"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.

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur

I suspect that Freddy was waiting for the outcome of the appeal to register the birth. Now that Freddy has lost the appeal I wonder if the child will finally be registered?

It's been almost a year since the appeal judgment. It doesn't sound like Freddy has any intention of registering the child unless the law changes. This is from the crowdfunder:

Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate. Transgender parents have no legal recognition in our country, which means that, even though Freddy is legally male "for all purposes" (GRA 2004), his only option is to register as SJ’s ‘mother’. This in turn would mean SJ going through life with an inaccurate and confusing birth certificate – listing his father (full name Alfred) as his 'mother'.

Yes, NecessaryScene that's the case in the guardian article.

Doh. Missed your first post, and the first link in the other one. Spend ages trawling through your gov.uk links though!

Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate. Transgender parents have no legal recognition in our country, which means that, even though Freddy is legally male "for all purposes" (GRA 2004), his only option is to register as SJ’s ‘mother’. This in turn would mean SJ going through life with an inaccurate and confusing birth certificate – listing his father (full name Alfred) as his 'mother'.

Some people are very keen on quoting the “for all purposes” wording of the GRA, while ignoring the “terms and conditions apply” provisions. They are either unaware of how to read a statute or they are deliberately misrepresenting the law and hoping that no-one notices.

@WeeBisom

You know, a thought has just occurred to me about why trans activists are fixated on the birth certificate issue. It interacts with the gender recognition act in an awkward way. Once a person gets a gender recognition certificate, they become for most legal purposes their 'acquired gender'. It is illegal for employers or public bodies to disclose the person's birth sex. The fact of their birth sex becomes a confidential matter. But if a trans man has a child, the child's birth certificate (which is a public, and not private document) must record the actual fact that the trans man is the child's mother, which in English law means the trans man has actually given birth to the child. So a trans man might have a GRC which makes it illegal to disclose that they were born a woman, but the game can be entirely given away by the child's non-confidential birth certificate in which it is legally required to state the fact that the trans man gave birth. There is a dilemma. The GRC says you can't mention the fact they were born female, ever. But the birth certificate of the child demands it. I imagine that what Freddie and other trans men want to do is close this loophole, so the GRC really does mean they become for all purposes their 'acquired gender'. To my mind, this just goes to show what an awful mess the entire GRC process created as it intersects with other areas of law.

But a birth certificate is about the child, and the child’s parentage being correctly identified. It is not there to soothe the ego of the parent. I think this was made very clear in the original verdict handed down.

And if like FM you have already lied on one legal document about your promise to live the rest of your life in your new gender then why do you think this gives you the right to lie on another legal document?

@NothingTraLaLa

Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate. Transgender parents have no legal recognition in our country, which means that, even though Freddy is legally male "for all purposes" (GRA 2004), his only option is to register as SJ’s ‘mother’. This in turn would mean SJ going through life with an inaccurate and confusing birth certificate – listing his father (full name Alfred) as his 'mother'.

Some people are very keen on quoting the “for all purposes” wording of the GRA, while ignoring the “terms and conditions apply” provisions. They are either unaware of how to read a statute or they are deliberately misrepresenting the law and hoping that no-one notices.

Very much so.

'Mother' on a birth certificate is not an identity. It is just the English noun that means person who gave birth.

The law would be outdated if it insisted that a mother couldn't be called 'Alfred' or that 'mother' implies anything about the identity of the person who gave birth.

Alfred is outdated, not the law.

It's sad Freddie doesn't seem to have considered their child's right to accurate info, or the future relationship if he proceeds with this action. Remember the GRA consultation? The Children of transitioners group specifically referred to Freddie:
'We need accurate legal documents. The recent rejection of Freddie McConnell’s attempt to have their baby’s birth certificate changed to record them as the baby’s father rather than mother is very welcome.
We hope that these protections for future children of transitioners will
continue.'
Link to submission
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16837/pdf/
and their website (they don't seem to be on social media)
childrenoftransitioners.org/

I find it hard to believe that SJ hasn’t been registered. How will his family apply for a passport for him (so he can travel to Sweden) without his birth certificate? Perhaps there is a way around that, but I don’t know what it is.

It will be interesting to see how the issue of getting a UK passport to allow a child born and registered in Sweden pans out . Apparently the parent has to sign the documents required stating that the information contained is “ honest and correct” . Like the declaration on a GRC application I suppose....

You rarely need more than a short form birth certificate in every day life and on the few occasions when you need the whole thing the absence of a mother would cause far more confusion than a simple factual word that just describes the person who gave birth.

Plenty of people have difficult information on a birth certificate (e.g. it lists an estranged parent). Does Freddy really think it’s helpful to insist it describes more than basic legal information?

Without w birth certificate, SJ may be unable to access:
Medical care
Vaccinations
Education
Child benefits

Freddie and Freddie's mum (who set up the crowdfunded) may honestly believe that their political stance is in SJ's best interests but I can't believe it is.

The crowdfunder is for £10k which won't even touch the sides of Freddie's medical expenses. I think they'd be wise to spend the cash on getting legal advice on deliberately turning up in another country to give birth.

I doubt they'll be able to take SJ out of the country though.

@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
It was recognised that some people applying for GRC would be parents whose birth sex would already have been identified on their child’s birth certificate as the named mother or father. It was made quite clear that in those circumstances the GRC was not retroactive and that the child’s birth certificate would remain a true record of the child’s parentage. Which all birth certificates should do.

A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate!

The right to privacy is a qualified right, as reflected in the exceptions in the GRA.

I think they imagined that in day to day life the GRA would mean that a trans person wouldn’t have to reveal their sex when going on holiday.

However, as with everyone else, the right to privacy doesn’t always apply. It’s difficult to imagine how any legislation could hide the sex of somebody who has given birth.

There is no right to have one’s identity affirmed.

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
I have a vague recollection of reading about Anne Widdicombe pointing out that it could result in a TM giving birth and questioning what would happen on the child's birth certificate where they decided that the person giving birth would still be recorded as mother.

I have a vague recollection of reading about Anne Widdicombe pointing out that it could result in a TM giving birth and questioning what would happen on the child's birth certificate where they decided that the person giving birth would still be recorded as mother.

It might be in this debate:
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2004-02-23/debates/7fa2c35f-8043-4516-af9c-b12e02e672ec/GenderRecognitionBill

Miss Ann Widdecombe

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I appreciate that he is taking many interventions.

If a woman who has lived her life as a woman, has been registered at birth as a woman and has borne children decides that she wishes to change gender to become fully a man, and the birth certificate is rewritten to reflect that, who is the legal mother of those children?

It's not clear if the birth certificate referred to here is the parent's or the child's.

Thanks!
I would say the “that” in “and the birth certificate is rewritten to reflect that” refers to “decides that she wishes to change gender to become fully a man” rather than the children’s, (Anne would probably have said certificates too as she said children not child).

Having read a bit more of that debate, I think it's about the person with a GRC getting a new birth certificate. If she said anything about the children's birth certificates it must be in a different debate.

I read on but I don’t think she got an answer to “ who is the legal mother of those children?”

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
It was all foreseen. That's why there's a specific exception in the GRA regarding parenthood.

The points you raise were discussed thoroughly during the appeal.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/McConnell-and-YY-judgment-Final.pdf

Dogs are not cats.

The judge recognised that this was a minor infringement of Freddy's article 8 rights but concluded that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A child's right to an accurate record of its birth, and who gave birth to it, is a legitimate aim. So is a state's interest in keeping an accurate record of children born and their parentage, for all sorts of reasons.

Meeting these aims is clearly proportionate when weighed against Freddy's right not to be upset by the existence of a rarely viewed document that fails to validate Freddy's gender identity or legally fictional sex.

Especially as all of Freddy's actions have been about telling the world that Freddy is trans and pushing the GRA to its extreme limits.

Early in the case, Freddy applied for an order to keep F's identity secret. This was initially granted but later revoked because Freddy chose to televise the birth. Freddy's child had no choice about this. From the moment of birth this child has had all the same human rights as Freddy.

Incidentally, don't let anyone ever fool you that 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' is an exceptionally high bar for using the EA single sex exceptions. It runs through the Equality Act and through human rights law like 'Blackpool' through a stick of rock. Nowhere else is it held up as an exceptionally high bar. It's bread and butter stuff.

But failing to register a child's birth after almost 4 years is something else altogether.

Freddy has no right to deny this child a birth certificate and all the rights of citizenship that follow from that.

@LangClegsInSpace

But failing to register a child's birth after almost 4 years is something else altogether.

Freddy has no right to deny this child a birth certificate and all the rights of citizenship that follow from that.

But the whole thing is about Freddie.

The poor kid is just an identity accessory. A prop to 'prove' Freddie's maleness.

The rights of the kid come second to the parent.

We see it time and again on birth tracing shows about how the genetic identity of people matters to their sense of where they came from and how being denied this knowledge is upsetting and traumatic yet we have attempts to remove the ability of children to know this truth.

Does anyone else think this action could be part of setting up the ground for F's future appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Say if F manages to get baby2 registered with F's desired terminology, then F can argue to the ECHR that baby1 is being discriminated against by not having the same parent terminology on baby1's birth certificate as baby2 and use this to try to force the British gov into complying with Swedish legal precedents.

The Guardian stated that F plans to appeal to the ECHR. www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/16/trans-man-loses-uk-legal-battle-to-register-as-his-childs-father

@Cattenberg

I find it hard to believe that SJ hasn’t been registered. How will his family apply for a passport for him (so he can travel to Sweden) without his birth certificate? Perhaps there is a way around that, but I don’t know what it is.

The family were at their house in Spain very recently, judging from Instagram, so I find it very difficult to understand that SJ "still does not have a birth certificate."

Even if you put your child on your own passport you need a BC.

As with other observations made, this claim is not true, I also fairly feel sure that F has said there is a BC but F wants it changed and reissued rather than not having one in the first place.

Agree - it's all about FM. What an ego.

Does this person's child have a sex?