"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.

Or...we could just call women 'ovens'.

As long as the “birth parent” had automatic parental responsibility for the child, I think that might work. The term “birth parent” is also used for the biological mothers and fathers of adopted children, though, so that could get confusing.

Also, what would you call the genetic father? “Sperm-providing parent”?

I thought the whole point of the language mangling was that transmen wanted to be called birthing bodies with vaginas?

Aren't we meant to understand that transmen are at the root of the entire issue?

Is that suddenly not the case?

A comment for the crowdfunder which I think says a lot. Donations currently almost halfway and I noticed an anon donation of 1k.

"I’m not sure I would have ever started HRT if not for seeing Freddy’s documentary by chance at a film festival. I don’t know if I want biological children, but the thought of voluntarily giving that up (as many medical professionals tell you will happen when starting T) felt too weighty. Thank you Freddy for giving me information about my options and I wish you the best in accessing the options that are right for you and this baby."

I thought that trans men wanted to be called fathers. The problem with that is that the terms mother and father aren’t always synonymous in UK law, so there would be legal inconsistencies and points of conflict.

As I understand it, the GRA doesn’t enable trans men to be regarded as men for all purposes - there are exceptions.

@Cattenberg

I thought that trans men wanted to be called fathers. The problem with that is that the terms mother and father aren’t always synonymous in UK law, so there would be legal inconsistencies and points of conflict.

As I understand it, the GRA doesn’t enable trans men to be regarded as men for all purposes - there are exceptions.

But if transmen want to be called fathers, who is insisting that women who give birth, who are not trans, are called birthing bodies?

I think there are two groups of people who may prefer such terms.

Some of the people involved in surrogacy, for example, reject the terms “mother”, “birth mother” and even “surrogate mother” to describe the person who carries and gives birth to a child. Preferred terms I’ve seen include “the surrogate”, “the carrier”, “the gestational carrier” and in some contexts, “the uterus”.

@DadJoke

Giving people the option of "birth parent" as well as mother would be a good solution.

Children would know who gave birth to them, which was the main point of the objection, and trans men would not have to referred to as a mother.

What is wrong with being referred to as a mother?

@merrymouse nothing whatsoever. I suggested that people could have to option to put birthing parent if they preferred.

@Cattenberg

As long as the “birth parent” had automatic parental responsibility for the child, I think that might work. The term “birth parent” is also used for the biological mothers and fathers of adopted children, though, so that could get confusing.

Also, what would you call the genetic father? “Sperm-providing parent”?

I don't think many people would chose that option! I've been trying to think of an accetable phrase, but I'm at a loss. I'll ask some trans friends.

[quote DadJoke]@merrymouse nothing whatsoever. I suggested that people could have to option to put birthing parent if they preferred.[/quote]
Why is another option necessary ? It’s a neutral legal term. What could possibly be wrong with being referred to as a ‘mother’ given that it refers to the person who gave birth?

The only reason I can imagine is deeply ingrained sexism, which is endorsed if the word ‘mother’ is optional.

@DadJoke

Giving people the option of "birth parent" as well as mother would be a good solution.

Children would know who gave birth to them, which was the main point of the objection, and trans men would not have to referred to as a mother.

I disagree. Birth certificates record important personal information about the child, and include the parent only in relation to the child. They are identity documents owned by the person whose birth they record and no one else.

And the person who gives birth to you is your mother. She may end up being no more than your birth mother, if another woman raises you or adopts you, but having a social mother does not remove your birth mother from your history. Attempts to do so in the past have led to measurable damage to the children affected. And that's in addition to the issues arising from not being raised by your birth mother. (That's not to underestimate the damage a birth mother can do to her child, but that's not what we're discussing here.)

What is your justification for denying these particular children the most important information about their origin that almost* all other children have - their mother?

*there is a vanishingly small number of children who do not have this information because they were abducted, abandoned or found alone in war zones or after natural catastrophes where no identifying information could be found afterwards.

To create such a traumatising situation by design is an abhorrent demand that completely fails to consider the best interests of the child.

I'm frankly astonished this is even entertained by the courts.

@CharlieParley it doesn't deny them the knowledge, that's the point. Most people who put "mother," trans men could put "birth parent", and it provides exactly the same information. There is no trauma, no lack of information, no removal from history and no problem.

@merrymouse it's necessary to accomodate trans men, who are not women, and don't think of themselves as a mother. It's not remotely sexist. Children don't lose out in any way.

Mother is a broad term - I have friends who are a lesbian couple, and they are both mothers. The non-birth parent does find it upsetting some times when people say "who is the mother?" In a medical context "who is the birth parent?" would be good for that couple.

It says nothing about not using the term mother, just giving another option.

The times you would need to ask a lesbian couple which one of them gave birth to the baby in a medical context are vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of a single instance except immediately after birth when it would be blindingly obvious.

Please don't use lesbians to prop up your argument to refer to mothers as birthing parents @DadJoke. It's offensive

The definition of a father is not a female who conceives, gestates and births a baby.

And whilst in our society men might not feel too bad about that, the converse, that a man who ejaculates sperm, fertilises an egg and impregnates a woman, is not the definition of a mother.

Strewth.

it's necessary to accomodate trans men, who are not women, and don't think of themselves as a mother. It's not remotely sexist.

It is profoundly sexist.

Trans men who have given birth are accommodated and included in the word ‘mother’. There is no legal difference between a trans man who has given birth and any other mother.

The only reason that ‘mother’ would be rejected is a faulty assumption that it implies something about presentation or behaviour and how much this should conform to societal expectations. That is sexism.

Course it's sexist.

The entire ideology relies on it. How else is an adult human female being recognised as a male?

In a medical context "who is the birth parent?" would be good for that couple.

‘Birth mother’ is the appropriate term if you want to make a distinction e.g. in the many existing instances where a child has been adopted.

However, it’s generally not a distinction that needs to be made in everyday life.

@Clymene

The times you would need to ask a lesbian couple which one of them gave birth to the baby in a medical context are vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of a single instance except immediately after birth when it would be blindingly obvious.

Please don't use lesbians to prop up your argument to refer to mothers as birthing parents @DadJoke. It's offensive

It's not just in a medical context, and I am not "using them" for anything. She gets a little upset when people ask because it implies she somehow isn't a real mother. Mother isn't necessarily the person who gives birth to you. It's polite to consider that when talking to lesbian couples. In general, there has to be a pretty good reason to ask at all.

Likewise "father" is a role as well as someone who provides sperm.

This is just an overwrought attack on something perfectly reasonable - allowing a trans man to have "birth parent" rather than "mother" on a birth certificate.

This is just an overwrought attack on something perfectly reasonable - allowing a trans man to have "birth parent" rather than "mother" on a birth certificate.

The attack is coming from the person campaigning to impose gender onto a necessary legal term. Given the huge amounts of prejudice experienced by mothers, it’s astounding that anyone wouldn’t see this for the hugely regressive, sexist action that it is.

Why do you not think that ‘mother’ is an inclusive term?

Likewise "father" is a role as well as someone who provides sperm.

Mother has a specific legal meaning when used on a birth certificate.

Adoptive parents manage to cope with the concept that ‘parent’ has more than one meaning.

@merrymouse

Likewise "father" is a role as well as someone who provides sperm.

Mother has a specific legal meaning when used on a birth certificate.

Adoptive parents manage to cope with the concept that ‘parent’ has more than one meaning.

Yes, that's correct. I'm suggesting that the law be changed to allow "birth parent" as an option instead of mother.

@merrymouse

This is just an overwrought attack on something perfectly reasonable - allowing a trans man to have "birth parent" rather than "mother" on a birth certificate.

The attack is coming from the person campaigning to impose gender onto a necessary legal term. Given the huge amounts of prejudice experienced by mothers, it’s astounding that anyone wouldn’t see this for the hugely regressive, sexist action that it is.

Why do you not think that ‘mother’ is an inclusive term?

"Birth parent" does not have a gender, that's the point. It does not impact a mother's ability to put "mother" on the birth certificate, nor does it in any way increase prejudice against mothers.

I've been trying to think of an accetable phrase, but I'm at a loss.

Maybe Uterus Owning Body? I suppose to make it fair we would have to also consider words like Mum and Dad, but then if Dad was not inclusive enough your surname would need to be 'Sperm Provider Joke'?

Would phrases like Dad Bod and Dad Dancing then become Sperm Provider Bod and Sperm Provider Dancing? Doesn't have quite the same ring to them...

Do ask some trans friends and let us know what they come up with.

*username