"Transgender man, 34, loses legal battle to be named as the father on his child's birth certificate as Supreme Court refuses to hear his case"

[Malahaha]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8953783/Transgender-man-34-loses-legal-battle-named-father-childs-birth-certificate.html

Don't know if this was already posted but it's a glimmer of hope that soe judges have their heads screwed on tightly.

I'm sorry it is the DM but I couldn't find it reported anywhere else.

Mother and father are legally recognised roles not just nice words on pretty cards and I'm really glad the courts have reinforced that.

Good to see the courts recognising facts and biology - as well as prioritising the rights of the child to have an accurate birth certificate rather than a 'legal fiction'.

This should always be about the truth on the child's birth certificate, not for validation of the parent's identity.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, concluded that people who have given birth are legally mothers, regardless of their gender, and said there is a 'material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent'.

Which, presumably, would also mean a male who provided sperm couldn't be called the mother if they subsequently identified as a woman.

Interesting.
I wonder if this will trickle down to service providers trying not to use the word 'mother'. It's a mother who gives birth, regardless of their gender.

'Moreover, we do not have evidence before this court as to how other members of society would feel if they were no longer to be referred to on their child's birth certificate as a mother or a father but simply as 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2'.'

They could ask them. I'd support that in a heartbeat.

Good. What a waste of time it would have been to have heard this out.

Hopefully this ruling will encourage others not to bow down to this nonsense.

When it's a question of the rights of the child versus the wants of the adults, in UK law the rights of the child will win. The can of worms should the legal definition of 'mother' change would be huge, and would open up all manner of ethical implications.

That might be coming, though. The lawyers arguing against this are couching it in the terms of the rights of trans gender people rather than the rights of children to know their own parentage. They claim trans rights are 'piecemeal' and only applicable in some circumstances, which is only a logical conclusion if 'gender identity' is conflated with biological sex.

Asserting these rights at the expense of women is one thing, children quite another. UK courts still always prioritise the latter. Unfortunately if this movement continues gaining traction I can see that changing.

Hope this isn't just a temporary victory.

Freddy McConnell was gloating recently on Twitter about “imminent developments”. I see now what Freddy was referring to. I’m glad Freddy’s appeal has failed. I am still discombobulated about how a person could be so dysphoric about their birth-sex and go onto become pregnant only days after getting their GRCert. I wonder who’s been paying for all this very costly legal action?

They could ask them. I'd support that in a heartbeat.

Definitely

The legislative scheme of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) required Mr McConnell to be registered as the mother of YY, rather than the father, parent or gestational parent.

‘Gestational parent’ instead of mother anyone....?!

Looking for takers...

Moreover, we do not have evidence before this court as to how other members of society would feel if they were no longer to be referred to on their child's birth certificate as a mother or a father but simply as 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2'

The changes in the way society works requested by the trans person have to be balanced by the interests and wishes of the rest of the people in society. It's been a long time coming. It's amazing that this reasoning went so badly out of fashion.

Good. I think that children have the right to know who gave birth to them and who their birth fathers are.

Thank Christ.

Gestational parent’ instead of mother anyone....?!

Looking for takers...

Don't even joke about it; there'll be plenty...

So, is it the European Court of Human Rights next?

It's grim isn't it ThinEndOfTheWedge. "Gestational parent, birthers, breeders"
Of course, once they've dehumanised women one can only wonder what will happen to childhood and children? I suspect we're already seeing the beginning of it with the rights of children to grow, develop and struggle with puberty in a safe supported environment already being challenged by some adult groups.

I'm pleased about this. It's the child's document, not the parents. It should be legally factually accurate.

Freddie has had some very poor advice, either that or they are so self fixated that the rest of the world passes them by. Some people might think they have been manipulated by people and organisations that don’t have Freddie’s well being as a primary aim.

Applying to a fertility clinics only days after signing a legal document confirming that they intend to live as a man (so presumably had stopped taking testosterone for some time before the GRC application)

Demanding anonymity in their court cases despite cooperating with a very identifying documentary that even made it clear where they live.

I am pleased the court has made this decision. I watched the documentary and it seemed to me then that Freddie had a lot of unresolved issues which I hope they are getting proper support for.

Good. The limits of a person's absolute right to define themselves in their subjectively chosen way has to be at the boundaries of other people's objective reality.

All the way to the supreme court - what a waste of time and effort.

Somebody should have sat Freddy McConnell down and told Freddy to stop being a pillock, but of course everyone Freddy knows will have been doing the acceptance and confirmation stuff, so there was nobody to tell Freddy the truth.

Some people might think they have been manipulated by people and organisations that don’t have Freddie’s well being as a primary aim.
This; absolutely.

I don't think it's fair to entirely blame Freddie for this. They is obviously being "supported" behind the scenes in their strategic litigation.

I would not support being called parent 1 or parent 2, I'm surprised poster's say they would? What am I missing?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I don't think it's fair to entirely blame Freddie for this. They is obviously being "supported" behind the scenes in their strategic litigation.

If they're a willing puppet some element of blame still attaches, I'm afraid.