Freddy McConnell appeal today (Transman who wants to be registered as their child's father) *Title edited by MNHQ*

[MrsSnippyPants]

Haven't seen anything about this and it just popped up on Sky News. Hearing continues tomorrow

Newspaper report here
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/transgender-man-who-gave-birth-21629478

Is it just getting rid of women though? I don't thing egg donors or sperm donors usually go on the birth certificate do they? Surrogates seems to depend on jurisdiction?

Yes this specific action is to remove the unique status of 'mother' from UK Safeguarding legislation & records of children's birth.

The mother, who will always be a woman (eg adult human female), is the person who gives birth to the child.

‘Fragile equality’

That isn’t what trans people have.

The vast majority of human beings have no desire to change the sex listed on their legal documents.

Saying being able to change your documents without any evidence that an error was made is a human right is insanity.

This right they have been given is a privilege, and now it is being misused to try to wedge more privilege, even when the negative effects on others are becoming obvious.

The only logical response to a continual abuse of privilege is to remove it.

The GRA should be repealed.

Yes this specific action is to remove the unique status of 'mother' from UK Safeguarding legislation & records of children's birth. The mother, who will always be a woman (eg adult human female), is the person who gives birth to the child.

It's the mother in this instance, but as a few people have pointed out, the implications are broader and seem to fit in with this desire to be able to construct items like birth certificates in the way the people with the decision making power - the people with the money - want.

If the idea of a birth certificate is no longer about who carried you, who you are genetically tied to, what is it about? If you can justify not having the biological father on in some cases, why not say the mother is a father? Which is more of a lie?

The focus has become a document denoting a sort of ownership.

Saying being able to change your documents without any evidence that an error was made is a human right is insanity.

I agree.

But when Stonewall says,

Equality is not a luxury and this legislation desperately needs to be updated so trans people can be recognised for who they are.

They have completely lost sight of what they are proposing. They have drunk their own Kool-Aid, and can't articulate anything worth even the smallest consideration.

It's becoming quite revealing, that the responses to the court cases, and the supportive MPs, etc, sound more and more ridiculous. We all knew that the arsenal was empty, but seeing it in action is weird.

If the idea of a birth certificate is no longer about who carried you, who you are genetically tied to, what is it about? If you can justify not having the biological father on in some cases

A UK birth certificate records factually the mother who birthed the child, the child's sex & given name, where & when the child was born.

It has never been required to record the genetic father.

Most places don't require that as sometimes it's unknown, which is rather different than not putting it down because of some sort of desire to say the father isn't the father.

And of course sometimes it's thought to be known and it's incorrect.

But there is usually provision in most jurisdictions to amend who the father is if there is an error, or testing shows who it is.

And it's a legal document, there is an expectation and indeed obligation that people be truthful.

It's becoming quite revealing, that the responses to the court cases, and the supportive MPs, etc, sound more and more ridiculous.

It is weird, and yet I dare not take it for granted. With every case, I fear the wrong precedent may be set. Maya’s case being a case in point. A judge actually said believing in biological sex and refusing to pretend otherwise is not compatible with basic human decency. And that’s literally the most ridiculous thing I can imagine... and yet a judge said it.

So far, most of the judgments have been rational, but that still depends upon the underlying legal principles being rational. As Scotland’s government keep demonstrating, that’s something we can’t ever take for granted.

Guess we’ll have to keep on firefighting.

If the idea of a birth certificate is no longer about who carried you, who you are genetically tied to, what is it about? If you can justify not having the biological father on in some cases

I don't think mothers are on the birth certificate because they are genetically related to the child (the concept of genetics is very recent), but because a birth certificate is a record of birth, and the only other person who will definitely be present at the birth, apart from the baby is the mother.

It ensures that, as per the judgement, even without the ability to do a DNA test, somebody always has legal responsibility for a child from the moment that it is born.

It doesn't matter what your genetic relationship is a to a child, there is nothing to stop you doing a runner before the birth unless you are the birth mother, as the CSA can testify.

"A judge actually said believing in biological sex and refusing to pretend otherwise is not compatible with basic human decency. And that’s literally the most ridiculous thing I can imagine... and yet a judge said it."

Although I think this was an employment tribunal, so their judgement didn't have the same status as other judgements? Somebody who knows more about the law could maybe clarify?

You’re right Merry. I didn’t mean to imply that specific case set legal precedent. It didn’t.

But the statement was made, all the same, by someone who the general public are relying on to be rational.

And it's a legal document, there is an expectation and indeed obligation that people be truthful.

This rather ignores the history of the treatment of unmarried mothers.

Hmm, that's an interesting idea merrymouse, and of course you are right about genetics as such being modern.

But I think the idea of the biological connection to parents is not new, and that comes down to the same thing. The legal responsibility of the parents is related to that connection in whatever material terms you understand it. It's not just legal.

I would argue that this was considered true for fathers as well for the most part, the problem was identifying them as such. The father could do a runner as you say or the mother could identify him and he could refute that and it was difficult to prove otherwise - these were attempts to prove that there was a parental responsibility or refute that such support was due. That was a major advantage of marriage, it was a sort of guarantee that the father would be counted as a parent with parental obligations.

One paternity testing became a possibility it began to be used to establish the parenthood of the father and the legal obligations that came from that, and I don't think that would have been the case had the idea that biological fatherhood carried obligations had not already existed.

To me it looks like all these attempts to change the birth certificate toward being a document that reflects social arrangements or who legally "owns" the child are about unhitching it from the biological basis of the parental relationship. It's not about the limits of what we know or even accommodating unforeseen circumstances like the father was really someone else. Once it becomes accepted as normal that the birth certificate isn't about who are the people who created you, it's easy to say, why treat the mother any differently?

To put it another way, I don't think it's primarily about disavowing women, it's about making children commodities.

To me it looks like all these attempts to change the birth certificate toward being a document that reflects social arrangements or who legally "owns" the child are about unhitching it from the biological basis of the parental relationship.

It is specifically about untethering a child from its mother (the woman who birthed her)

And you think the wider context of untethering them parentage is unrelated?

That seems... improbable.

Agree with R0wantrees . If society can untether a child from the mother at birth, then the baby becomes available for anyone (especially men) to buy or own. As seen played out in the current moves to change surrogacy arrangements - being overseen by a predominantly male dominated review. Very interesting that the legal rep in this case is part of that process. Given everything we know now about policy / regulation capture by male dominated groups, it is right to be very suspicious of this.

now know

Once it becomes accepted as normal that the birth certificate isn't about who are the people who created you, it's easy to say, why treat the mother any differently?

But a birth certificate doesn't attempt to do that, which is why the inclusion of the second parent is optional and why marriage automatically confers parental responsibility even when it is obvious that the husband/wife is not genetically related to the child.

The purpose of a birth certificate is to record a birth. You can't have a birth without a mother and a child, so those people must always be on the birth certificate, and as the courts have explained, the reason that is important is that a child always needs an adult who has legal responsibility for them. You need to know who that person is from the moment of birth without having to worry about DNA tests.

But then surely there ceases to be any point to having anyone other than the baby on the birth certificate. An individual with no links to anyone else. No genetic history, no family, no siblings...

If society can untether a child from the mother at birth, then the baby becomes available for anyone (especially men) to buy or own

Or not own if it all goes wrong.

Bloody hell, Barracker, there you go again. Wow! 👏👏👏

But then surely there ceases to be any point to having anyone other than the baby on the birth certificate. An individual with no links to anyone else. No genetic history, no family, no siblings...

No, because the mother is always recorded on the birth certificate. This is the law now, and it is why this case was lost.

An individual with no links to anyone else. No genetic history, no family, no siblings...

The mother is the only guaranteed witness to her child's birth.
If the mother is not responsible for registering her childs birth then there is an additional loophole which puts a child at risk.

I actually think Goose and R0 are arguing practically the same thing here. I think this is indeed about the commodification of children, and I also think that the function of cases like this is to sever the reality and reason for having the mother recorded on a legal document.

It's all of a piece, and I'm 100% sure it all ties in with surrogacy advocacy. Someone said to me elsewhere that every case where TM are involved, be it legally or via the shifting of language in various female focused services, is not designed to protect women's rights at all - it is intended to obscure them, and advantage men.

Cases involving TW are focused on them accessing female rights and spaces. Cases involving TM are focused on obscuring women's language and rights.

Women lose out in every single current 'trans rights' scenario.

Women lose out in every single current 'trans rights' scenario.

Yes, and children.
Women, chidren & Vulnerable Adults