"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.

justnamechanging03

Ideally he would be eligible for the same support services as women who've been assaulted, because they're supposed to be for people of the female sex.

If those services won't take him because of how he identifies, that's appalling. And illegal. Those services should be open to him if he's comfortable using them.

I could go off on a massive rant about how we got to this stage, but suffice to say I'm furious on your friend's behalf.

Living as a man... Just going to my ante-natal classes and popping my folic acid tabs. As a man.

I am glad that this has stopped here and hopefully the funding has dried up to prevent a ECHR claim. It’s a historical record of an event. It’s not a way for a person to get validation of their identity. It’s for the child, not the parent. I also think it’s deeply wrong that birth certificates are retrospectively altered for those who have GRCs. It alters history in a way that is impossible in reality.

hopefully the funding has dried up to prevent a ECHR claim.

Freddie is already saying this will be taken all the way to the ECHR.

It's all about Freddie's wants trumping the rights of the child. I find it deplorable.

I can so clearly picture the tantrum ExH would have had, had he been put down as parent 2. It would have been monumental and made my life a living hell for months, then brought up for years. He would also then used it as a get out clause for any parenting, 'what do you expect me to do? I'm only parent 2...'.

That is an awful, awful situation for your friend Justnamechanging03. Just horrific. I have never personally accessed any support (I have never been pregnant after assault, but have been attacked a few times), but friends who have, found personal counselling better than support groups, that might be worth a shot? I really hope your lovely friend is doing as well as possible and has a beautiful, happy relationship with their child filled with joy, for them.

EyesOpening

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?

I'd support them asking, if they were saying that the problem is they don't have evidence of how society would feel being called parent one and two, rather than mother and father.

This is just a hunch, but I suspect most women would like to be called mother, rather than parent one, and the same for dads.

Also, who is parent one and who is parent two? I wonder what the bloody hell it's based on? Oh wait, no I don't.

Cue a campaign, six months down the road, to have the words Parent One erased, because it means mother.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

hopefully the funding has dried up to prevent a ECHR claim.

Freddie is already saying this will be taken all the way to the ECHR.

It's all about Freddie's wants trumping the rights of the child. I find it deplorable.

Ffs. I feel sorry enough for the kid as it is. Why should this person have access to a bottomless pit of cash? It’s not going to be in anyone’s interests but Freddy’s to get the law changed, especially not the child.

Isn’t there a problem with Parent 1 and Parent 2 in that it seems to give preference to the mother so is contrary to equality of the sexes? It’s never possible for a child to be without a legal mother but a child can be born without a legal father (when born by donor sperm and the donor is not reflected as being a parent). So that would mean that dads are seen as secondary.
And in any event, Freddy would need to be Parent 1 (as all children have a legal Parent 1) which everyone would know is the mother, so Freddy would no doubt be unhappy with that too.

I'd bet my mortgage that Freddy is not paying for this. I'd bet my mortgage, that this is not really about Freddy. This is what transactivists calls strategic litigation.

The word mother needs to be decoupled from female biology.

@Datun

I'd bet my mortgage that Freddy is not paying for this. I'd bet my mortgage, that this is not really about Freddy. This is what transactivists calls strategic litigation.

The word mother needs to be decoupled from female biology.

Oh yeah, it will be funded by Stonewall or Mermaids or similar. Well, ECHR jurisprudence is not binding on English courts although they might be prompted to change the law in the case of an adverse ruling. BUT given that Freddy didn’t even get leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, it doesn’t strike me as something that anyone is going to be rushing to change the law on. In the cases where the ECHR ruling has led to law reform, the Supreme Court has usually stressed how important the issue is but that they are prevented from ruling a different way due to existing law. Here, they basically told Freddy to fuck off. Also, in case Freddy hadn’t noticed, the country has slightly more pressing concerns just now.

If you read the court of appeal judgment they were actually incredibly accommodating to trans identity, so it's really weird that Freddy is making such a big fuss about this (but then again, Freddy also had a tantrum at some medical forms being pink and insisted on getting blue forms instead!) The court said that while 'mother' refers to the female sexed parent who carries the child and gives birth, this says nothing at all about the gender identity of the 'mother'. The court rightly pointed out that because Freddy has a GRC, Freddy can be recognised as a man who is also a mother. You would think that trans activists would be pleased with this ground breaking concept that a man can also be a mother. By insisting that only women can be mothers, and only men can be fathers aren't they putting people into gendered boxes and insisting on that dreaded heteropatriarchal binary?

Turns out that many TRAs are actually incredibly binary, despite their claims to the contrary. They have no issue with strict gendered roles for men and women - they just want to be the opposite one to what their body is.

WeeBisom you have it right. The family courts are unbelievably 'woke'. So, I would imagine, is the ECHR. You can bet your boots they made their decision on the basis that there was no legal loophole through which to pull this one, because the law as it determines the rights of the child is transparently, unambiguously clear. And the complexities that would arise from someone else holding the legal title of 'mother' than the parent who had carried and birthed that child are so mind-blowingly complex and potentially unethical that they would have been opening a real Pandora's box had they done so, and knew it. The distinction that Freddy was requesting would probably have required an Act of Parliament to bring about a change in the law.

The lawyers think it's terrible that the strictures as they currently stand don't allow our society to be more 'progressive'. You've only got to read their commentary to deduce as much. They don't like it, but they are stymied by the law as it currently stands.

There'll be pushback. And I doubt the rights of the child will take top priority in those conversations.

@RealityNotEssentialism

Turns out that many TRAs are actually incredibly binary, despite their claims to the contrary. They have no issue with strict gendered roles for men and women - they just want to be the opposite one to what their body is.

I just popped in to say exactly that..I read about how they wanted the birth certificate to reflect their relationship with the child.

Like mothers must have a different relationship to fathers ( beyond the purely physical )

Is there a checklist of things I must do as a mother /father so I can see if I did it right?

@WeeBisom

If you read the court of appeal judgment they were actually incredibly accommodating to trans identity, so it's really weird that Freddy is making such a big fuss about this (but then again, Freddy also had a tantrum at some medical forms being pink and insisted on getting blue forms instead!) The court said that while 'mother' refers to the female sexed parent who carries the child and gives birth, this says nothing at all about the gender identity of the 'mother'. The court rightly pointed out that because Freddy has a GRC, Freddy can be recognised as a man who is also a mother. You would think that trans activists would be pleased with this ground breaking concept that a man can also be a mother. By insisting that only women can be mothers, and only men can be fathers aren't they putting people into gendered boxes and insisting on that dreaded heteropatriarchal binary?

That's what I was trying to get at upthread when I said "Is Freddy saying men can't be mothers? Is he GC?" - thanks for your post, it's good to see my thinking validated somewhat!

When you put it that way, WeeBisom, I can't help but think this ruling is a definite positive for those women who object to their children's 'Parent 2' insisting on co-opting the word mother.

Because it means a person who's legally a woman can be legitimately described as a father.

Also, it’s dangerous to allow change on the basis of one person’s feelings.
We currently limit the number of mothers to one. That means lesbian women whose partner gave birth can’t call themselves mother on the birth certificate either. The best they get is parent. Mother according to the birth certificate can only be the woman who gave birth, nobody else, and there can only be one and there must always be one. If the court had given in to Freddy’s demands, it would have caused potential disruption to the whole system plus I bet there would have been a call for birth certificates to be retrospectively amended so that fathers who now feel like mothers could have their identity validated too. It’s good it was just nipped in the bud completely.

The GRC should at least state what they consider “living as man/woman” and should have grounds for the GRC to be rescinded.

This is the bizarre situation with the GRC - it is a one way street. Its existence can be used to claim the holder certain privileges and treatment ie. a transwoman can claim access to spaces and services that another male cannot. There are very few if any checks to prevent potential fraud, yet there is no real definition of the terms of issue of the GRC and absolutely no consequences of not following even the widest intentions of this terms (living in the ‘acquired ‘sex’’).

Very very ironic that Freddy cruelly dismissed women who had lost babies wanting to be called mothers. Apparently that’s selfish and ‘birthing parent’ is fine. Yet, Freddy spends what’s likely to be hundreds of thousands on insisting on being called a father. Well Freddy, that’s selfish and ‘mother’ is fine. Get over yourself.

@RealityNotEssentialism

Very very ironic that Freddy cruelly dismissed women who had lost babies wanting to be called mothers. Apparently that’s selfish and ‘birthing parent’ is fine. Yet, Freddy spends what’s likely to be hundreds of thousands on insisting on being called a father. Well Freddy, that’s selfish and ‘mother’ is fine. Get over yourself.

How bizarre that Freddy can attempt to ride two horses with one arse and still expect to be taken seriously, at any level.

I just can't get over a parent dragging their child through the courts in order to get their birth certificate changed to reflect your wishes. Just seems so wrong and I'm glad the court has put an end to it.

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.

I think this has important implications for surrogacy. I always refer to the "surrogate mother and scolds tell us they must only be called** "the surrogate" (or other terms like gestational carrier) because they don't want to be called mother because it's not their baby and they are not the mother. But legally, as the law currently stands, they certainly are the mother until such time as the parental order is made. And what else should we call a newly delivered woman? On another thread two male commissioning parents are quoted as saying it was very important for everyone (at the hospital) to know that they were the parents of the baby. But they weren't, in law, and that baby has a mother.

If the legal status of mother is erased it has massive implications, many of which I doubt we even understand, or have not yet thought of, for all childbearing women. We must not allow it to be erased.

(Which reminds me, I really must get on with writing to certain hospitals that have drawn up surrogacy policy and refer only to "the surrogate".
If anyone would like a link to the FOI's where those policies can be found let me know and I'll post them.

On a feminism point of view. Because he identifies as male he hasn't been able to access support locally about the assault. Any advice ?

Your friend can access rape crisis support for females, like all other females do.