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/

I assume that poster means none because no man can conceive a child. Do you mean fathering children?

Yes, I did mean that men cannot get pregnant.

I'd assumed the original poster was using it to mean fathering a child.

It isn't being applauded.

Arguably the decision is somewhat sexist. But it also shows the sexism at the heart of gender identity too.

The OP was saying that transmen (i.e. women) who are trying to get pregnant can't get a GRC.

After all, they're doing the most female thing of all.

Likewise transwomen (i.e. men) cannot possible conceive.

Yeah it does. The whole thing is so fucking sexist. Sick of it.

TheNightingalesStarling · Today 17:47
O wonder how many Trans women are happily conceiving children while officially being seen as women without any of this scrutiny?

This was the poster being responded to not the OP. It questions whether men who get a GRC are being scrutinised about whether they are fathering children in the same way as women who want a GRC

This is a very good example, and yes, sometimes that fiction is needed for an extremely vulnerable person in the moment for their safety and the safety of others. If someone on a rooftop threatening to jump requires you to pretend they're Napoleon and it's Christmas, you're probably going to play along with them until you've got them back off that ledge. It is however going to have to be regarded as severe mental health issues, and this enablement in this situation was because of the safety of the child and the mother being threatened by the mother's inability to cope with reality.

This must have involved serious concerns about that adult's capacity to parent and the safeguarding risks to the child if the parent's mental health needs were such that they had demonstrated to what extent they were unable to put the child's safety and best interests above their own feelings. The basic requirement of parenting is the capacity to put the best interests of the child before your own. <Article about how this is heteronormative white Colonialist Trumpian white right wing evil and everyone should abandon child safeguarding landing in 3....2....1....>

The problem comes when the fiction extends to pretending that this illness is a normal, every day thing to be indulged in and celebrated, and everybody can do it.

From JoMo on X today:
The Gender Recognition Panel refused a GRC to a young trans man - because he wanted a child. With your help, we acted for him and paid for Counsel in his appeal hearing that concluded today.

So I think GLP have appealed with 'outcome to be published in due course'.

Transwomen cannot conceive.
Conception is an innately female thing.

Given that the image of the 'pregnant transman' is the one that somehow represents diversity and inclusion, its kind of ironic to have a woman denied a GRC on the basis of wanting to do that.

Conception also refers to the act of sperm meeting an egg... it needs both a male and female participant.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to the transwoman doing male act of sperms ejaculated, but evidently not.

Its another double standard... it seems that Trans men cannot identify put of misogyny.

Conception also refers to the act of sperm meeting an egg... it needs both a male and female participant.

That's fertilisation.

We dont know what happened. Perhaps the applicant had sought fertility treatment to try to get pregnant ie there was a trail that showed the trying to get pregnant. Maybe a trans woman seeking fertility treatment would be treated the same. Of course not everyone trying to have a baby would go looking for treatment - there would be no trail.

App doesn't support gifs so:
Oh Dear. How sad. Never mind.

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

I see that written down and it looks as if it should make sense but really - what does that actually mean? Why shouldn't it be used as a litmus test? Parenthood is not generic, it's either motherhood or fatherhood not both. While you're actually making the baby motherhood and fatherhood are not optional identities that you get to pick and choose.

For heavens sake.

The decision isn't being applauded because it is sexist.

It is because those of us who believe that you cant change sex, despite what the GRA says, have seen a decision that challenges the misinformation of Stonewall etc., that you can "identify" into a gender.

The fact that an application has been turned down is basically saying this person does NOT have gender dysphoria which is what a GRA is about. Not that you change sex, but those with a medical condition are given the medical solution of appearing and feeling they are the opposite "sex".

So this is an example of the law acting correctly and not taking direction from Stonewall.

It has FA to do with sexism.

It is about sex based rights.

It is about some part of the establishment not being Stonewalled.

Even though I believe the GRA should be annulled, whilst it exists we cannot, not can those who implement the law allow those with a totally different agenda try and expand the basis on with a GRC is granted.

There is no "sexism" because such a decision should be applied equally to people of either sex saying they want a GRC, so whether it is a woman saying she "identifies" as a man but wants to get pregnant, or a man saying he "identifies" as a woman but continure to have PIV sex.

That is what the article is about.

The Board or whoever, not letting the wool be pulled over their eyes, or not letting the potential wrath of Stonewall etc., cower them into colluding with self identity.

It is an incredibly important decision in terms of the "mission" creep that has been going on for years, or is it now decades.

Look I am just being a cynical old dinosaur.

When men are being denied GRC for using their peni to have sex then I will also join in applause. And eat my old dinosaur hat.

But it’s not going to happen.

Are there provisions in the GRA for certificates to be disallowed, for any reason?

That is interesting. There was a case - Australian I think- that determined 2 trans men could be granted male status despite not having bottom surgery which they didn't want to have given the risks of the surgery and having already gone through top surgery with all it's pain and difficulties. The concern was that they might still conceive a child, however the doctors assured the judge that there was no way they would come off testosterone and it was very very unlikely they would ever get pregnant. So the thinking, even in allowing legal change of sex without surgery was still that 'living as a man' could not / should not involve pregnancy. All the cases I have read were based on this idea that one could change one's body to a sufficient extent that a legal marker (M, F, or in Australia X) should follow to align with the bodily changes. Which is interesting considering the case law was progressing down this medicalised path, while the social messaging /policy /legislation was moving down the identity path.

I agree with this. Carrying a child is the most female sexed activity you could possibly do. If you want to get pregnant and deliver a child, you are not living as a man, as this is not something that men do. It sounds like pure common sense

Indeed. I am a woman and have no desire to be a man or change sex but I have chosen not to have children for precisely this reason: I simply do not want to be pregnant. It’s a repellant notion to me. So it seems odd for someone who doesn’t see themselves as a woman to want to do this.

Good. I look forward to them taking Freddy McConnell’s GRC away too, given she said she was going to “live as a man” then got pregnant a few weeks later. Should be rescinded by the same logic.

The problem is that the law doesn't define what "living as a man" looks like.

The reason for this is that if it did, it would have to do so in one of 4 possible ways:

• being horrifically sexist by enacting and confirming disgusting sex stereotypes as if they were fact
• being so broad in scope that any vaguely liberated woman who doesn't obsessively perform femininity but just gets on with her life assuming that feminism means she's a free agent would qualify as "a man"
• being so facile that simply asking people to refer to you as "he/him" with no other changes would qualify
• being dangerously legalistic about mandating medical and surgical treatments that are known to be damaging and life-limiting with such shocking side-effects and common complications that even someone with severe dysphoria might have a lot of doubts of whether it's the right move for them

So obviously none of these are acceptable. The whole charade is built on foundations of nothing.

I don’t disagree at all with the new decision, it has logic. But it seems arbitrary to gatekeep GRC status at the outset but then not to retrospectively do so. As with Freddy McConnell.

Then you’d get into ‘what degree of ‘living as’ a woman/man is unacceptable after GRC, and then the whole process becomes ridiculous. Legal processes that are ridiculous shouldn’t be kept on the books.

GRA is too sexist and too poorly thought through and too badly drafted to justify keeping it. Repeal is the best option and then letting everyone rely equally on the Equality Act. But sadly I’d expect the more likely outcome is this decision to refuse GRC will be overturned.