Trans Widows are the only mothers of our children.

[TinselAngel]

I don't want this claim by @bathhy to get lost in a thread that will no doubt go along the usual lines.

"As a trans woman mother who uses Mumsnet, I would never recommend coming here."

Trans women can never be the mother of any child. We women, the trans widows who are usually your exes, who give birth to those children are their mother and always will be.

If you adopt a child, you can be the child's parent, but as a male you are not the child's mother.

Trans widows say no to having our status and legal responsibility as mother taken from us.

Women here must not allow forced teaming from men who wish to appropriate our status as the mothers of our children.

Every woman here should consider how they would feel if the father of their child after having taken so much from them already, then demanded to be called "Mum."

That's astonishing.

Section 12 doesn't specify children's birth certificates it just says 'parenthood' and 'status as either father or mother of a child'. I would have thought this applied to adoption records as well as birth records.

I can't think of a good reason for adopted children to have fewer rights than birth children.

So no need to disclose that you were born male to a panel matching you with a child that could be the survivor of abuse or that has trust issue that that you are going to lie to indefinitely? You don't have a be hiding a big bad secret (other than the secret of your birth sex) in order to potentially do enormous harm to a vulnerable child.

Yeah wrong type of 'most vulnerable' aren't they?

I doubt they need to disclose it, realistically I expect it's fairly obvious what sex they are face to face. But the adoption panel would probably not be allowed to recognise the sex of the applicant.

But if the prospective adopter has a GRC then nobody involved in the adoption process would be allowed to say so, even to their colleagues.

Section 22 is extremely restrictive.

YY, LangClegsInSpace

Yes, too 'boring' probably.

Surely a GRC doesn’t erase the requirement to disclose any previous names though! That seems a huge failing in the system if so.

Yes boring vulnerable children fall pretty low on society’s list of most needing of protection at the minute, especially when the desires of adults to be indulged is a factor.

Yes, it creates massive safeguarding loopholes.

kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

@Bathhy just to clarify, your child is unaware of your history? Social workers involved would only be aware to the extent that their perceptions of you may not have matched your paperwork?

How do you anticipate that playing out with your child? Are you doing the rainbow family stuff, so your DC grows up knowing that people change gender, and so won't be particularly surprised to learn that you have?

I'm just a bit bewildered about how one approaches such a situation with a child with a trauma history.

It's not a criticism. I'm genuinely interested in the underlying contradictions of the situation.
I don't believe -like most women here- that trans people can't be good people.
Unfortunately the ones that spend most time shouting at us would not make good parents. That doesn't mean you aren't. Just that you are unusual, in the experience of this board.

Even Bruce Jenner didn't attempt to do this. He respected his kids call him dad even post transition.

I had a quick look and couldn’t see anything in particular that states you are exempt from providing previous names if you are in receipt of a GRC, do you know if this is the case? If so for many reasons it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Aside from this issue @Bathhy did you not have to undergo health and psychiatric evaluations as part of the adoption process? Surely on receipt and review of your medical records, required to complete an evaluation, a psychiatrist would be obliged to note you were born male and presumably have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? Surely there would also be an onus on you to declare that in any evaluation by a psychiatrist as it is relevant to your health?

It's not about thinking trans women can't be good people - it's the opposite. By giving a loophole to make them immune from basic safeguarding we are being asked to believe trans women can't ever be bad people or that bad people won't ever exploit that loophole (even if the threshold for qualifying for that loophole is reduced to changing your gas bill to a female name for a couple of months). It's a huge misrepresentation to claim GC people think all trans people are monsters.

If that's the case for GRC why are the authorities ignoring other forms of name changing? If we've got the technology we should be using it!

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shut-loophole-that-allows-sex-offenders-to-change-their-names-gg5035zs9

No. We are merely laying down boundaries.

No respectable male would cross this boundary. No male can be a ‘mother’. No matter how much they wish to be.

Tinsel is simply posting a reminder.

That's sickening. The poor, poor mother.

I don't believe -like most women here- that trans people can't be good people.

Oh for goodness sake, very few women don't think that trans people can be good people we just don't think that ALL trans people are good people and that Sex matters when it comes to the protection of women's safe spaces and we have concerns about the impact of the genderists on children.

Sorry Otters. I see that can be read both ways. It was supposed to say that I agree with you. Women here don't demonise trans people. They point out safeguarding loopholes that monsters can take advantage of, and refuse to look away from appalling behaviour, just because the offender is trans.

So hold on, I’m confused, I thought mothers had to be referred to as ‘birthing parents’ now? So in that case, as no transwoman can ever give birth, they cannot be a mother. And in the case of an adopted child, surely this would mean the child only has two ‘non birthing parents’. Or is it only women that are not allowed to call ourselves mothers now?

Yep, and @lifeturnsonadime . I worded it poorly. It can be read both ways.

Sorry think I have also misinterpreted your post!

@Eyerollcentral - the idiocy of the current system is thwr it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to disclose their former identities or indeed the sex recorded on their birth certificate they were given at birth.

It is an abuser's charter (and I'm just making it abundantly clear here that I'm not accusing anyone of that).

Sorry Walnuts I see what you meant but it didn't read that way to me on my first reading.

That is terrifying and at the same time pathetically negligent. But adoption goes beyond just a DBS. @bathy or any other adoptive parents must be able to tell us if they were required to provide any previous names at any stage of the process. Surely an application to become an adoptive parent requires a declaration that the information provided is true, which would be false if a trans person did not include their birth name along with any others when asked for previous names?