Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate

58 replies

IwantToRetire · 22/12/2025 18:45

A High Court judgment confirming that a transgender man cannot be registered as the father on the birth certificate of his children highlights the difficulties faced by transgender parents, and the implications of marriage within the statutory framework governing legal parenthood.

In the judgment handed down last week following a hearing in July, Mrs Justice Lieven set out the facts relating to FZ and MZ, the parents of two children, DZ and AZ. FZ is a transgender man with a full Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), and MZ is his wife. The couple married in 2022 and conceived the children using artificial insemination from a known donor, although “outside of a licensed clinic for the purposes of the HFEA 2008”.

The parents sought declarations of parentage for both children, alongside child arrangements and related orders. However, the court heard there was a crucial difference between the circumstances of the two children’s births, with DZ born before the marriage and AZ after.
The central question for the court was whether FZ, under domestic law, could be named as the father of the children.

Article continues at https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/high-court-rules-transgender-father-cannot-be-named-on-birth-certificate/

Suspect there was an earlier thread about this, but no time to search.

High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate - Today's Family Lawyer

High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate: A High Court judgment confirming that a transgender man cannot be registered as the father on the birth certificate of his children highlights the

https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/high-court-rules-transgender-father-cannot-be-named-on-birth-certificate/

OP posts:
drspouse · 22/12/2025 21:45

So let me get this straight.
Mary and Emma, who are married, decide to co parent with Mike and Eddy.
Mary gets pregnant at home with sperm from Mike.
Mary can register the baby as hers as Emma's?
Or she can't because even though she's married to Emma, Emma isn't the baby's father which is pretty obvs given Emma is female?

the7Vabo · 22/12/2025 22:01

soupycustard · 22/12/2025 21:16

God this is all such utter navel-gazing stupidity. All these narcissists should maybe have a think about all the millions in the world who live in abject poverty, and dictatorships and warzones, get their heads out of their backsides and start doing something useful with their lives.

I despair when I see some of these conversations. We used to teach children that there was value in contribution, now do we teach them the value is in what they choose to identify as?

Daytimetellyqueen · 22/12/2025 22:21

PegDope · 22/12/2025 18:51

Rightly so.

The birth certificate is not the place to act out your ego identity. It’s a document belonging to the child who has the right to know their biological identity.

This! Thank fuck for some sort of common sense!

EyesOpening · 22/12/2025 22:46

PegDope · 22/12/2025 18:51

Rightly so.

The birth certificate is not the place to act out your ego identity. It’s a document belonging to the child who has the right to know their biological identity.

What happens with a child born using someone else's eggs and an unknown sperm donor?

crumplestiltskina · 22/12/2025 23:01

drspouse · 22/12/2025 21:45

So let me get this straight.
Mary and Emma, who are married, decide to co parent with Mike and Eddy.
Mary gets pregnant at home with sperm from Mike.
Mary can register the baby as hers as Emma's?
Or she can't because even though she's married to Emma, Emma isn't the baby's father which is pretty obvs given Emma is female?

Nope. Mary gave birth so she’s always registered as the mother.

either of the men could accompany her to the registry office and declare themselves the father (one would be telling the truth the other would’ve lying, she could also convince a passer by to do it, but they’d be lying). If, and only if, they’d gone through a licensed clinic, Emma could register as ‘parent’ but not father (this is the clue if reading a birth certificate)

Shelby2010 · 22/12/2025 23:15

NotNatacha · 22/12/2025 21:41

This has started me wondering about birth certificates for children born to married gay or lesbian couples. I’ve been reading some articles an internet search produced, in hopes that they might be easier to understand - whilst appreciating that they might be less accurate.

@Shelby2010 wrote: If a lesbian couple have licensed treatment with donor sperm and they are married, then they will both be legal parents. The term ‘mother’ is only used for the woman giving birth even if the other parent’s eggs were used (shared motherhood).

So, the person giving birth, who carried the baby, is the ‘mother.’ I assume that’s what appears in the birth certificate. How is the other woman described - ‘parent’?

My understanding is that the second parent is registered as ‘parent’, but I haven’t actually seen such a certificate.

If a heterosexual couple had fertility treatment with donor sperm then the male partner would be registered as the father even tho his sperm wasn’t used. He would be legally the father if they were married or had signed legal parenting forms before treatment if unmarried.

I don’t know if under similar circumstances a trans man would go on as ‘parent’ or ‘father’. In this case being unmarried & using an unregistered donor means they are legally neither.

Slothtoes · 22/12/2025 23:51

NotNatacha · 22/12/2025 21:41

This has started me wondering about birth certificates for children born to married gay or lesbian couples. I’ve been reading some articles an internet search produced, in hopes that they might be easier to understand - whilst appreciating that they might be less accurate.

@Shelby2010 wrote: If a lesbian couple have licensed treatment with donor sperm and they are married, then they will both be legal parents. The term ‘mother’ is only used for the woman giving birth even if the other parent’s eggs were used (shared motherhood).

So, the person giving birth, who carried the baby, is the ‘mother.’ I assume that’s what appears in the birth certificate. How is the other woman described - ‘parent’?

Yes the second woman in the couple is ‘parent’ if they had licensed treatment together, because you can only have one mother on the BC. ‘Mother’ is always the woman who gave birth to the child.

GCme · 23/12/2025 06:26

RoamingToaster · 22/12/2025 19:11

I used to think birth certificates were about your biological parents but they seem to be about the people raising you if in a married couple at time of birth.

This wouldn’t be a story if they were married before the first child was born it seems.

Edited

Yes, this has been quite an eye opener. I think birth certificates should be reformulated so that they include biological info plus space for others with parental responsibility if needed.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 07:59

I’m going to disagree sorry on privacy grounds, BCs get shown to banks, employers, government officials and schools.

They didn’t need to know everyone’s biological business. Married parents, or mother who isn’t married and the man she consents to name on BC, or Morher and second parent (if she’s part of a lesbian couple who used a fertility clinic for a donor) gives a perfectly accepted official story and that’s plenty for outsiders to the child to be getting on with.

Because parenting is an action at the time of birth registration.. that includes where everyone knows the baby will be given up for adoption or in a surrogacy arrangement soon. It’s an official origin story for the rest of the world. Obviously there will often ben an unofficial story too but that’s fine.

I don’t think biological status is good to have on a BC and I think present day arrangements are the most common sense way we can make it for the child.

The BC tells them who was around and involved socially (if not always genetically) at the time of their birth.
Also apparently the non paternity rate is about 10% in the population. It would not be physically or economically safe for women and babies to always be DNA tested and implies a presumption of infidelity way in excess of its likelihood and would cause many more break ups of whole families and disadvantage to pre existing kids, if we all have to DNA tested our babies before registering them and whose biological baby they are.

It would be hugely intrusive to the new baby bubble and alter our parenting lves and our sex lives if we had to live in that mistrustful way to have to dna test at birth registration. It would cause a rise in termination of wanted pregnancies to start with.

having to DNA tested your baby for official purpose and wait for results before you register them and would cause parenting already here babies to become very conditional on genetics. That is not at all good for new babies and new mothers. There would be more violence and more abandonment by men of babies and families. The move to cultural prioritisation of genetics as the main most important thing about a child over and above social parenting and the wishes of the mother, also does nothing to help stepfamilies, families made through adoption, anyone else who’s unrelated but helping to raise a child. It says that kind of parenting is lesser because it is without a genetic connection, which is not helpful to anyone’s

I am absolutely not an advocate of lying to kids about their own stories at all. I would say tell them what you know about their origins as soon as they are able to sit and listen to you tell them a story so they can’t remember ever not knowing how they came about. That goes however they weee made including if that involved aperm and or egg donors, the fertility clinic, or a woman being a surrogate and carrying the pregnancy for you. Later let your kids ask you all about it at any time and always tell them they can always do that. And mean it. That already isn’t done by a lot of families having sperm and egg donation for example because they already fear revealing there isn’t a genetic connection and they also don’t want to talk about infertility and don’t know much about a donor to want to introduce them to a child later down the track. But as a society of adults we should be able to support families in these situations to take the risks and stings out of those conversations so that it’s easier to tell the truth. (I don’t think legally forcing them to tell the truth via genetic BCs is the right way to help though)

The BC is a public document not a sensitive and nuanced family conversation and people reading it don’t need to know all the facts or the name of the sperm donor or surrogate or egg donor. Just birth mother and father or Birth mother and second parent (partner of that woman in lesbian couple) is fine.
Or Birth mother (who is the surrogate mother)
and one of the two dads in a two dad gay couple, or birth mother solo dad on the BC if solo dad family. Leave everything as is for adoption BCs as well.
It’s on balance better for there to be a protective official face around a child’s origin story IMO and it has positive wider social effects that would be dismantled if we began factually geneticising BCs.

(Lying about adults between adults on GRCs and legally restricting who can even ask about the evidence in front of their eyes is a very different matter btw, and should not be allowed, but that’s for a different thread.)

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 08:10

i interpreted ‘biological’ BC info to mean links that are genetic (sperm and egg) and biological (surrogate mothers) there.

The other thing against geneticising parenthood too much is you downgrade some pregnant women if they don’t have genetic links to the child, such that eg surrogate mothers are misogynisticallg regardied like vessels who don’t need full human rights because they are ‘only’ carrying the baby for someone else. Whether it’s their own egg or an embryo with the commissioning mother’s egg being used in their pregnancy. Or women who are pregnant with donor eggs or donated embryos to carry their own pregnancy will be made to feel less of a ‘real’ mother. Neither of those ways of downgrading women are good for them or their babies.

That goes quadruple when people go to a poorer and less regulated country for surrogacy with their IVF embryo but again perhaps that’s for another thread.

DorotheaDiamond · 23/12/2025 08:24

I think birth certificates need 5 pieces of information…2 genetic sources, possibly one “carrying” woman (surrogacy), then 2 people with legal parental responsibility

could be more with legal responsibility if the law changed to allow that! Also could potentially be 3rd genetic source but don’t know if that’s been done in humans yet (replace egg nucleus with other cell nucleus)…mitochondrial dna is retained so 3 genetic sources

then all the biological and social information is captured correctly. Although I do take pp point about down valuing the experience of some women (and I am not a fan of surrogacy )

Seethlaw · 23/12/2025 08:30

RoamingToaster · 22/12/2025 19:11

I used to think birth certificates were about your biological parents but they seem to be about the people raising you if in a married couple at time of birth.

This wouldn’t be a story if they were married before the first child was born it seems.

Edited

I did a bit of genealogy for my family. I don't know how birth certificates were/are written in the UK, but the ones I saw (France and Belgium, mostly) were usually written as:

X (a man) declares that Y, his wife, has given birth to a son/daughter.

X was automatically designated as the father of the child, because he was the mother's husband.

So much so, in fact, that until 2005 in France, a widow could not remarry for 300 days after the death of her husband, unless she gave birth (in which case the father was legally assumed to be her dead husband) or she gave a medical certificate stating that she wasn't pregnant.

If a woman was unmarried at the time she gave birth, literally any man could claim fatherhood of the child. I have some cases in my genealogy where it's reasonable to think that the man was indeed the father's child (when he claimed fatherhood within a couple of months, for example), and others where it's most likely he wasn't.

Even nowadays, I know of a living family where everyone knows that the later kids are not the husband's children, but he's still the one listed as their father on their birth certificate, because he was the man married to their mother when they were born.

So yeah, it's very much about who is married to whom, not who is actually the father of the child.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 08:50

DorotheaDiamond More than two legal parents would be a nightmare logistically so no thanks

You’re over geneticising. Not all genetics is valuable to origin story or personal identity just because it’s genetic. DNA is everywhere all the time!

Mitocondrual DNA isn’t personalised or recognisable to any one individual like nuclear DNA is. Just goes down a female line. Which is why it’s wrong talk about ‘three parent’ babies. Yes we all need it to function but It’s not personally identifying and honestly it’s as relevant as it would be to talk about all the great significance of the plant or animal DNA we all have digesting in our guts at any one time.

I had a lifesaving blood transfusion. Should I have to go back and change my BC because someone else’s DNA is now in my body?
Ive had previous pregnancies, should I go back and change my BC because those other people’s DNA is in my body?

Full respect to all blood and cell and cell part donors and sperm and egg and embryo donors, they are saving lives and they are creating lives. Just saying that while that’s great, they’re all irrelevant for our BCs

Seethlaw · 23/12/2025 09:12

@Slothtoes

Not all genetics is valuable to origin story or personal identity just because it’s genetic.

Maybe "not all", but a minimum would be nice in my experience.

I have no father. I literally don't know who he was, or anything about him, except which country he was from. This means, for example, that I have zero medical history on his side of my biological family. I don't know what genetic predispositions I may have inherited from him. I don't know if I or my son should be tested for some specific condition. In my case, if I'm lucky, it might turn out that the worst I inherited was some mild form of a blood disease. But it could have been much worse; it could have been something bad, which I might have transmitted to my son without knowing I carried it.

All that said, I'm not for forced disclosure of actual biological ancestry either. Though in this age of modern medicine and DNA tests, I think parents should think twice before not disclosing the biological facts to their children. I follow some Facebook groups where people who have questions about their DNA tests can get advice, and it's a bit too often that someone goes, "How wrong can a DNA test be?? Because I got my results and they don't make any sense" - except they do...

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 09:27

Thank you for posting and I am sorry that you’re in that position. We have similar in my family. I do not at all underestimate how deeply impactful that lack of information about your biological father must be Flowers

I have advocated above for parents telling their kids as early as possible everything that there is to be known about their story including their nuclear genetic story and biological story. I think anonymous sperm and egg donation is unethical (and is not OK to travel broad for either).

I agree with you that forcing these issues through geneticised BCs could cause all kinds of risks to mothers and babies though.

Seethlaw · 23/12/2025 09:38

@Slothtoes

Thank you 💜!

I think anonymous sperm and egg donation is unethical

And with the rise of recreational DNA tests, it's becoming less and less anonymous anyway, so might as well be upfront with it. It would also avoid the situation of the woman in a documentary I watched, who discovered she was part of a very large group of half-siblings, all conceived with the same donor's sperm. Luckily, none of them had ever dated each other so far, but they kept discovering new siblings all the time.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 09:54

I couldn’t agree with you more. Wishing you and your family all the best.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 09:54

Also because some people might not know- there is not any official support for people getting unexpected matches (or unexpected non- matches) through those kits or if they are finding huge numbers of donor siblings.
And there absolutely should be.

It’s similar to the other social media companies being totally socially irresponsible. They should all be specifically taxed to pay for the extra support needs that their platforms are facilitating and creating.

Daytimetellyqueen · 23/12/2025 09:58

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 09:54

Also because some people might not know- there is not any official support for people getting unexpected matches (or unexpected non- matches) through those kits or if they are finding huge numbers of donor siblings.
And there absolutely should be.

It’s similar to the other social media companies being totally socially irresponsible. They should all be specifically taxed to pay for the extra support needs that their platforms are facilitating and creating.

To be fair, it’s the families keeping secrets that are causing the issues, not the social media platforms offering DNA tests.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 10:11

Right and do you think not being told the truth by your family means you’ll get good support from your family when the ongoing deception and reason for the not -truth -telling finally comes out?

Everyone in that family situation has different emotional needs and massive conflicts of interests so yes, outside support is needed

DNA companies reveal the info and there is a new and additional social price to pay for that.

MadameSzyszkoBohusz · 23/12/2025 11:56

And yet I have no parents at all on my marriage certificate, because I don’t know my dad and can’t allowed to put on the name of the woman who raised me alone.

Daytimetellyqueen · 23/12/2025 14:24

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 10:11

Right and do you think not being told the truth by your family means you’ll get good support from your family when the ongoing deception and reason for the not -truth -telling finally comes out?

Everyone in that family situation has different emotional needs and massive conflicts of interests so yes, outside support is needed

DNA companies reveal the info and there is a new and additional social price to pay for that.

I completely disagree that the company has any obligation to support people with what they find out. People are paying for this privilege so need to be able to deal with the outcome. If they’re not emotionally able to deal with it, then that’s on them, not the company.

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 14:47

I’d suggest that maybe you’re lacking a little in empathy or imagination for other people’s situations then.

People join databases with a DNA test kit and hope that they willl find out some interesting family history details or health information. When they get totally different answers to questions that they never wanted to ask this can be absolutely life changing and maybe not for the better.

It might be about their own genetics or it might be about a close family member’s. Either way it’s highly sensitive and if the main protagonists are unknown, don’t want to know or are dead it can be very painful for their descendants.

Daytimetellyqueen · 23/12/2025 15:34

Slothtoes · 23/12/2025 14:47

I’d suggest that maybe you’re lacking a little in empathy or imagination for other people’s situations then.

People join databases with a DNA test kit and hope that they willl find out some interesting family history details or health information. When they get totally different answers to questions that they never wanted to ask this can be absolutely life changing and maybe not for the better.

It might be about their own genetics or it might be about a close family member’s. Either way it’s highly sensitive and if the main protagonists are unknown, don’t want to know or are dead it can be very painful for their descendants.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s still the responsibility of the adults taking the test to deal with the outcome for themselves.

Swipe left for the next trending thread