“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.

I absolutely fucking give up on this fucking nonsense.

Ive read the whole judgement and the entire legal argument is a Gordian knot that is quite simply untied if a female individual accepts the reality that in using a their female body and female gametes to conceive, gestate and give birth to another human being becomes by that act the childs mother, no matter what identity they would like to assume or how they define themself, no matter how many people they have apparently managed to convince that they are somehow a member of the other sex, no matter how many legal documents and affidavits they have that pretend the legal fiction of them being, somehow, ineffably, indefinably a member of the opposite sex despite all biological evidence to the contrary.

Why are we setting up a legal and social precedent that this persons perception (and really only this persons perception) matters more than reality? Who decided we all have to use words in the way they demand, and that those words get to be redefined? What exactly are we sparing them or protecting them from when we agree to prop up the lie that they are male? How can we argue that this is in anyway living authentically when the whole edifice demands lie upon lie from the individual and everyone who interacts with them? Is it a healthy way to live, to demand all must give way to this untruth, to give credence to the idea that reminders of the persons original name and sex are somehow violence? Why does this person get to somehow superimpose their identity and apparent psychological needs over everyone elses, including that of their own child to know the reality of their birth. How can it be demanded that as a society we need to prioritise the self identity of the person concerned in this case over the facts that they are born female, will die female and have carried out the female functions in human reproduction.

What is the point of these ceaseless lies? What is the point of acceptance, inclusivity and promoting diversity if we use it to bolster untruths instead of simply saying - live the way you want, gender non conformity should be accepted and protected, call yourself whatever you choose, have a family and relationships in whatever legal and consenting way you can, but the basic truths of your birth cannot be rewritten to suit your perception.

I am glad that the judge ruled the way they did on this case for fairness to the child who deserves an accurate birth certificate, no matter how their parent choses to identify or act. Its also commendable that the judge pointed out the interesting timeline of events and questioned the award of a GRA.

But the whole legal debate about this reminds me of the sombre endless books of theology produced by the various forms of Christianity in the middle ages, earnestly discussing the minutiae and possible manifestations of the trilogy, when the entire relevance and importance of the argument collapses if you just dont share the belief structure. What a fucking waste of human time and effort all this shenanigans is, like counting the number of angels that can dance on a fucking pin.

Well there’s a surprise!

It’s time to revisit the whole business of Birth Registration now, in all honesty. I think there’s an argument for including all parents, social and biological. Plus of course, the trans thing.

Didact Yes. Absolutely.

At the end of the day, Freddy was in a film about being a pregnant trans man, and took legal action (yes, Freddy wanted anonymity but couldn't have it because of the film), both of which put Freddy in the public eye. As a consequence, Freddy's child has been put in the public eye. Freddy's child isn't going to be shielded from the truth of their parentage as a result of that, whatever the BC says. This is only about validation of Freddy's gender identity and the whole thing has already had an inevitable impact on the child who will always be known as the child of a trans man. Why not put the child first from the start and just quietly get on with life?

Well said Didactylos.

The sheer waste of people's time and energy on this utter charade.

What is the point of these ceaseless lies?

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power...One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984

live the way you want, gender non conformity should be accepted and protected, call yourself whatever you choose, have a family and relationships in whatever legal and consenting way you can, but the basic truths of your birth cannot be rewritten to suit your perception

Well put Didactylos.

Yes, we should give a GRC to anyone who wants one, but it should read something like: "You are now a woman (but not really)"

So completely self absorbed this person is obviously incapable of putting the needs of their child first. I honestly hope SS are heavily involved here

Brilliant post Didactylos

Not RTFT and I haven’t had time to look at the actual judgement yet, but.. If the judgement says men can be mothers, can male-born men now be mothers legally in other ways than this? Has the judge limited this ‘men as mothers’ point only for the purposes of birth certification?

Popchyk, a GRC change of legal sex of a parent, can’t be retrospectively applied to their child’s BC.

How can we argue that this is in anyway living authentically when the whole edifice demands lie upon lie from the individual and everyone who interacts with them?

Well said.

I'm on a debate FB group debating this subject.
Now I'm a bit nervous.
I usually keep my opinions on this to private non traceable forums.

However I just started. And I'm being called a transfobe.

I've told them I don't give a shit about their feelings. Some are supporting some are against. Normal debate.

Except I recall stories on here and on Twitter. And I know that one side is not like any normal debate.

My Facebook is pretty locked down but I know they take it to far.
I've made sure not to say anything to bad. I've kept to using sex and female.

But it's ridiculous that this has me scared. This is how they will win.

But loathe to begin a comment with "as a lesbian" but it's relevant when I'm about to say I don't see how we're supposedly "thrown under the bus" here. I certainly don't feel that way.

What I do feel is may be a little confused about why I should be named on a birth certificate if I'm not actually a biological parent. A birth certificate is a record of historical fact, it's not a personal affirmation. If my partner and I decide to have a child, she carries and gives birth, and a mutual friend donates sperm, they go on the certificate.

Honestly, I don't get it. Our (hypothetical) child doesn't need a falsified record of her birth, and I don't need the validation.
If I'm going to be with her birth mother, both of us bringing her up for the next eighteen years or so, I'm fairly confident she's going to realise I'm one of her parents without having that written on a birth certificate.

Has the judge limited this ‘men as mothers’ point only for the purposes of birth certification?

That's how I read it. In the context of birth, the person who gives birth is the mother regardless of their gender. A male born person can never give birth, so they're irrelevant as far as this ruling goes.

The Law Commission (see Rumplestiltskin threads on here for more on their current proposals on surrogacy law changes ) are already hoping to review birth certification. The Law commission’s purpose is to review UK law and recommend legal changes to government.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668113/13th-Programme-of-Law-Reform.pdf

This ^^ document from 2017 says on p 28:

BIRTH REGISTRATION
4.4 The registration of births in England and Wales, governed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, originally dates from the introduction of civil registration in 1836. Currently, the law only allows the registration of two (legal rather than biological or genetic) parents, and requires children to be registered as either male or female. These requirements have not been revisited in light of widespread changes in the forms that families take, including the growing number of children conceived through the use of donor gametes or surrogacy (whose legal parents may differ from their biological parents), and the increasing acceptance of transgender people and awareness of those born intersex.
4.5 Beyond these issues, a project could consider the fundamental questions of for what reason and for whose benefit the record is kept, raising wider questions about the law determining who is a “parent” and the legal consequences of being a parent.
4.6 Although the scope and emphasis of a project on birth registration would need careful consideration, nearly all stakeholders who responded to our 13th Programme consultation thought that the Law Commission is the appropriate body to undertake reform.
4.7 We believe that there is a case for reform to birth registration but we do not think that now is the time for such a project to begin. With a few exceptions, the stakeholders that we have spoken to did not identify the issue of birth registration as one of the most pressing for immediate law reform. This view was shared by Government departments. Moreover, we take the view that the nature and scale of the issues around the reform of birth registration have not yet fully emerged. In particular, the Government is reviewing the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and our work on the reform of surrogacy law may help to highlight some of the birth registration issues in a specific context, and act as a ‘springboard’ for identifying issues to take forward in further work.
4.8 We have not, therefore, included a project on birth registration in our 13th Programme of law reform, but we expect that developments in this area will mean that such a project is a real possibility, either for inclusion in our next Programme or as a future Ministerial reference.’

Thank you Errol

But loathe to begin a comment with "as a lesbian"

Ah sod it, get a badge made up.

What I do feel is may be a little confused about why I should be named on a birth certificate if I'm not actually a biological parent. A birth certificate is a record of historical fact, it's not a personal affirmation. If my partner and I decide to have a child, she carries and gives birth, and a mutual friend donates sperm, they go on the certificate.

Honestly, I don't get it. Our (hypothetical) child doesn't need a falsified record of her birth, and I don't need the validation.

Better to me safe in case of a split and custody case, or bereavement. But I don’t see why I format can’t easily be devised that specified who were the biological parents and who were legal and social parents.

By the same token, it could record sex at birth and be amended later to note any gender identity information.

Great post @Didactylos

OneEnded the female partner can only go on the BC if the child is conceived through IVF. She won’t be the second parent if your friend donates sperm.

Anyway, I take the points made here. However there is a very powerful lobby behind this. If the court had just let Freddie be named parent, it would only apply to a tiny number of cases. Now Sally Hines and others will campaign for wholescale law reform off the back of this case probably leading to removing the category of mother altogether. It’s played right into their hands.

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

Adoption certificates don’t replace birth certificates they are issued as well as them - and what’s biological fact got to do with it? They are a record of an adoption, not a birth.

If, at the point of an adoption being legalised, a birth certificate was issued, naming adoptive parents not birth parents, you might have a point.... but it isn’t.

Someone who gets pregnant is not living as a man.

Ha.

I think it's safe to say my faith in the legal system is on the way to being restored after the past few days. Still a long way to go though.

twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1176880945795936257?s=20

Raring to go to change the law apparently. Serious can of worms.

Ruffle not very helpful or kind to comment on someone’s looks.

It's not my obligation to be 'helpful' or 'kind' here @pota2 . I'm being honest. Freddy, on the other hand, is trying to get a Big Lie incorporated into the very fabric of our legal system and our society. Get a sense of perspective. And a grip.

Not to mention the fact that he has actively chosen to look strange. It's not an accident of birth.