"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.

What is he talking about in those screenshots? Really, what is he talking about? His child has been denied the right to an accurate birth certificate? No, they already have one of those. What he wants would certainly make it so.

The existing birth certificate could put the child in danger? It’s following a policy of (ahem) ^de facto sterilisation^ for trans people??!

He’s living in a fantasy world. It’s worrying and offensive.

I don't get Freddy's argument. They say that the birth certificate is not a record of biology but a record of legal parenthood. But legal parenthood is linked to biology. The legal 'mother' is the person who gives birth, and the legal 'father' is the person who contributes the sperm.You can't just change the definition of a legal label because you don't feel like it fits you. That would be like saying that you identify as legally single when in fact you are married, or legally as a child when you are over 18. I sympathise that Freddy feels they were lied to about the scope of the gender recognition act (weren't we all?) but it is clear in the act that the legal gender identity does NOT afford you every single legal benefit of the other sex and is subject to exceptions in the Equality Act.

The people who make decisions in court are supposed to be disinterested. it's kind of the point. I really don't get their logic.

Interesting in those screen shots how Freddy says the Government lied about the GRA.

How would Freddy describe the action of telling the GRC panel their intention to “live as a man” then immediately get pregnant?

Freddy has done an amazing job of highlighting how “living as a man” and “living as a woman” are empty phrases that can’t be defined and as such, a GRC isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

our local rape crisis is inclusive of women,nb women and trans women, but do not provide services for anyone identifying as male - they are told to seek advice from services for men and boys.

that's utterly disgraceful.

These services should be available to people based on their sex, seeing as the consequences of being raped when you have a female reproductive system are completely different to being raped when you have the same equipment used by the rapist, and the services provided (tests, examinations etc) are based on your actual physical body, not whether you feel feminine or masculine that day.

Also, having people with the reproductive equipment used for rape being in a rape crisis cente with people who have female reproductive organs is extremely detrimental to the wellbeing and recovery process of those people who have female reproductive organs.

No fucking way am I using the male pronoun for someone who has just given birth.

It's a lie. It stands reality on its head.

Anyone else reminded of the Loretta sketch?

I think that there do need to be trans and NB specific rape services. The poster’s friend who has been assaulted and can’t get help has my sympathies and that is awful. Also, I wouldn’t be so sure that other users of a shelter would be super-accepting of a trans man. It’s more about whether a person passes for the opposite sex than what their chromosomal makeup is. Some trans men do pass, much more so that the majority of trans women. To the outside world they appear male and I don’t think female rape victims would be comfortable with them in a shelter and nor would they probably feel comfortable there. This is why specific provision would be a good thing.

I'm so glad Freddy lost. Freddy clearly has a lot of issues that perhaps would better be addressed out of the public eye.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/70b914b2-281d-11eb-b054-8dc1447a1be1?shareToken=1f73d08ca467ddb8d0ebe858ad3a7107

That much is clear, Toots. One of the (many) things that does not compute about all this is Freddie’s belief this is a violation of his human rights to protect the privacy of family life. He’s an activist. He’s made a documentary about his family. None of this makes sense.

None of this makes sense.

I think this just about sums it all up.

Interesting in those screen shots how Freddy says the Government lied about the GRA.

The GRA legalises a lie.

On what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to decieve.

I agree JohnWayne, totally.

What a messy situation and very sinister. I feel sorry for Freddie and the child. I can't help but feeling they are being used as pawns by bad faith operators. Ultimately if this is allowed to go ahead it will affect all children and their mothers, but I can't even begin to imagine the damage this is causing them.

From The Times article linked:

Mr McConnell is a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after surgery. He was biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but was legally a man when the child was born.*

"after surgery".

I wish they'd stop saying this. Freddy didn't have surgery on any female-specific reproductive organs. Hence Freddy was able to get pregnant and give birth naturally in a birthing pool.

Removal of breast tissue doesn't make a woman "live as a man". There are many women who have sadly had this procedure, they remain women. Freddy also doesn't "live as a man" as Freddy intentionally got pregnant and gave birth. That's not "living as a man". Freddy is again trying to get pregnant and give birth, so is still not "living as a man".

Stonewall seem to be urging the government not to shelve their review of the GRA here: ‘The current legislation contradicts the fragile equality trans people currently have, where they can have full recognition on some legal documents, but not on others.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/16/trans-man-loses-uk-legal-battle-to-register-as-his-childs-father

That’s a good point, @PearPickingPorky. People think ‘surgery’, they think of one defining thing in this case - think of how most people are usually surprised at the amount of trans women who don’t have surgery. It’s misleading.

@RealityNotEssentialism

I think that there do need to be trans and NB specific rape services. The poster’s friend who has been assaulted and can’t get help has my sympathies and that is awful. Also, I wouldn’t be so sure that other users of a shelter would be super-accepting of a trans man. It’s more about whether a person passes for the opposite sex than what their chromosomal makeup is. Some trans men do pass, much more so that the majority of trans women. To the outside world they appear male and I don’t think female rape victims would be comfortable with them in a shelter and nor would they probably feel comfortable there. This is why specific provision would be a good thing.

Freddy McConnell from photos and videos 100% passes as a man. He's slightly built and a bit weedy but I don't think anyone would think he wasn't a man if you didn't know his history.

Yes Dido, the power of testosterone. Amazing the changes it wreaks.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/559.html

Here is the court report from the last failed appeal.

Re surgery - a lot of transwomen refer to having surgery when they are referring to things like implants, adam's apple shaving or facial feminisation surgery rather than genital surgery