Transgender man wants to be named as father...

pleas advice

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44400736

A transgender man wants to be listed as his baby's father or parent after being told he had to be named the mother because he gave birth to the child. The High Court was told he was born a woman but had legally become a man by the time of the birth.

He is challenging a law which requires people who give birth to be registered as mothers. If successful, his child could become the first person born in England and Wales to not legally have a mother.

I'm sure theres another thread somewhere around here I could stick this in, but I couldn't find one suitable, and I reckon it deserves its own discussion...

where are the boundaries between sex and gender?

can a man become pregnant / give birth?

does this bring up an awkward question among trans people:
how many trans people actually physically transition?
(how many can afford to? how many actually want to?)

ceadaoin.

You can't change biology. The words "man" and "woman", "father" and "mother" mean something beyond gender identity when it comes to the biological realities of reproduction. This is a female who gave birth to a child. Same as every other person who has ever given birth in the history of human beings. Until the birth certificate changes the definition of mother/father and disregards the identities of 99.9% of females who give birth then they are the mother.

What's the alternative? They would have to be gender neutral. Gestator and impregnator? Birthing person and fertilising person maybe? That could apply to everyone without offense to the tiny minority of trans gender parents I guess.

One eyed Jack

pleas advice wrote: »

where are the boundaries between sex and gender?

Sex relates to biology, gender relates to sociology.

can a man become pregnant / give birth?

No, of course not.

does this bring up an awkward question among trans people:
how many trans people actually physically transition?
(how many can afford to? how many actually want to?)

No idea, but it's fairly contentious anyway among people who identify as transgender that those who have only socially transitioned are derided as "transtrender" because they have decided not to have any medical or cosmetic procedures done to alter their physical appearance. There's also research now which suggests that gender confirmation surgery is ineffective in the long term and that the numbers of people who want to detransition is increasing (although this could be a side effect of the number of people who are transitioning in the first place is increasing).

In the circumstances of the case above, it's a mildly interesting legal test case, not much more to it. It could see legal provisions being introduced for people who are transgender in the future, but there's no precedent in law for it that I can think of currently.

NIMAN

The world's gone mad I tell ye!

This guy(girl) is claiming its infringing his human right, did he ever think about her/his child and how it might be affected in the future.

Its all me, me, me. I hope a sensible judge somewhere tells this guy to catch himself on and that he's the mother whether he likes it or not.

Pac1Man

I feel his pain.

I had a dinosaur Tamagotchi back in the day and irrationally felt that I was his mother.

OldGoat

Just name him on the cert as 'Proto-mother'.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

The Rotunda " a mostly woman's hospital"

TheValeyard

We need to stop giving these people attention. Then maybe they will cop on and act rationally.

Cee-Jay-Cee

What a crock of ****e, I hope its thrown out and full costs awarded against her!

She gave birth to a baby, therefore she had a vagina, therefore she is female therefore she is the mother. End of story, there is no grey area in this.

What she done with her vagina afterwards is irrelevant, she's the child mother. I pity the poor child, she should be concentrating on looking after and rearing her child instead of chasing stupid ridiculous titles in court.

BrokenArrows

jacksie66 wrote: »

There's only 2 genders, male and female. Anyone who thinks there's more is either looking for attention or has serious mental issues..

I believe people should be able to do whatever they want.
They can call themselves a man, woman or a dinosaur for all i care.

But the law should absolutely not be changed to accommodate people like this.

If you are born a Man then you remain a man for the rest of your life in the eyes of the law.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious

They should just change the birth certs to read "Parent 1" and "Parent A".

GLaDOS

[

Bob24

pleas advice wrote: »

“He is challenging a law”

Let me rephrase for the BBC: that person is challenging basic biology.

And it is a lost battle.

TheValeyard

GLaDOS wrote: »

[

Not sure how this is relevant, but still a great clip. Have a thanks on me.

Maxpfizer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They should just change the birth certs to read "Parent 1" and "Parent A".

Maybe "Egg Provider" and "Sperm Provider" or something like that?

I was thinking it's gonna be pretty weird when the parents and teachers of the distant future have to answer the old "where do babies come from"?

So there's a "person with a penis and testicles and a person with a vagina and ovaries" etc and it's only a matter of time before someone starts wondering if there is some shorthand way of describing the 2 different types of Homo Sapiens like some kind of word we could use to describe people who have "Parent 1" type biology and some other word we could use to describe people who have "Parent A" type biology.

Riskymove

The child was "fathered" by this person....that should be that in terms of this particular issue

What the person later did with their lives is their own business but I don't think the matter can be revised retrospectively

HappyAsLarE

If my granny had balls she’d be my granny with balls.

Maxpfizer

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What's the alternative? They would have to be gender neutral. Gestator and impregnator? Birthing person and fertilising person maybe? That could apply to everyone without offense to the tiny minority of trans gender parents I guess.

What's interesting about that is that it feels like the main issue is simply the connotations, or the baggage, that comes with phrases like "Man" and "Woman" etc.

Like if "Mother" simply means the person who gave birth to the child then what would be the issue here?

"I gave birth to the child, yes, but don't call me the child's mother" seems like an objection to the associations that people make with the word "mother".

It kind of is just an argument over definitions.

It's true about "Mother" and "Father" though as the words can have a much deeper and nuanced meaning and you'll here people using "biological mother" etc in situations where extra information is needed.

We'd have to move to a much more rigid and descriptive language were words can only describe things in a very precise way or people will object because the word you used to describe them has other connotations.

Even something like "impregnator" might not necessarily work as it can be seen to have deeper meaning.

The Guardian, June 2068: Why "Impregnator" is an oppressive term with roots in toxic patriarchy.

Mutant z

So let's get this whole thing straight she gives birth to this child as a woman and now she wants to be recognized as the father. She obviously missed biology class at school because she would know that its physically impossible for a father to give birth to a child only a mother does which she is no amount of PC pestering is going to change that biological fact.

seamus

I see what he's trying to do, but there is a nuance here that's being missed - as someone pointed out there will always be a male/female gamete in the fertilization process and there will always be someone who carries the child. That's an unavoidable fact of biology. One can't claim their egg is male because they identify as a man. That's not how it works.

That person is the "mother", which isn't necessarily a gendered term. The problem is more that we use the terms "mother" and "father" across a massive spectrum; they don't necessarily refer to the person who provided sperm, or the person who carried the child. Sometimes "father" is used to refer to someone who's not even a member of the family.

But I think the law needs to be very specific about ensuring that for registration purposes that there is a record kept of who provided which role in the conception of the child. I don't really care whether they use "mother" and "father", but I see no reason why they shouldn't - for the purposes of birth registration these are well understood and well defined terms. The important thing is ensuring that the wording is clear, and we don't have a scenario where the sperm-supplier is registered as the mother, and the womb-lessor is registered as the father.

Outside of the birth certificate if you want to call yourself the child's father, mother, "healing protector" or "spiritual guru", IDGAF.

Mutant z

Its shameful about this blatant attack on scientific reality which is being encouraged a very disturbing trend is being pushed in our direction and it needs to be pushed right back in the opposite direction from which it came biological facts need to prevail against PC sensitivities.

Grayson

Bob24 wrote: »

Let me rephrase for the BBC: that person is challenging basic biology.

And it is a lost battle.

No they're not. they are asking to be identified by a particular gender. Honestly though it the law as it is makes no sense. You can identify as a particular gender and then legally you can be recognised as that gender. However for some reason there are certain times when you have to be recognised as a different gender?

If the law is going to recognise someone as the gender they want, then the law needs to extend that to all aspects of their lives. It's ridiculous to think that someone could get a new driving license with their new gender but then have to be referred to by a different gender when they go to their kids school.

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

What a crock of ****e, I hope its thrown out and full costs awarded against her!

She gave birth to a baby, therefore she had a vagina, therefore she is female therefore she is the mother. End of story, there is no grey area in this.

What she done with her vagina afterwards is irrelevant, she's the child mother. I pity the poor child, she should be concentrating on looking after and rearing her child instead of chasing stupid ridiculous titles in court.

I'd love to be able to determine how good someone is as a parent and how much they love their child the way you can. Do you consult psychics? is it tarot cards? because I can't see any rational way you could say they're not a good parent based on this story.

Captain Obvious

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

What a crock of ****e, I hope its thrown out and full costs awarded against her!

She gave birth to a baby, therefore she had a vagina, therefore she is female therefore she is the mother. End of story, there is no grey area in this.

What she done with her vagina afterwards is irrelevant, she's the child mother. I pity the poor child, she should be concentrating on looking after and rearing her child instead of chasing stupid ridiculous titles in court.

That's pretty needlessly vitriolic. Whatever about the merits, or lack thereof, of the argument, why do you feel the need to so aggressively misgender the person involved?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Maybe "Egg Provider" and "Sperm Provider" or something like that?

Wouldn't really work either. There can be cases where one of those is not considered a parent, such as sperm donations.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Riskymove wrote: »

The child was "fathered" by this person....that should be that in terms of this particular issue

What the person later did with their lives is their own business but I don't think the matter can be revised retrospectively

The person is a woman, she has since become a man.

I think this person gave up any right to challenge the terms used on the birth cert when they got themselves pregnant and gave birth to a child. If it was their intention (and obviously that wasn't an overnight decision) to become a man then they should possibly have avoided getting pregnant.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's pretty needlessly vitriolic. Whatever about the merits, or lack thereof, of the argument, why do you feel the need to so aggressively misgender the person involved?

Because it angers me that our society is starting to become overrun with this type of bull****.

And I haven't mis-gendered anyone, we are talking about a woman who gave birth to a baby. It is not possible for men to give birth, there are no other genders and so the person is a woman and therefore the 'mother'

What that person does with their body afterwards is irrelevant.

somefeen

Dunno about this.
My father is a trans woman. She can have her own birth cert changed but don't think she's at all bothered about being called "father" on my birth cert.
Biologically she is still my father. You can't change that.
I'm all for recognising trans peoples identities but we can't bang the drum of "gender is not the same as sex" without actually allowing for that distinction to be made when necessary.

Captain Obvious

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Because it angers me that our society is starting to become overrun with this type of bull****.

And I haven't mis-gendered anyone, we are talking about a woman who gave birth to a baby. It is not possible for men to give birth, there are no other genders and so the person is a woman and therefore the 'mother'

What that person does with their body afterwards is irrelevant.

Why does it make you so angry? Live and let live. What does it matter to you what a person wants to be called? Why are you so opposed to simply calling someone by the pronoun they prefer?

GreeBo

Grayson wrote: »

No they're not. they are asking to be identified by a particular gender. Honestly though it the law as it is makes no sense. You can identify as a particular gender and then legally you can be recognised as that gender. However for some reason there are certain times when you have to be recognised as a different gender?

Are "mother" and "father" genders these days?
I cant keep up.

mickuhaha

Mother has a legal definition "A woman who has borne a child". An unusual legal term is "for natural love and affection". Just means near relation no hands tied. I think people need to rethink what defines as gender anymore as sex is locked into biology. The idea that gender is social construction would mean that either we stop using gender as a term that's related to sex and use sex instead of gender on paperwork meaning transgenders will have to put their birth sex down on this paperwork instead of their gender identity or we use gender as a term that includes sex in its language. Again mother does not mean you are male of female gender.
??