'Mother is a social construct'

[Teateaandmoretea]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/04/transgender-man-appeals-decision-not-to-be-named-father?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Discuss

My first reaction is that a mother is a woman who has given birth to a baby (whether or not the baby lives) OR a woman who has adopted a child and brings them up as their own.

That is not social construct to me.

But isn't "father" the social construct that they want to adopt? But based on their wanting to have a male body. Ie based on biology.

A birth certificate does not record who is the real parent (i.e. who does all the hard work). It records biological fact.

A father can donate some sperm and fuck off but he's still the biological father even if he doesn't deserve the title.

That birth certificate doesn't change for adoption, fostering step parenting or anything else- why should we lie to children in this particular instance?

Of course when you're living in a parallel universe everything is a social construct. I think some people must think they live in the Matrix. Nothing is real, its all just imagination.

@donquix
Birth certificates are not facts about fatherhood though, if a couple uses a sperm donor the male parent is registered as the father even though he is not the biological father of the child. The biological father is not registered on the birth certificate at all.

@Iggly unless the trans-man can be put down as "father" the trans-man won't be satisfied.

However the child still needs to know the parent who gave birth to them so I'm going the third way.

Unfortunately for the trans-man the majority of people in the societies and cultures in the UK (and the majority of others the family could move to) will say the "parent who gave birth" is the mother.

Birth certificates are not facts about fatherhood though, if a couple uses a sperm donor the male parent is registered as the father even though he is not the biological father of the child.

I'm not sure diluting the clarity of biological fact is a good thing in any of the edge cases where this happens (though of course I see why). It was got rid of in adoption for good reason.

That said, this case is very different. It is about lying about the actual biological basis of the birth. The litigant is the actual and biological mother.

@donquixotedelamancha it use to be if you were a woman married to a man but had an affair where you got pregnant, your husband could and would be registered as the father of the child.

And plenty of kids have a gap on the father bit.

The bit that everyone has filled in, EVERYONE, is mother, because mother is a biological fact. Unmarried father’s who don’t attend the registrar appointment can’t be included.

(unless they are a foundling, which doesn’t seem to happen in the UK very much nowadays)

Playing devils advocate does it not just reduce “mothers” to incubators and birthers if the only person who can legally be a mother is the person who gave birth, regardless of whether it was their biological child or not, and regardless of whether they will parent the child? Where as “father” can legally mean biological father, male parent or anything anyone decides constitutes a father?

I've seen Seahorse and Freddy couldn't cope with the word 'pregnancy' on the folic acid label so there was really only one way it could go.

Birth certificates are not facts about fatherhood though, if a couple uses a sperm donor the male parent is registered as the father even though he is not the biological father of the child. The biological father is not registered on the birth certificate at all.

Surely aswell there isn't a way of proving a father is the biological father. Theoretically a woman could have multiple partners and be none the wiser and select the one she wants on birth certificate without anyone being the wiser (clearly ethically dubious!)

When a woman births a baby there can be no ambiguity whether she is the mother

My comment above, obviously aside from a DNA test i mean

She might not be the biological mother though, in cases of surrogacy and egg donation. Honestly, it’s a minefield to me and I don’t know what the correct and fair solution is to these problems.

does it not just reduce “mothers” to incubators and birthers if the only person who can legally be a mother is the person who gave birth, regardless of whether it was their biological child or not,

No. Stepmothers become mothers through marriage and adoptive mothers have their own certificates. Mother figures are informal and thus don’t need a legal document.

I hate surrogacy, cannot wait to see it banned.

Do that and repeal the GRA and problem solved.

This person gestated and gave birth to the child - they’re factually the mother. The birth certificate should record this. Perhaps there could just be some kind of ‘add-on’ or attachment saying this person now identifies as male or it couldn’t record both their names or something.

Very few people will see the BC and if Freddie is a transman, they’ll be treated as such in society. If anyone were to quiz them about ‘the child’s mother’, could they not explain the circumstances? In reality, most people wouldn’t ask. A man collects his child every day from my DD’s school. I wouldn’t ask him where they child’s mother was. I doubt most casual acquaintances would ask Freddie.

As a PP said, if Freddie could cope with stopping the testosterone and being pregnant - a huge indicator of being a woman - then a category on a BC that they’d rarely look at would surely be Ok? Or is it all about erasing their past? Or de-sexing every single thing in society?

‘Mother’ is so much more than a social construct.

It really isn’t a minefield.

A birth certificate records a child’s birth. It records the mother - the person who gave birth to the child, and the mother’s legal partner if she has one, or a person claiming fatherhood if there is not a preexisting legal claim.

By doing so a child gains citizenship. Not recording the birth mother prevents millions of children from having any claim to citizenship worldwide.

All the other transmen who’ve had babies seem to be coping with their babies birth certificate as is.

What about mothers who used surrogates? I’m not a fan of surrogacy as a business, but what about family members or friends helping an infertile woman? Or a same sex couple who swap eggs? That’s not informal, that’s their biological child that they will parent, but they didn’t give birth to them so they’re not legally their mother on the birth certificate. Whereas the father could be anyone regardless of biology of parenting.

Elsie, it’s a birth certificate not a mother’s certificate.

As name says above. BIRTH certificate. A certificate that records the date and place of your birth and the name of the female human you came out of.

Surely all words and ideas are social constructs?

So if the legal definition of mother is the person who gave birth, regardless of whether that’s her biological child or whether she actually parents the child, again that seems to me to reduce “mother” to just someone who gives birth, whereas father can be anyone or anything people see fit, doesn’t have to be the biological father or parent, just any man who is happy to be named as the legal father, that’s what I personally disagree with, there is a lot of flexibility for men legally in terms of fatherhood, but non for women.

Why even have the father on the certificate then? If it is only about the birth?

Forgot to add, it’s not just about the birth, it is a legal document detailing who is financially and legally responsible for a child.

Because if they are married he is compelled to have legal responsibility for the child from birth, and if they are not married he chooses to be legally responsible by going to the registrar.

Same as parent 2 when it’s a lesbian relationship.