nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?)

Find more posts tagged with

trans

Quick Links

Comments

Irish Guitarist

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

I'm not talking about abortion rights. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of using science to back up your argument when it suits you but insisting science is wrong when it doesn't suit you.

Mutant z

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That doesnt change the fact that it was the mother who gave birth to the child and now that same mother wants to try and change it and claim that she's the father of the baby that she gave birth to why is this insane idea even been remotely contemplated it should be put into the dustbin where it belongs .

Bob24

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Surrogacy is just diversion here and is not what we are talking about.

A woman got pregnant, carried her own child, and gave birth to it. Not calling that person the mother of the child is challenging biology.

cdeb

Can't help think of this -

Sums up my view in two concise minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Bob24

cdeb wrote: »

Can't help think of this -

Sums up my view in two concise minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Good one but FYI already posted on the thread.

cdeb

Bob24 wrote: »

Good one but FYI already posted on the thread.

Arse.

In my defence, I hope I'm not alone in seeing a gender choosing thread, reading page 1 to get the jist, reading a random page to confirm that it is the same predictable crap, and then going to Monty Python for some sanity.

Cheers anyway! Sure I'll leave it up there cos can't ever hurt to watch some Monty Python.

Bob24

cdeb wrote: »

can't ever hurt to watch some Monty Python.

Can’t disagree with that!

Maxpfizer

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.

So what we are asking for is more precise language that doesn't come with extra "baggage"?

As you have correctly pointed out, adopted kids will very often use "mother" and "father" to describe their adoptive parents. So it's not like "mother" strictly means "the person who gave birth to the child".

If we went with a new system that referred to, say, and XX Type Parent and an XY Type Parent then you could have birth certificates maybe saying "Parent XX" and "Parent XY" and this would remove the extra meanings that are associated with "Father" and "Mother".

Over time though the "XX" and "XY" descriptors would pick up baggage of their own, I think? At the end of the day no matter how you describe the biological parents one of them gave birth to the child and one of them can't give birth to children at all.

How would this feed into teaching about pregnancy etc in school?

It looks to me at the moment that when we teach kids about reproduction we teach them that there are 2 biological categories of human and one of each type of parent is needed to produce a child. That's what they get in school and that makes sense if you want them to understand how things work practically.

Then when these kids reach college or university you have people who want to teach them that "there is no such thing as biological sex" and that seems like an ambitious attempt to deny something that is pretty fundamental to how homo sapiens reproduce and survive.

Ultimately if you did manage to get rid of the "Man" and "Woman" descriptions you are still going to have to teach kids about reproduction at some point and when that talk happens the idea that you are either a "Type A Human" or a "Type B Human" on a very fundamental level has to be dealt with.

Like, they are going to know that they belong to one group or the other as soon as you say "some of you have a penis and some of you have a vagina" because the number of kids who have neither or both is going to be close enough to zero.

How would you stop society from assigning extra "meaning" to the terms Parent A and Parent B when 99% of a specific type of human is a Parent A and 99% of another specific type of human is a Parent B?

"So what if an Aman wants to identify as Bwoman anyway? The terms are just words why not just use Parent 1 and Parent 2!?"

*wait some years*

"So what if a Oneman wants to identify as a Twoman anyway? The terms are just words after all, why not just use Egg donor and Sperm donor?"

*wait some years*

"So what if an Eggman wants to identify as a Sperman? The terms are just words and have a lot of extra baggage attached to them. Why not just refer to them as Mother and Father?"

We could probably go round like that forever.

I think if someone gave birth to a child but doesn't want to be referred to as the "Mother" then I think referring to them as the "biological mother" solves the problem. Unless the person has some personal issue with the word "mother" specifically then I think they just have to get over it.

One eyed Jack

Bob24 wrote: »

Surrogacy is just diversion here and is not what we are talking about.

A woman got pregnant, carried her own child, and gave birth to it. Not calling that person the mother of the child is challenging biology.

The reason why I pointed to surrogacy is because biologically, the person who gives birth is not the mother of the child, but is recorded on the birth certificate as the mother of the child because she gave birth to the child. That can easily be changed via legislation. That's all that's happening here too - the law which states that the person who gives birth to the child is recorded as the mother of the child because that's what the law currently states. So what is being challenged is the law, not biology. Can't change biology, but the law can be changed. The law currently doesn't take account of advances in science and medicine which is why it's being challenged.

That's really straightforward enough, it's not challenging biology, it's challenging the law to reflect the circumstances of the childs birth. I don't know that this case will be successful as there is also a child whose interests are of paramount consideration, but it could be argued that it is in the childs best interests that their birth certificate reflects the circumstances of their birth and that this man is the childs father, and not their mother.

It would mean though that legally speaking the child doesn't have a mother, but I imagine that will be the least of the childs issues as they will have been raised by a man who is legally their father and their biological mother. I'm sure at some point this will be explained to the child by their father using language that the child understands. It's not exactly rocket science.

LLMMLL

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

This nonsense argument raises its head again?

Nobody actually believes they are a tomato/unicorn etc. A large number of people are trans.

There is no slippery slope here.

Bob24

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's really straightforward enough, it's not challenging biology, it's challenging the law to reflect the circumstances of the childs birth.

Let recap the circumstances of that birth - again.

Someone got pregnant, carried the child, and gave birth to that child. Simple biology and no advanced artificial procreation techniques.

How is recording that person as the mother of the child not reflecting the circonstance of the birth?

TheChizler

Paislee Tasteless Thesaurus wrote: »

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.

Maybe so, but it's still worth asking the questions I think.

[Deleted User]

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe so, but it's still worth asking the questions I think.

No. It's not..

TheChizler

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Ah, I see you've made the classic mistake of on seeing that someone isn't totally opposed on principle to discussing something, then making the assumption that they are for that thing.

TheChizler

Deleted User wrote: »

No. It's not..

Well that's my argument turned on its head then. QED, open and shut case.

Maxpfizer

LLMMLL wrote: »

This nonsense argument raises its head again?

Nobody actually believes they are a tomato/unicorn etc. A large number of people are trans.

There is no slippery slope here.

When it comes to identity though why should anything be out of bounds?

How do you know that NOBODY believes they are are a tomato/unicorn etc?

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pittsburgh-man-thinks-dog-boomer/story?id=20801512

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/201607/the-man-who-thought-he-was-cat

Clinical Lycanthropy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy

I guess you could believe you are other things. I don't have time to look it up.

What are the rules for identifying as... well anything really?

I get it, saying "I identify as an attack helicopter" undermines and makes fun of trans issues but what are the basic "ground rules" for any claims of identity?

Could a guy get out of paying child support by claiming to not identify as male or female and therefore not falling under the category of mother or father?

Or would we just say "no that's too far, pay up or go to jail"?

How far is too far?

Skullface McGubbin

Mutant z wrote: »

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.

Indeed. This kind of madness will just keep going on as long as people who are sympathetic to SJW causes are still in positions of power and positions of influence.

One eyed Jack

Bob24 wrote: »

Let recap the circumstances of that birth - again.

Someone got pregnant, carried the child, and gave birth to that child. Simple biology and no advanced artificial procreation techniques.

How is recording that person as the mother of the child not reflecting the circonstance of the birth?

Because they were legally recognised as a man before they gave birth, so legally they are the childs father. The birth certificate which is a legal document (and not a record of biological fact) should reflect this, and currently in law, it doesn't for those circumstances which arise where the mother is registered as the person who gave birth to the child, even though there are circumstances when this isn't an accurate record of events from either a legal or biological point of view.

LLMMLL

Maxpfizer wrote: »

When it comes to identity though why should anything be out of bounds?

How do you know that NOBODY believes they are are a tomato/unicorn etc?

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pittsburgh-man-thinks-dog-boomer/story?id=20801512

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/201607/the-man-who-thought-he-was-cat

Clinical Lycanthropy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy

I guess you could believe you are other things. I don't have time to look it up.

What are the rules for identifying as... well anything really?

I get it, saying "I identify as an attack helicopter" undermines and makes fun of trans issues but what are the basic "ground rules" for any claims of identity?

Could a guy get out of paying child support by claiming to not identify as male or female and therefore not falling under the category of mother or father?

Or would we just say "no that's too far, pay up or go to jail"?

How far is too far?

This is what dodgy slippery slope arguments rely on. Nobody can provide an exact number of people that have to identify as something before we consider them to be a political/legal/social group, that may benefit from legal changes or protections.

Take gay people. Usually estimated to be 5% of the population or a bit lower. Would you ever compare them to the isolated incidents of people who fall in romantic love with inanimate objects such as cars?

Does the argument that legalising gay marriage would mean that we’d have to legalise marriage between people and cars make any sense to you? Because those types of arguments were made. Did the slippery slope happen? No.

It’s the same with trans issues being conflated with the extremely isolated cases that you’ve posted. There is no slippery slope here.

Fourier

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

A slight tangent on my part.

This is generally true across the political spectrum and even outside politics and isn't too surprising.

Both traditional notions and modern liberal ones arise from our beliefs and feelings. The evolutionary process and biochemistry arose without knowledge of either and hence the truth is often 'alien', with people only taking in the part that aligns with what they believe, even though something else contradicts it.

And this ignoring cases where it supports neither and is difficult phrase in normal language.

An interesting trend to watch as science increasingly pulls away from human intuition.

One eyed Jack

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Could a guy get out of paying child support by claiming to not identify as male or female and therefore not falling under the category of mother or father?

Or would we just say "no that's too far, pay up or go to jail"?

Both parents are legally obliged to provide for their children, so it wouldn't matter whether he decided he now identifies as a woman, she would still have to provide financially for her children.

Jimbob1977

Rachel Dolezal was a strong advocate of African-American rights in Washington State. It meant a lot to her. Everyone assumed she was light-skinned.... until her parents emerged as 100% Caucasian.

She was ridiculed and ostracised as a fraud. Medically, biologically and genetically, she could never be black. It didn't change her commitment to the cause.

Meanwhile, Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning were lauded as inspirational heroes.... Even though medically, biologically and medically they can never be women.

seamus

Paislee Tasteless Thesaurus wrote: »

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.

Agreed. You could come up with new unambiguous names like "Incubator" and "Inseminator", but I'm not sure how that's at all any better than "mother" and "father".

The obvious solution is to include a "Gender at time of child's birth" field on the form which can be changed if one wishes. Then there's no ambiguity about who is the mother or father and no ambiguity about their gender.

The form already contains lots of info like the parents' occupation, so I see no issue with adding another field.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

I'm assuming this is probably ignorance of the issue rather than deliberate misrepresentation.

Trans people don't deny biological fact or genetics. However, there is a distinction between ones biological sex and psychological sex. The former affects how your body works. The latter affects how you feel about yourself. Trans people only seek the right to recognise that the latter is not necessarily controlled by the former.

Of course the, "It's basic science" argument also falls flat because it's based on Junior Cert genetics. When you consider that someone can have no Y-chromosome but still be considered "scientifically" male, you realise that the question of gender is not as simple as you think it is.

[Deleted User]

How can you give birth to a baby and still think you're a man ? I can understand being confused but surely that would put the matter to rest ?

wexie

seamus wrote: »

The form already contains lots of info like the parents' occupation, so I see no issue with adding another field.

And we don't issue new birth certs when the occupation changes on later down the line do we?

seamus

wexie wrote: »

And we don't issue new birth certs when the occupation changes on later down the line do we?

Right, and we shouldn't.
In this case though the guy legally identified as a man at the time of birth.

So he's not trying to change the record retrospectively, but to get information recorded which is not currently recorded.

7aubzxk43m2sni

seamus wrote: »

Right, and we shouldn't.
In this case though the guy legally identified as a man at the time of birth.

So he's not trying to change the record retrospectively, but to get information recorded which is not currently recorded.

Why is what he identified as relevant on the birth cert?

marieholmfan

How did this person become pregnant? If you was convinced that you was trapped in a female body (a nightmarish prospect for those of us who have been raised as boys and grown up to be men) why would you become pregnant (other than by rape perhaps) ? Surely to become 'a man' from being born as a woman you should have a total identification with the gender that you were not assigned at birth (or as a traditionalist would say the one that you weren't born).

gender reassignment is expensive and in a socialised medicine system I am willing to pay for the person who is like me but in a woman's body and needs to get into a man's one or like my wife but trapped in a man's body and wants to get something like a woman's body however imperfect.

but we can't have people switching genders on a whim . It is too dear and the health consequences are too extreme.

[Deleted User]

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 imagine there's quite a large overlap between these two groups

wexie

seamus wrote: »

Right, and we shouldn't.
In this case though the guy legally identified as a man at the time of birth.

So he's not trying to change the record retrospectively, but to get information recorded which is not currently recorded.

yeah I don't know....

I think I could go for the 'gender at time of birth' perhaps....

But the way I see it is that the birth cert is really only a recording of how things are at that particular point in time.
And if you're just after having a baby come out of you then you are, by default, that baby's mother.