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 don't think this individual will have any trouble getting to Sweden or giving birth in Sweden. Presumably the hospital will have to be paid for, as travel insurance wouldn't cover it and the individual hasn't paid into any Swedish system.

I just don't think the "gotcha" birth certificate will mean anything back in the UK though. As I was saying above, British children are born abroad all the time and embassies must have to deal with paperwork issues all the time. You can't force the UK to reissue a Swedish birth cert with the mother as the father.

We were discussing self-id in Scotland, and how (possibly), there would be no compulsion for Devon or Cheshire or wherever to reissue a birth cert with a shiny new gender on it if the person self-id'd in Scotland but was born in England.

As far as I know getting married in Spain as a same sex couple never translated into a same sex marriage in the UK, before that law was passed. It was treated as if it were a Civil Partnership. So the gotcha didn't work then, why would it work now?

Nothing about McConnell's legal obligations to his child would have changed had he been allowed to be listed as the father.

But as others have repeatedly pointed out, @BlueberryCheezecake, the birth certificate is the child’s - not a document owned by the parent, or to be used as a tool for someone’s personal validation.

McConnell should be seeking personal validation from something that T least belongs to him, not using a child’s birth certificate to do so.

@ArabellaScott

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.

An airline is legally responsible to make sure the people it flies to a destination have the right to enter that destination. There's a fine if that isn't the case. That means you have to meet the requirements of the destination to be flown there, such as vaccination, visa, a certain length passport validity, etc. Most of this is done via the online booking system and APIS. Uploading certificates etc. Sometimes a manual document check at the airport. The amount the airline is fined depends on the country, and they also have to fly you back from wherever you came from. It really isn't in an airline's interests to be lenient on any of this. But regulations are less strict than a year ago. I don't think getting into Sweden will be a problem.

@foxgoosefinch

Nothing about McConnell's legal obligations to his child would have changed had he been allowed to be listed as the father.

But as others have repeatedly pointed out, @BlueberryCheezecake, the birth certificate is the child’s - not a document owned by the parent, or to be used as a tool for someone’s personal validation.

McConnell should be seeking personal validation from something that T least belongs to him, not using a child’s birth certificate to do so.

Imagine a child is born to a surrogate who is not genetically related to it. There are three fathers due to be on the birth certificate, all in the same polycule.

Maybe one of them is the biological father, maybe not. The biological mother is not in contact. The surrogate mother doesn't want to be on the birth cert, and since the "new ruling", there doesn't have to be a mother on there.

The polycule splits up, the men are terribly upset with each other, the baby is a miserable reminder of their broken relationship.
The surrogate gives birth alone, and receives her final "expenses" payment. She leaves hospital after two days.
Nobody returns for the baby. Nobody registers it.

How would you determine which man was responsible for this baby? What if they used a sperm donor, as well as an egg donor?

If the surrogate has left the country with her measly payout to return to Moldova or somewhere else where incredibly poor women are used as a natural resource, there is nobody responsible for the baby.

It's like baby in a shoebox stuff but way more complicated and with a much bigger chance of paedophiles taking advantage of the situation. We've already seen a paedophile commission children from a poor woman. He ditched the twin with Down's and was allowed to keep the other twin despite his previous convictions.

Babies must have a mother, a human adult who is responsible for them immediately after birth.

If we start growing babies in artificial wombs the same issue will crop up, and it's why it is a very good thing that the birth mother remains the legal mother in the UK regardless of whose egg it is.

This is the judge's conclusion:

:The principal conclusion at the centre of this extensive judgment can be shortly stated.
It is that there is a material difference between a person’s gender and their status as a parent. Being a ‘mother’, whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person’s gender is ‘male’, their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of ‘mother’.
280. At paragraph 149, I set out my preliminary conclusions with respect to domestic law, these can now be firmly stated as:
a) At common law a person whose egg is inseminated in their womb and
who then becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child is that child’s
‘mother’;
b) The status of being a ‘mother’ arises from the role that a person has
undertaken in the biological process of conception, pregnancy and birth;
c) Being a ‘mother’ or a ‘father’ with respect to the conception, pregnancy
and birth of a child is not necessarily gender specific, although until
recent decades it invariably was so. It is now possible, and recognised
by the law, for a ‘mother’ to have an acquired gender of male, and for a
‘father’ to have an acquired gender of female;
d) GRA 2004, s 12 is both retrospective and prospective. The status of a
person as the father or mother of a child is not affected by the acquisition
of gender under the Act, even where the relevant birth has taken place
after the issue of a GR certificate."

Annoying that he refers to male and female as genders rather than sexes though!

Annoying that he refers to male and female as genders rather than sexes though!

Agreed but otherwise it could not have been clearer. A GRC doesn't apply to parenthood, before or after receiving the certificate, nor before or after getting pregnant and giving birth. Mothers are the ones who give birth (you can call it genderless if you like folx, gender doesn't really come into it, it's a Sex Matters situation.)

Could the European Court get this changed?

Which European Court? The conclusions above are based on UK legislation.

I understand that, without making a reference to get myself or this thread deleted, the case is being escalated.

Ah OK, understood.

He or she will need lots and lots of therapy

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 seem to be using "gender" and "sex" as synonyms here.

5/10 See me after class.

Do they not understand that after a certain point in pregnancy you will be advised against travel? All this for a certificate that is actually for the child, and not to validate you the parent?

Your birth certificate is your record of birth so it’s for the child. You need this document for the rest of your life for documentation. Your parents get the certificate of birth so that you as you grow can access healthcare, schooling get a passport and be able to identify who you are for your life. I don’t understand why a parent needs to be “validated” by being called the opposite sex on a document that their child will need in the future. It’s not even a document for the parent.. in actuality the certificate of birth belongs to the child.

So are we going to now say chidlren don’t have a mother? These are very interesting narcissists. I wonder what the children will say when they become adults.

Birth certificates need to reflect an accurate history.

I’m personally in favor of birth certificates that acknowledge adoption reality, but allow the biological parent names to be redacted if appropriate to the particular situation.

it wouldn’t be unreasonable to have birth certificates that look like
Biological mother . Biological father
Guardian Parent 1 . Guardian Parent 2
And in the spots for parent 1 and parent 2, people could even pick their own identifier from the list because at that point it’s really just an add on to the name anyway. I’m many cases the lines would be redundant, but it would cover complicated families and provide an opportunity for self-expression for certain people.

Such self centred bollix.

That makes sense DriftinBlue

I regret my tetchy information free remark above now, after a couple of really good intelligent comments

Re all the posts about flying when pregnant - you can take the train to Sweden...

It’s not about flying.. it’s about travel in general when heavily pregnant that is advised against. She (he she they them it Zir zi Shem shir 🙄) could go into labour on the train. And the what?

And Swedish people are not amused by things like this.. someone coming to Sweden tk give birth without any sort of contribution so they can use self ID and be listed as father.

It’s all really ridiculous. And you put yourself at risk traveling at the later stage. Has anyone taken a train? Sometimes you have little interchange time. So imagine having to run for a change while 8-9 months pregnant.

This is a terrible idea and just shows the selfishness and navel gazing of this person. Why is this even necessary? You will travel to Sweden to give birth so you can pretend like you didn’t just have the baby come out of your uterus?

I weep for the world.