Legal parenthood, birth registration and the rights of someone with a gender recognition certificate

[IwantToRetire]

FZ v MZ & FZ v Y Council concerned complex questions of legal parenthood, birth registration and the rights of a transgender man (FZ) who held a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

The background was:

1. FZ is a transgender man who obtained a GRC in 2021.
2. FZ married MZ in 2022.
3. FZ and MZ had two children together, both through artificial insemination using a known donor, but not through a licensed UK fertility clinic.
4. The first child, DZ, was conceived before the marriage.
5. The second child, AZ, was conceived after the marriage.
FZ and MZ registered DZ’s birth at the registry office, relying on FZ’s GRC to register him as the father. However, this was legally incorrect as DZ’s conception occurred outside of a licensed fertility clinic, and MZ and FZ were not married at the time.

The original birth certificate was quashed and FZ was granted a step-parent adoption order, establishing him as DZ’s legal parent. The matter of AZ, however, was more complex, principally due to how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) interact.

Article coninues at https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/modern-parents-who-fall-between-the-legal-gaps/5125741.article

"in which TT (a transgender male) gave birth to a child using intrauterine insemination with his own eggs. TT held a GRC and wished to be registered as the child’s father on the birth certificate. When refused, he asked the court to consider if his or his child’s Article 8 rights had been breached. The court held that TT was correctly registered as the child’s mother."

"Therefore, the term ‘mother’ is separate from legal gender, meaning in law there can be male mothers and female fathers."

I mean. FFS. What a tangled web we weave....

I must admit I nearly thought I would have the OP with just that, but thought all the other mental gymnastics that these cases illustrate should also be looked at.

But SC ruling says that legally a TiF remains female despite legal sex and a TiM remains male ditto. So we have female male mothers and male female mothers. You could not make it up.

Mothers have legal responsibility from birth. Its not just parentage title, its something all children need.

These people are trying to normalise the idea of motherless children.

“The court held that TT was correctly registered as the child’s mother."

So there’s been no change?

If a woman gives birth, she is the Mother. Regardless of a legal certificate claiming she is legally a man.

Yes but .......... we are supposed to all have been transed, and should re-act with shock that boring old reality such as biological sex is being imposed on these oh so brave pioneers.

Not only should we all be kind as individuals but so should the law.

Although of course what it is all about is not which is what any of them could do, ie lead a life of gender non conforming (previously called "gender bending") but insisting that the world take's on their reality, and we must constantly affirming and accept their reality.

More and more this is what it seems to be about.

Making other conform and affirm their world view.

in which TT (a transgender male) gave birth to a child using intrauterine insemination with his own eggs

Aside from the nonsense use is ‘his’ for something that is by definition female, IUI only ever uses the mother’s eggs. There may be some stimulation of egg production but it is never removed from the body - the mother ovulates and the treated sperm are injected into the uterus.

Very interesting. If I recall correctly correctly in TT v Registrar General of England and Wales and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and others the judgment was clear a birth certificate belongs to the child and they have a right to know who their “mother” is. “Mother” being the person who carried them.

Yes. The determination to use children to "validate" a parent's personal confusions / beliefs must be stopped. Parents are meant to safeguard their children and if they're incapable of prioritising their child's needs then society needs to intervene. There must be an argument that weaponising a child's birth certificate and "roots" in this way for your own personal gain, could be defined as a form of psychological / emotional abuse?

I agree with all this, with the additional observation that registration certificates must surely also be about security, knowing who people are and whether or not they are who they say they are.

Yes the Uk judge in the Freddie Mcconnell case (the Uk mother who demanded to be listed as her babies' father, and lost) noted its a form of emotional abuse of childre n.
The Children of Transitioners group have written about it on their website childrenoftransitions.org/
I dont have access to the rest of internet at present but if anyone else can I think the 2 relevant articles are called 'paperwork' and ' 'six children' if anyone can add links...

Yet again reminded why this whole thing is so ridiculous and thats before I even consider the scenario you state and the question you ask

Transgender man - is XY ie identifying as a woman
Transman is XX

And then your talking about insemination so are we talking about a woman and its not a transgender man?!

If people are hell bent on pushing this through in all areas of life then can we please at least agree a coherent definition and language so that people can understand wtf is going on!

Tras use words flexibly to mean wharever they want. You have to claRify, every time...

one link:
childrenoftransitioners.org/paperwork/

The other link
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/six-children/

@Parentingconfusing So a transman is a woman.A transgender man is used by some to mean a man, and by others to mean a woman.

Since when have we listened to TRAs.

Society, law, us, whoever - has to figure out a coherent set of language we all agree on and stick to it.

Transman vs trans man was very much agreed for the entirety I have been watching this ridiculous drama (TRAs massively offended by the space/ non space btw - but they are bloody offended by everything and what else can we do!)

Honestly one would think they just want us all arguing round in circles about completely stupid stuff we all have already agreed on. Potentially so they can continue to funnel more of our money, or remove more of our rights, or build a fascist uprising, or snatch people of the streets, or distract from the fact they have all been trafficking woman and potentially raping children and any other ridiculous degradation of society which has occurred over the last 10 years.

Its already agreed that a child must have a mother on the birth certificate! It is the child’s right nothing to do with the parent.

Honestly I am losing much patience now. I think we just have to treat this like dealing with a child who is capable but acting way younger than their age…

What do you mean? This or this.
Right well the correct term is x
Issue - no, thats not about you. Other people have rights too.
Ok, let’s move on.

Look theres mandelson being a nonce and America turning fascist and putin trying to invade Europe. Adults are concentrating on things. You will have to entertain yourself for a while.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/

Link above to language confusion - I use sex based words in accordance with usual English, but clarify what others mean if its anything to do with trans...

"trans" = "not"

"transman" = "not man"
"transwoman" = "not woman"

then its easy to remember

I think this issue is going to persist as the 2015 group of trans identifying girls are growing up. Some are going to want to keep their gender identity but have children. And actually giving birth themselves will be very common.

So its back to having to spell out that balancing of rights isnt applicable in every situation.

If they have been given PBs or Testosterone or had mastectomies
their medical bills and complications will cost £££££££

Woah that’s changed! 2023! Surprised about that and maya forsterer supported that.

So now there’s no difference between trans woman and transwoman.

So saying a trans male now actually means a female. So we can’t clearly identify male rapists whilst referring the gender element.

Wow yeah really suprised they let the ball drop on that. We had that all ironed out nearly a decade ago. Wonder when that happened?!

The Gender Recognition Act seems to be worded in such a way that they weren't expecting people to become parents after they transitioned;
(emphasis mine)

12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/12

And the Human Fertilisation Act states clearly that women donate or receive the egg, and men donate the sperm;

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/3

Exactly, and a very long process. Plenty of time to be told and understand consequences.

If people get transgender treatment on the nhs including egg storage, obtain a GRC, and then help to become pregnant, i can see why they are confused about being refered to as a mother on their child bc. But it could easily be avoided by either stopping the pretense, or if not, explaining clearly what the consequences are of each stage.

Give birth, you will be recorded as the mother on the birth certificate. The baby needs this.

Parenthood lacuna revealed as trans man required to adopt own children

Although it is a decision from an English court, FZ v MZ & FZ v Y Council [2025] EWHC 3338 (Fam) is not an abstract English anomaly. It is a warning shot as to how transgender parenthood may be treated in Scotland if similar facts arise, given the legislative framework considered by the court – principally the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – applies both north and south of the border.

Full article in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal-hub/articles/parenthood-lacuna-revealed-as-trans-man-required-to-adopt-own-children/

Best sentence in that article has to be “FZ argued that Section 12 GRA 2004 should not be read so as to exclude him from statutory parenthood where biological reality was not in issue”
says it all really. Who needs reality