Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Transgender man wants to be named as father...

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    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.

    sorry mis-read
    but basic point applies, as you say, the person was the mother at the time


  • Options
    #33
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,113 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Lets just use chromosomes and be done with it.
    Maybe tattoos on peoples foreheads?


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The world's gone mad..


  • Options
    #35
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,113 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Riskymove wrote: »
    sorry mis-read
    but basic point applies, as you say, the person was the mother at the time

    The person was and will always be the mother of the child.
    They can change their gender in the same way they change their religion, but they still had a baby come out of them, thus they are a mother.


  • Options
    #36
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Grayson wrote: »
    No they're not. they are asking to be identified by a particular gender.

    The person is asking to be referenced as a father after giving birth to a child.

    This is challenging basic biology and is not a matter of personal identification.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Jayzus lads this madness needs to stop.

    If you've given birth to a child that makes you it's mother, by definition. No ifs no buts.
    If you then want to become that child's father....that's fine if that's what tickles your fancies.

    But at the time the child was born you were it's mother so that's what should go on the birth cert


  • Options
    #38
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭mickuhaha


    In legal terms he not the father. He is the mother . The only case where he would become a father after that point would be if he adopted another child to which he didn't give birth. But he would still be mother to the child he gave birth to. He could of course call himself the father everyday like a nick name but for legal us he would be described as the mother.


  • Options
    #39
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    GreeBo wrote: »
    The person was and will always be the mother of the child.
    They can change their gender in the same way they change their religion, but they still had a baby come out of them, thus they are a mother.

    so we agree


  • Options
    #40
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Bob24 wrote: »
    This is challenging basic biology and is not a matter of personal identification.

    exactly

    Joan Bloggs gave birth to a baby so is the mother and it is recorded as such
    Presumably someone else is the father

    If Joan subsequently became Joe Bloggs that is their perogative but you cannot retrospectively revise history. Joan was Joan up until the point she became Joe


  • Options
    #41
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,561 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    I'm very liberal and supportive of rights to the myriad of letters under the LGBTQI...... spectrum.
    But this is ridiculous.

    If a person wants to identify as he/she/zhe/whatever else that's fine and more power to them.
    But you cannot change the scientific facts of biology which are that each child has a sperm from a father and is given birth to by its mother.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    ELM327 wrote: »
    But you cannot change the scientific facts of biology which are that each child has a sperm from a father and is given birth to by its mother.
    You can't change the biology, but you can change the meaning of words, which I suppose is the entire argument here.

    The words mother and father aren't strictly aligned to whether you contributed sperm or an egg to a new human, just look at adoptive parents or people using surrogates/sperm/egg donations.

    If not is it then aligned to your gender at time of conception, or is it aligned to your biological sex at time of conception, or is it something that can be changed retroactively depending on your current circumstances? Those are the questions that it's no harm asking and getting an answer for. Maybe they don't need to be answered. Maybe there's no need for those words, maybe "parent A" and "B" would do.


  • Options
    #43
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,561 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    TheChizler wrote: »
    You can't change the biology, but you can change the meaning of words, which I suppose is the entire argument here.

    The words mother and father aren't strictly aligned to whether you contributed sperm or an egg to a new human, just look at adoptive parents or people using surrogates/sperm/egg donations.

    If not is it then aligned to your gender at time of conception, or is it aligned to your biological sex at time of conception, or is it something that can be changed retroactively depending on your current circumstances? Those are the questions that it's no harm asking and getting an answer for. Maybe they don't need to be answered. Maybe there's no need for those words, maybe "parent A" and "B" would do.
    I'm sorry but this post is exactly what is wrong with the world.


  • Options
    #44
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this post is exactly what is wrong with the world.
    Go on, how? Have I advocated a position or something? What's wrong with challenging our understanding of words and examining their meaning?


  • Options
    #45
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,113 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Go on, how? Have I advocated a position or something? What's wrong with challenging our understanding of words and examining their meaning?

    If you keep challenging everything that some tiny minority have an issue with you end up with a non functioning society.


  • Options
    #46
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    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?

    That would be fine and I would be all for it if that's all they wanted but its turning out than much more than that. People are taking high court (and higher) actions to have these things changed in age old traditions/customs and every one else is being forced to agree with it. If the person wants to be recognised as a woman that is absolutely fine, if they want people to refer to them as he/she/ze what ever, that is also fine but don't ask society to change its rules/traditions so that you can have a little piece of paper with your title on it, don't expect everyone to bow to your wishes and demands when you are the one that is in a tiny minority.

    It may appear only a small issue but these type issues are becoming so common nowadays and its creeping into every part of our lives and we are the ones expected to change and suffer it. It is already an issue in primary schools where children as young as 5/6 are supposedly gender fluid** and other children are being asked to refrain from calling them he/she so as not to offend the child. The child also is allowed to use the teachers private toilets so as not to be forced into use the regular male/female toilets.


    ** there is no such thing but that's the term coined by the parents of the child.


  • Options
    #47
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    That would be fine and I would be all for it if that's all they wanted but its turning out than much more than that. People are taking high court (and higher) actions to have these things changed in age old traditions/customs and every one else is being forced to agree with it. If the person wants to be recognised as a woman that is absolutely fine, if they want people to refer to them as he/she/ze what ever, that is also fine but don't ask society to change its rules/traditions so that you can have a little piece of paper with your title on it, don't expect everyone to bow to your wishes and demands when you are the one that is in a tiny minority.

    It may appear only a small issue but these type issues are becoming so common nowadays and its creeping into every part of our lives and we are the ones expected to change and suffer it. It is already an issue in primary schools where children as young as 5/6 are supposedly gender fluid** and other children are being asked to refrain from calling them he/she so as not to offend the child. The child also is allowed to use the teachers private toilets so as not to be forced into use the regular male/female toilets.


    ** there is no such thing but that's the term coined by the parents of the child.


    You say it's fine but you completely refused to do it multiple times.


    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.


    In fact, it seems you tried as hard as possible to fit as many female pronouns in as possible. That goes way beyond simply objecting to the word mother being changed to mean something else.


  • Options
    #48
    Sin City
    Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Lets just use chromosomes and be done with it.
    Maybe tattoos on peoples foreheads?

    I second this

    XX - M
    XY F
    XYT/YXT TRans


    Sound catchy :D


  • Options
    #49
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    GreeBo wrote: »
    If you keep challenging everything that some tiny minority have an issue with you end up with a non functioning society.
    Maybe if you were to change everything on a whim but how is challenging and discussing things going to cause the downfall of society?


  • Options
    #50
    animaal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Go on, how? Have I advocated a position or something? What's wrong with challenging our understanding of words and examining their meaning?

    What's being demanded is more than challenging "our understanding" of words. It's an attempt to change the meaning of words, in this case to protect people's feelings.

    The person who gave birth to you is your natural (or "birth") mother, regardless of what she did or later became.

    The primary purpose of the birth cert is to record the details of *your birth*, not the preferences and feelings of the other people involved in your birth.


  • Options
    #51
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    You say it's fine but you completely refused to do it multiple times.

    In fact, it seems you tried as hard as possible to fit as many female pronouns in as possible. That goes way beyond simply objecting to the word mother being changed to mean something else.

    Ok point taken but what I'm trying to get at is this persons attempts at changing the birth cert which should be refused and rejected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,113 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Maybe if you were to change everything on a whim but how is challenging and discussing things going to cause the downfall of society?

    Because everything that has any near connection or connotation of gender is now being checked for PC-ness.


  • Options
    #53
    Mutant z
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    I want to become a dolphin can i now become one.


  • Options
    #54
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    Forcing him to register as the child's "mother" breaches his human right to respect for private and family life, he claims.

    The phrase 'human rights' has lost all meaning in recent years. I used to think it meant the right to not starve to death, then after that maybe the right to some kind of education. Now anything that someone doesn't like is an infringement of their human rights.

    And what about the childs human right to have the same information on his birth cert that everyone else does?

    If you look through the replies to this tweet by Simon Harris you'll see a few comments about how the abortion bill should include 'trans inclusive language'. https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1001755845737304065

    These people swear blind that a foetus isn't a baby because science says so, but when science and biology tells them what gender they are it's because nasty science is wrong and needs to be changed.


  • Options
    #55
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    TheChizler wrote: »
    If not is it then aligned to your gender at time of conception, or is it aligned to your biological sex at time of conception, or is it something that can be changed retroactively depending on your current circumstances? Those are the questions that it's no harm asking and getting an answer for. Maybe they don't need to be answered. Maybe there's no need for those words, maybe "parent A" and "B" would do.

    Mother means you gave birth to the child. "Parent A" and "Parent B" are less descriptive and leave a lot of ambiguity as to who is the mother and who is the father.


  • Options
    #56
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,561 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Go on, how? Have I advocated a position or something? What's wrong with challenging our understanding of words and examining their meaning?
    I can see you identify as a tomato today, so allow me to speak to you in a way you will understand.


    Heinz heinz. Chef. Vine vine ripen vine. Chef-heinz heinz. Vine.


    Why don't you change your birth certificate because your calendar identifies as BC and not AD so you were born in the 20th century BC. Actually screw that, your calendar identifies as a milk jug today. But... when I try to put milk in it it cannot hold milk. Just like a woman can't be a father.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Normalising and pandering to obvious mental health issues is dangerous. There are two genders; a man is born with a penis, the women with a vagina (add in intersex/hermaphrodites if you wish but they are no more than an anomaly)


  • Options
    #58
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    The phrase 'human rights' has lost all meaning in recent years. I used to think it meant the right to not starve to death, then after that maybe the right to some kind of education. Now anything that someone doesn't like is an infringement of their human rights.

    Sadly this is very true.


  • Options
    #59
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,561 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    The phrase 'human rights' has lost all meaning in recent years. I used to think it meant the right to not starve to death, then after that maybe the right to some kind of education. Now anything that someone doesn't like is an infringement of their human rights.

    And what about the childs human right to have the same information on his birth cert that everyone else does?

    If you look through the replies to this tweet by Simon Harris you'll see a few comments about how the abortion bill should include 'trans inclusive language'. https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1001755845737304065

    These people swear blind that a foetus isn't a baby because science says so, but when science and biology tells them what gender they are it's because nasty science is wrong and needs to be changed.


    Don't confuse this with abortion rights
    Abortion rights are real and the 8th affected women every day.



    This "issue" is just pandering, and should not be allowed.


  • Options
    #60
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Bob24 wrote: »
    The person is asking to be referenced as a father after giving birth to a child.

    This is challenging basic biology and is not a matter of personal identification.


    It's not challenging biology at all. It's challenging the law. The law currently states that the person who gives birth is registered on the birth certificate as the mother. It's similar to cases involving surrogacy where the person who gives birth is registered on the birth certificate as the mother even though the child may possess none of her DNA as the embryo was implanted in her womb. The law can be changed and that's what's being challenged here, not biology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,670 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    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.

    That's a double-plus good point.


Advertisement