible for the child, when attending your appointment you have to take a birth number with you this is used to connect the child's birth to the BC.
In biology it isn't the person who carry's the baby it's whose egg is used that determines the mother.
In law it has nothing to do with carrying the child it's still all about the egg and the person it belongs to its their egg or they have PR to the child they are the mother they have PR of the child unless they decide to donate the egg or adoption in which case they are willing giving up their PR to the child or willing giving their eggs or the state decide to remove their PR.
It's whoever the egg belongs too that is the Mother unless they have willingly given consent to donate egg adopt etc same with men sperm donation they are relinquishing their rights and also any PR to any future child that may come if it, same goes for surrogacy the mother is whose egg itis not the woman carrying it in biology and in the eyes of the law

That ^ makes a bit more sense, although that is hard on the person doing the absolutely tiny matter of risking their health carrying and life giving birth. I can't say I like that fudge either.

In law it has nothing to do with carrying the child it's still all about the egg and the person it belongs to its their egg or they have PR to the child they are the mother they have PR of the child unless they decide to donate the egg or adoption in which case they are willing giving up their PR to the child or willing giving their eggs or the state decide to remove their PR.
It's whoever the egg belongs too that is the Mother unless they have willingly given consent to donate egg adopt etc same with men sperm donation they are relinquishing their rights and also any PR to any future child that may come if it, same goes for surrogacy the mother is whose egg itis not the woman carrying it in biology and in the eyes of the law

This is complete nonsense as far as English law is concerned. The law is very clear. If you give birth to a child then you are the mother and you have parental responsibility. Even if the egg is not yours and even if you are a surrogate.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/27 The law says: "(1)The woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child."

That's pretty clear and it even applies if you go abroad for the fertility treatment.

BC's have nothing to do with biology they are for parental responsibility and nothing else this is also nonsense (in England at least). Birth certificates have existed in this country since 1837. Parental responsibility was created as a legal concept in 1989. When it was created parental responsibility wasn't connected to being on the birth certificate at all. Sure since 2003 it's been the case that being on the birth certificate is an additional route to getting PR for unmarried fathers but it is not at all true to say that BCs are only for PR. They are performing a whole range of roles, those roles have changed over time and they probably need to be more complex to reflect that.

Why is the law so fuzzy in this regard. Since we now have egg and sperm donors, surrogates and the family that will bring up the child; why can't the birth certificates record all the biological and legal parents. Any episode of long lost family will show you that children want to know the actual biological and genetic facts of their conception. That should be recorded for their benefit.

Mention was made of women who use donor eggs. A dear friend, A, used a donor egg and her husband B's sperm in order for them to have a child.

A gestated and carried the baby with a hefty amount of hyperemesis gravidarum, she knew she had placenta previa and had to have an emergency Caesarean section. None of that mattered after the baby was born as A and B love the baby, and as far as A is concerned the child is her own.

A and B will tell the child the truth when the time comes because they understand the child deserves to know the truth.

No matter what Freddy's GRC says and no matter what Freddy feels, Freddy will always be the child's mother as Freddy's child came from the uterus inside Freddy's body. Freddy can wear certain clothes and use certain pronouns, but the facts of the gestation and birth cannot be denied.

Also - Guardian and Obserer reader here, one who doesn't blindly agree with everything in the papers and one who also gets fed up by some of the thoroughly batshit crazy comments at the website.

Well I see I am wrong I always thought it was down to the egg and sperm even with surrogacy.
But for fathers isit the sperm? As when a biological father (not sperm doners) isn't on a child's birth certificate and no other man takes PR for the child and biological father doesn't give up his PR to child the mother can still pursue child maintenance from CMS so lawfully he is the father and he is biologically the father, so isit right a father is accountable for his sperm but a woman is not with her egg? a mother is accountable for a child she carries

Sure, campaign for a DNA certificate if you like.

The fact is that a child cannot be born except through a woman. It is the simplest way to record who this child is.

@Makesmilingyourbesthobby
Yes, broadly that's the case for fathers, although it's complicated if the mother is married to a person other than the biological father. I guess the difference between eggs and sperm is that placing one woman's egg in another mother is extremely invasive and requires a clinic and clear consent from the donor. Sperm is sadly often placed in the mother with much less thought!

There are just so many different ramifications that you'd have to think about if you allowed people other than the mother or father to identify as a mother or father on the birth certificate.

For example, a baby is born to a woman called Jane. Her husband Adam is the father and goes on the birth certificate as such.

Adam later identifies as a woman and gets a GRC and goes by the name Anna.

Does "Anna" have the right to be listed as the mother alongside Jane on the birth certificate of the baby? Can Anna go back and modify the birth certificate to list two mothers?

And if not, why not?

Why does Freddy get to be "father" in the case we're talking about here but Anna doesn't get to be "mother" in the fictional scenario? What are Jane's rights in this regard?