"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.

Speaking at the beginning of the hearing, solicitor Scott Halliday, a family litigation specialist based at law firm Irwin Mitchell, urged the Appeal Court judges to be on the 'right side of history'.

Pretty sure "right side of history" isn't a valid legal argument

I’m pleased by this result, though I feel less strongly about Freddy (having done the pregnancy and risked his body) being referred to as Father than I would about someone who merely provided sperm being referred to as Mother.

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with the default being father and mother but the option for someone to apply to be listed as ‘parent’. But I think father and mother should retain the meanings they have always had when it comes to procreation being recorded on a birth certificate.

I feel equally strongly about both, to be honest.

So he was legally a man at the time of giving birth?

Perhaps that shouldn't have been possible given that he was pregnant & not living as a man?

@diddl

So he was legally a man at the time of giving birth?

Perhaps that shouldn't have been possible given that he was pregnant & not living as a man?

A GRC should be rescinded immediately on either the owner becoming pregnant or perpetrating a sexual assault. It's a scandal that it isn't so.

Men do not get pregnant, and women do not rape.

I want society to work so that, assuming the information is available, if a child asks "who is my mother? who is my father?" they can be told the truth. The idea of gaslighting a child over such a fundamental part of their identity is abhorrent.

@BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted

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?

Surely the statutory declarations this person would have had to sign in order to get a GRC are provably false? Is there any procedure to revoke a GRC? No wonder TRAs want people to believe that men can get pregnant and give birth. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Is there any procedure to revoke a GRC?

Apparently not.

Glad to see someone is thinking of the child here

@Datun

'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.

Do you mean you’d support them asking? Rather than support being called Parent 1 or 2?

It's such a relief. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Good decision.

I have no sympathy for Freddy after their tantrum when SANDS apologised for not referring to bereaved mothers as mothers. Those mothers were 'bullies', apparently.

Women were just being silly sausages over a word, yet Freddy keeps going to court over a word 🤷‍♀️

Double standards.

It's an interesting point as to whether it matters to record parental sex at all on a child's birth certificate (e.g. parent 1/parent 2) - presumably some genetic diseases and patterns have links to the matrilineal or patrilineal lines so it could be relevant to know in the interest of research/screening etc. Like it's relevant to know if your mother had BRCA related breast cancer because it means you have a high chance yourself. That sort of stuff requires more than the info on a birth certificate though.

Generally, i can't understand the aversion to calling someone what they are...if you are using your female reproductive organs to birth a child you are that child's mother irrespective of how you present socially. I also don't understand how the dysphoria doesn't extend to birthing a child! Sounds like Freddie is a pretty confused person and glad the court made this decision.

Is Freddy saying men can't be mothers? Is he GC?

The GRC should at least state what they consider “living as man/woman” and should have grounds for the GRC to be rescinded. The only problem I have though is how that person can have their own biological children, given that I find Japan’s insistence on the person being sterilised, abhorrent (if I’ve got that right)

Thank goodness. So tired of this.

I also wonder who is paying for all this legal action.

Getting a GRC and promptly signing up at a fertility clinic

@yourhairiswinterfire

Good decision.

I have no sympathy for Freddy after their tantrum when SANDS apologised for not referring to bereaved mothers as mothers. Those mothers were 'bullies', apparently.

Women were just being silly sausages over a word, yet Freddy keeps going to court over a word 🤷‍♀️

Double standards.

Didn't know that either.

@EyesOpening

The GRC should at least state what they consider “living as man/woman” and should have grounds for the GRC to be rescinded. The only problem I have though is how that person can have their own biological children, given that I find Japan’s insistence on the person being sterilised, abhorrent (if I’ve got that right)

Abolish GRCs and the whole notion that a person can change sex. Because they can't.

" The Supreme Court spokeswoman said justices had refused to give permission because the case did not raise an 'arguable point of law' which 'ought to be considered'. "

In other words - laughed out of court.

Freddy is suffering from a bad case of internalised misogyny

Was Freddie the one who called bereaved mothers 'scum' for 'weaponising their babies' deaths'? Or was that someone else?