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

I'm sometimes a tad annoyed about the monitors (now I'm picturing big lizards..) having their big ole noses in women's business and trying to get us deleted.

But then, when I think about how it must be, to feel so utterly owned compelled to show up every day on a site you hate, only to read and seethe, and get in even more of a strop about all the frantic reporting that achieved nothing.

Then I realise it's actually rather sad a bit hilarious really 😂😂😂

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

What nonsense word salad. The person who gives birth will always, can always be female.

@ninetynineAu

I'm sometimes a tad annoyed about the monitors (now I'm picturing big lizards..) having their big ole noses in women's business and trying to get us deleted.

But then, when I think about how it must be, to feel so utterly owned compelled to show up every day on a site you hate, only to read and seethe, and get in even more of a strop about all the frantic reporting that achieved nothing.

Then I realise it's actually rather sad a bit hilarious really 😂😂😂

Yes!

I said this on the other thread - it's now no longer accepted (and should never have been) for adoptive parents names to appear on the birth cert. A separate cert is issued.

I'm beginning to wonder if that should happen with any donor/surrogate/even identity births. A birth certificate for the child indicating their biological background, and a separate "parental" certificate where parents can list whatever they like in relation to whoever is legally going to be "parenting" the child.

I suspect this thread will go. Generalisations aren't allowed. Nor are specifics

You are aware fathers also have automatic parental responsibility towards their children?

Not if the parents are unmarried. A father who is not married to his child’s mother can choose to be included on the birth certificate, but only if the mother agrees. If not, he can apply to the court for a Declaration of Parentage.

This law has enabled many fathers to avoid being recognised as the legal parents of their illegitimate children.

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.

My head is spinning reading that. In an over-populated planet, I can see no good reason to allow surrogacy at all. Having a child is not a human right. Sometimes one's other life choices rule it out. Sometimes it's just not possible. This is hard, but so often measures taken out of a desire to be kind to someone experiencing something hard just create a worse position for other people.

When will these people realise the birth certificate belongs to the child - it's not there to affirm the parents

My head is spinning reading that.

Mine too, I was deliberately vague so to keep this thread up and would remind those posting naming the person should post carefully, though I think we should be able to discuss what is already in the public domain on a number of media and social media platforms.

The child in the situation I outlined above also features in a channel 4 documentary and on social media, and though children are entitled to privacy (under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, sharing again www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/Summary-of-the-UNCRC.pdf) the parents have publicised their 'journey to parenthood' on multiple occasions so this is all in the public domain.

How would one get to Sweden from England to give birth. It would be pretty difficult as you can't fly at the later end of pregnancy. I suppose if you were having a c-section you could time the dates somewhat unless the baby comes early. Sounds crazy to me as you'd be putting both mother and child at risk. Presumably health tourism has a cost to it too.

I guess a lot of this is about what could be done vs what should be done.

Is it ethical to deliberately create a child that will be removed from their mother at birth (surrogacy)

Is it ethical or even legal to get a GRC and then immediately father a child (TW) or get pregnant (TM)

Is it ethical to medically transition and father a child / get pregnant? Is the impact of hormones on sperm / egg quality or pregnancy known?

Is it ethical to not be entirely honest with a child about where they come from?

Is it ethical to alter official documentation so that an individual is not made uncomfortable?

Is it ethical to legislate for a state-mandated belief system?

So many interesting questions here, if only academics were allowed to get their teeth into things.

@Cattenberg

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

Potentially…maybe?!

The judgement goes into a lot of detail with regard to the legislation that covers situations like this (equality, IVF, gender etc) and one point I found interesting was the IVF treatment given could only be given under license to a woman (the claimant had started hormone treatment prior to obtaining a GRC and was registered medically as “male” once in receipt of their GRC). Sperm donors are given legal protection from gaining parental responsibility under fertility legislation so if the claimant was not a woman when the donated sperm was used then their treatment fell outwith the remit of legislation giving the donor protection from parental responsibility.

The judge declined to decide on a few of the fertility legislation side of things as they weren’t directly related to the case, but their decision does neatly describe the what ifs that might arise.

I think (hope) that a court would decide who the parents are using common sense, but you never can tell.

From what I’ve read, the GRA is bad legislation that creates more problems than it solves and that is a problem for all sides of this subject.

From what I remember of this discussion before, is it not the case that the mother is named as the one with automatic legal parental responsibility from the off? Because she is the only one guaranteed to be there. And does it not interweave with the children's act in terms of the legalities surrounding children?

As far as I remember, it was a safeguarding aspect that meant you had to name the mother, not only as a mother, but as the birth parent.

Judging from Instagram, recent travel overseas has been possible for a child who, it has been claimed, doesn't have a birth certificate.

To travel overseas from the U.K. you need a passport, to get a passport, you need a birth certificate.

In cases where there is no birth certificate, why isn't the person with parental responsibility prosecuted for failing to register a birth? I thought the time limit was six weeks from the birth.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I guess a lot of this is about what could be done vs what should be done.

Is it ethical to deliberately create a child that will be removed from their mother at birth (surrogacy)

Is it ethical or even legal to get a GRC and then immediately father a child (TW) or get pregnant (TM)

Is it ethical to medically transition and father a child / get pregnant? Is the impact of hormones on sperm / egg quality or pregnancy known?

Is it ethical to not be entirely honest with a child about where they come from?

Is it ethical to alter official documentation so that an individual is not made uncomfortable?

Is it ethical to legislate for a state-mandated belief system?

So many interesting questions here, if only academics were allowed to get their teeth into things.

Not RTFT but who enforces GRCs? A person has to state that they intend to live "as the opposite sex" for the rest of their life. If a person lied about this (in whichever way) then surely the certificate should be revoked. Is there even any mechanism to do this? If not, the supposedly legally-binding pledge is meaningless. Its like scrapping perjury laws and expecting people to still be honest in court.

Also there doesn't seem to be any legal way to stop someone from getting a GRC every few years, I made a few facetious posts about this previously. However with a doctor on side it would be unlikely the applicant would be refused a GRC back to birth sex, or even a third GRC if that person decided to retransition after detransition.
After all, the main metric is how sad a face one can pull, and changing the name on your gas bills.

Surely these points make the GRA unfit as a law? Aside from the fact same-sex marriage is now legally permitted.

@Cailin66

How would one get to Sweden from England to give birth. It would be pretty difficult as you can't fly at the later end of pregnancy. I suppose if you were having a c-section you could time the dates somewhat unless the baby comes early. Sounds crazy to me as you'd be putting both mother and child at risk. Presumably health tourism has a cost to it too.

I think this would be quite straightforward actually. But surely birth certificates for British citizens registered abroad are occasionally wrong? If a British citizen was born somewhere where no birth certificate was issued, or it was lost, or the parents couldn't be bothered to get a notarised translation done, surely they'd just register the child at the embassy? What I'm saying is, a Swedish birth certificate doesn't mean anything in the UK surely? The child isn't Swedish, he or she was just born there.

I'm not sure how this seemingly clever loophole will result in a forced change to British law.
I seem to remember Afghanistan only just recently (pre the return of the taliban) put mothers' names on birth certificates. However an expat child born there with only a registered father would not be legally motherless in the UK.
I think we need some embassy staff to clarify this. It must happen all the time. There are still handwritten passports being issued in some places, there must be a workaround for missing or incorrect birth certificates for British kids born abroad.

www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25U2NE
Afghan mothers on birth certs

I mean, beyond a certain stage of pregnancy most airlines won't allow you to fly, so there is that small issue. In response to:

'Lol how on earth do they think authorities would prevent that? Turn you back at the border if you're too pregnant? Shove the baby back in and deport you?'

It's normally up to 36 weeks so it really isn't much of a barrier.

Also it shows their naivety, people do get turned around at the border all the time.

Hm. Maybe it depends. I had a bit of a moment at about 28 weeks as the airline was wavering.

This is from BA, other airlines may vary:

Travelling when you're pregnant
For your and your baby’s safety you cannot fly after:

the end of the 36th week if you are pregnant with one baby
the end of the 32nd week if you are pregnant with more than one baby
We recommend you carry a letter or statement from your Doctor or Midwife confirming:

Whether your pregnancy is single or multiple
Your expected due date
There are no complications with your pregnancy
The letter should be dated as close to your travel date as possible and covers you for your entire journey (outbound and return) provided you do not require any medical care during your trip.

It is not necessary to complete our medical form

Given that some pregnant women aren't vaccinated, either, I do wonder about how likely an airline is to carry them/countries admit them. Although they may have just changed the rules on vaxxing and/or entry requirements, I can't keep track.