Trans man denied Gender Recognition Certificate over attempt to conceive

[IwantToRetire]

A trans man has been denied legal recognition of his gender by the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) after it ruled that his attempt to conceive a child meant he was not “living as a man”. The decision has sparked outrage among human rights advocates and legal experts, who argue it breaches both domestic and international human rights law.

Article continues at https://www.scenemag.co.uk/trans-man-denied-gender-recognition-certificate-over-attempt-to-conceive/

This will always be the difference between male and female transitioners.

Gamete storage is used in 'trans health' because in theory the gametes can be used in IVF or surrogacy. So the transitioner can be a genetic parent, but not identified as the mother or father.

Sperm storage is no big deal, only a financial commitment. Egg storage is not so easy.

So it isnt fair that a man can 'transition', have surgery or take drugs and know he can be a genetic parent. For a woman, its not as clear cut.

But it all stems from transition being setup for men, not women.

Does 'living as a man' have any meaning at all?

The whole thing is rapidly disintegrating, and it's because it's been proven that the facilities and kind indulgences provided have just been exploited and pushed and manipulated to the point of ridicule.

The whole thing needs to stop now. The GRA, all of it. It's been destruction tested.

The law has to take a logical position. That's what the law does.

It doesn't makes much practical diffference to the parent or child if the transman has a GRC or not. Even with a GRC a transman who gives biirth will still be recorded as "mother" on the baby's birth certificate, as per Freddy McConnell's case in 2019
https://www.ngalaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/transgender-parents-conceiving-children/

No-one is prevented from having children, they just can't get a GRC until they've finished. It's a lot of fuss about a piece of paper that (as we now know, post FWS) makes almost no practical difference.

This case isn't a GC case, it was brought by Good Law Project with (I presume) the intention of creating a big fuss and oh-poor-us and campaigning to change the law.

Is this another case Jo Mo has lost? 😂

I think it's a leap to say most women "love the idea of being pregnant." I think many women want children and accept the reality of how that works. Feelings about being pregnant can be complicated and changing even for women who are happy that they are pregnant.

The 'oh poor us' is becoming increasingly obviously a response to not being unconditionally indulged in the current cry for the moon.

I found my first pregnancy quite creepy to be honest especially the first movements that felt more slithery than kicking turns out my placenta was at the front and no-one told me until I looked at my notes later

"Breaat feeding trans men" have the equipment for the job and need the protection. But "breast feeding trans women" might think twice about asking loudly for "protection" because that raises interesting questions about exactly what their version of "breast feeding" involves and what are their motives.

Hang on I've just read the article. It says:

The legal team representing the claimant includes barrister Gayatri Sarathy of Blackstone Chambers, who appeared before the High Court earlier this week. The outcome of the case is expected to be published in due course, with the judgment anonymised to protect the individual’s identity.

So it's not over yet?

What a sensible decision.

This transman reminds me of a pregnant woman on the net many years ago saying she she wanted an "unassisted" birth. She didn't have a partner and was terrified of interventions so she wanted to give birth all alone, despite all the dangers to herself and the baby. (Might have been here, might been one of the Usenet groups, I forget which) Anyway, she was eventually convinced to have a midwife present but she still called it an "unassisted" birth. That's how she talked herself into it, the idea of it being "unassisted" was comforting to her.

And if anyone had tried to tell her "that's not an unassisted birth" she might have changed her mind and decided to go it alone. No-one was going to argue with her about words as long as she and the baby were physically safe.

Some people cling to words and pieces of paper like totems, even when they've taken all the meaning out.

If you listen to TiMs it means wearing make up, high heels, dresses/skirts (either something your granny would’ve thought chic in the 70s or something even a sex worker would think was trashy) painting your nails, having long hair and flouncing. Almost like a drag artist.

"Parenthood should never be used as a litmus test for gender identity.”

And why not?

Here is the ASLEF submission. There are others like this too. Scroll down to 2.3 https://aslef.org.uk/publications/aslef-response-ehrc-code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

The three words that should prepare every TRA for failure.

GOOD LAW PROJECT

I like to see that any tw who is planning on trying to impregnate some poor woman with low standards is also ineligible for a GRC. That would be the law fairly and consistently applied.

Well, it would immediately close the Darlington nurses case - "Rose" was apparently quite vocal in his aim to conceive with his partner.

This 💯

Well those men shouldn't be designated women, obviously (and nor should any men IMO). The Scottish Government disagreed of course, and were planning to allow male sex offenders to ID as women.

Some posters seem pleased and think that this is a win. To me this is the same sexist shit all wrapped up in a new package.

Women can ‘transition’ but no, not really if that means you claim first born male peerage rights.

Women can ‘transition’ but no, not if you plan on having children naturally. But men can.

It’s just continued absurdity tbh and I am tired and grumpy 🫠

But the GRC means nothing. GRC or not "Rose" shouldn't be allowed into women's single sex spaces.

It's interesting how pronouns that others use seems to be the most integral aspect to ones personal gender identity. As opposed to the rejection of literally the defining aspect of being a woman.

None.

How can you be sure of that?

This highlights how far from any logical definition of man and woman the trans movement has taken us. On the face of it of course a woman trying to have a baby isn't 'living as a man' but when you strip the word man away from the lived reality of having a cock and balls (and not a uterus) the whole idea of living as a man becomes incoherent. We need to revert in law and culture to biological definitions of man and woman as per sex and if government insists on allowing people to apply for a GRC they have to apply the actual definitions of man and woman. In my view that should include genital surgery 🤷🏼‍♀️ it would certainly stop the chancers from applying if they knew they had to cut their cocks off to get one.