Trans children (just deleted thread!)

[Lolapusht]

In line with MNHQ guidance in the deleted thread message ie keeping this topic legal and not personal (although worthy to note the judgement comments to the effect that anonymity was somewhat redundant as the individual had made a documentary about their journey) this is what I was about to post on the previous thread:

“The court issued a Declaration of Parentage stating the term “mother” had to be used on the birth certificate. Not sure if a certificate was originally issued or if that was delayed until the court case was decided and this one will be the first certificate. Anyhoo, a certificate will be issued soon as the matter has been decided with no recourse to appeal.

The judgement highlights the many places where the nexus of laws surrounding modern conception/birth/parenting/gender is frankly, a mess. There are many places of conflict!”

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-25.9.19.pdf

Was just looking for that thread, not surprised it has gone. Are we allowed to talk about this without mentioning the person or the child in broad terms or was it the word mother that caused offence?

(I haven't seen the deletion message.)

Oh I see...

twitter.com/owainalty/status/1450383774223568896?s=21

Personally I identify as a gin stormfront

Personally I identify as a gin stormfront

Deletion message here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4378832-Children-of-trans-parents

We've now removed several posts for speculation about an individual, in particular their mental health and ability to parent. As the thread has continued in this vein, we don't think this is really in the spirit of civil discussion and will now take it down. Please feel free to discuss the legal rights and ramifications involved in such cases without making it personal.

Has David Paisley actually left Scotland?Because someone knew where he lived?

So much so you had to say it twice @WarriorN 😆

Good to see the monitors are back, it's nice to be popular and interesting enough to be reposted on Twitter.

"I'll make you famous".

So much so you had to say it twice @WarriorN 😆

Good to see the monitors are back, it's nice to be popular and interesting enough to be reposted on Twitter.

"I'll make you famous".

I'm seeing double.

It's the Prosecco sloe gin.

Storm front.

That can be my super hero costume....

Do you think that when Owain has a benefits interview he tells them he's a full time volunteer Mumsnet monitor?

It probably gets you lifetime sickness benefit, no further questions needed once it's on your Universal Credit record.

Regarding legality, the term mother or father belongs to the child.

It's also preferred for tracing family tree records etc.

Fun biological fact; we inherit our mitochondria directly from our biological mothers.

I don't understand why so many eschew a GRC but fight tooth and nail for birth certificates, fine change you're own but the registration of birth belongs to the baby.

Personally I don't like the idea of lying to them from birth either.

*your
C'mon autocorrect keep up!

It’s none of my business if people go abroad to give birth.

I just don’t want the legal definition of “mother” to be changed here, at least not without a wider discussion of the direct and indirect consequences.

The current UK law is child-centred - the person who gives birth to a baby is his/her mother and has automatic parental responsibility for him/her. This makes perfect sense for the baby, as s/he will already have started to bond with the mother in utero, and will have a strong instinct to stay close to her. And as the mother and baby are together, it makes sense that the mother is able to consent to medical treatment for the baby.

How would the alternative work? Could it lead to disputes between parents/couples as to who would be recorded as the mother of the baby? And how would any change benefit the child?

And could children be born into the situation where no one has parental responsibility for them? I find that a scary thought.

This is around the rights of the child not the parent.

I just don’t want the legal definition of “mother” to be changed here, at least not without a wider discussion of the direct and indirect consequences.

This is something I was interested in. If a person gains a birth certificate for their child from a different country which lists them as mother (when they are male) or father (when they are female), how does that translate in practice?

Obviously it will totally mess up genealogy, but what would be the impact on the child?

I agree it’s about the rights of the child. The BC is about identifying who the biological parents are. Not how these people identify, their clothes or hairstyle . Is not about their social role and if they are called mummy or daddy.

Otherwise adopted children would be a new birth certificate with their social and legal parents names and they dont . They get an adoption certificate.

I also think that we should have a different document for children born to same sex couples. One that reflects biology and one for social and legal parenting .

Owain's not great at comprehension, is he? I can't see anyone asking if it's legal to give birth in Sweden, only whether it is legal to circumvent the law of one's own country in order to acquire a benefit or perceived benefit in another.

In answer to the original question, my initial thought is that it probably is legal, in the same way that a marriage which would be unlawful / unrecognised if conducted in the UK (e.g. a proxy marriage) will be recognised by the UK authorities if it was validly contracted in the country where it was conducted. And "birth certificate tourism" has always been a thing - e.g. before the law changed in 2005, non-EU nationals going to Ireland so that the child had an Irish BC and was an EU national.

Whether it is in the best interests of the child is a completely different issue, particularly if the parent will be listed as mother on one sibling's BC and as father on the other sibling's BC.

Could it lead to disputes between parents/couples as to who would be recorded as the mother of the baby? And how would any change benefit the child?

Legal dispute example here, only in that one woman was the egg donor, her partner the birth mother, and the children where both in Belgium then they moved as a family to Ireland where the genetic relationship between the woman and the child keen doesn't result in legal parental rights.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/surrogacy-and-assisted-reproduction-5577455-Oct2021/?fbclid=IwAR0OiP4VAmYYc3LdQi7361jWEnJMJE1kuTrhFb6XJj5YUbmf7077_qOuzhI

Or this where two women have a baby with a friend who donates sperm but because legal processes weren't followed for the second child (due to money, the time it takes) and the circumstances with the friend and their own relationship broke down, it created a very tricky legal situation for all three 'parents' (social, genetic and birth) and for the children.

www.heyreprotech.com/p/when-donor-becomes-dad?fbclid=IwAR23TGU3OuDB8cGDUsMqf2abYgodxDG3o2XCN2Da8kTGmNQ2f5sk6GaXEKs

As explained here innumerable times, when the GRA was passed in 2004, the Blair government saw it as a quicker and easier way to react to a judgement against UK law from the ECHR than trying to introduce same sex marriage, which they didn't think they could get through Parliament at the time. Making it legally possible for a person to get a GRC and then a birth certificate with the opposite to their birth sex enabled the GRC holder to marry a person of their own sex, because of the legal fiction the GRC holder now belonged to the opposite sex. Problem solved!

Parliament was told that at most 5000 people would qualify to get a GRC - which was true, that's the number issued in the last 17 years, more or less - and nobody else would be affected. This would explain why the whole thing was rushed and in particular why it was never explained in law what it means 'to live as a woman' or 'to live as a man'.

My hunch is that if somebody did a poll asking people to go down a list of things you might do if 'living as a woman', 'living as a man', or just 'living as a human', going to a fertility clinic and using the services of a sperm donor to get pregnant would count as 'living as a woman'.

I haven't gone back to those Hansard excerpts to check, but I doubt anybody anticipated that the first action of a female granted a GRC would be to get pregnant. It defies all logic.

And now we have the next illogical step - that the children of said GRC holder should have their birth certificates turned into legal fictions too. Ludicrous.

Surely in terms of medical history, a child needs to know who their biological mother and father are (recognising that the latter is not always possible, but desirable). The debate should be centred on the practical needs of the child, not the emotional demands of either parent.

Obviously it will totally mess up genealogy, but what would be the impact on the child?

Genealogical bewilderment is something I've been reading about. It is known to impact adopted and donor conceived children (possibly also surrogate born children but there are no studies).

An example of this which I won't name for fear of more monitors coming along and nuking this thread but imagine the person you call Dad is your genetic mother as you were made from that person's eggs, your birth mother (surrogate mother) is a woman in Ireland, where you were born and your birth would be registered in a hospital there, your father is a unknown sperm donor (presumably registered and recorded in the national database) and the person you call Mum is of no genetic relation and would not have been able to be your birth mother as this person has a male reproductive system.

Your birth certificate has the names of the people you call Mum and Dad in the fields that would reflect that and this has been obtained via a parental order, so you knowing and potentially finding your genetic father (if you ever wanted to) relies on those who have legal parental rights telling you about the circumstances of your conception and birth.

@Cattenberg

It’s none of my business if people go abroad to give birth.

I just don’t want the legal definition of “mother” to be changed here, at least not without a wider discussion of the direct and indirect consequences.

The current UK law is child-centred - the person who gives birth to a baby is his/her mother and has automatic parental responsibility for him/her. This makes perfect sense for the baby, as s/he will already have started to bond with the mother in utero, and will have a strong instinct to stay close to her. And as the mother and baby are together, it makes sense that the mother is able to consent to medical treatment for the baby.

How would the alternative work? Could it lead to disputes between parents/couples as to who would be recorded as the mother of the baby? And how would any change benefit the child?

The legal definition of mother was in fact already changed by McConnell's case - the appeal court ruling was that "mother" refers to the person who gives birth regardless of their sex. Effectively it made the word "mother" into a legally genderless term.

You are aware fathers also have automatic parental responsibility towards their children? Nothing about McConnell's legal obligations to his child would have changed had he been allowed to be listed as the father.

The legal definition of mother was in fact already changed by McConnell's case - the appeal court ruling was that "mother" refers to the person who gives birth regardless of their sex. Effectively it made the word "mother" into a legally genderless term.

Gender doesn't come into this at all. The person who gives birth will alway be female because only female humans can give birth. So 'regardless of their sex' is utterly meaningless above.