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
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Jimbob1977 wrote: »
    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.

    Of course there are black people in the world but it is not necessary to be black to be african american - look at the recent roseanne controversy.


  • Options
    #93
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Of course there are black people in the world but it is not necessary to be black to be african american - look at the recent roseanne controversy.

    ?

    The woman she criticised had African American heritage.


  • Options
    #94
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »
    I imagine there's quite a large overlap between these two groups

    A few hundred genders at last count, and growing.


  • Options
    #95
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    A few hundred genders at last count, and growing.

    and that's only the human ones

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin


  • Options
    #96
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    ?

    The woman she criticised had African American heritage.

    But she was not black. She had some fairly recent (last couple of hundred years) black blood no doubt. But despite her identification as african american the offended party was not in fact black. so what makes her identification more valid than rachel dolezal's?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    But she was not black. She had some fairly recent (last couple of hundred years) black blood no doubt. But despite her identification as african american the offended party was not in fact black. so what makes her identification more valid than rachel dolezal's?

    No she is black under American law and culture. Same as Obama. It’s not just “self identification” - there’s a clear biological fact there.


  • Options
    #98
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    No she is black under American law and culture. Same as Obama. It’s not just “self identification” - there’s a clear biological fact there.
    No there really isn't. Just look at her. Obama is black by American standards. Valerie Jarrett isn't. She is African American by identification (but she's the equivalent of a plastic).


  • Options
    #99
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Because they were legally recognised as a man before they gave birth, so legally they are the childs father.

    Note that this inference is your opinion, and clearly not the one of the British registrar in charge of enforcing the law.

    And it is another can of worms for another thread, but when someone sees themselves as a man and requests official recognition of this change; I don’t think it should be seen as obvious that the person should still be able to be artificially inseminated. There should be open debates and votes with large public engagement related to bioethics and what makes and doesn’t make sense.

    Someone asking to be recognised as a man but wanting to carry a child is challenging biology in which they are making use of their body in a way biology describes as a mother and then refusing to acknowledge biology and asking to be called a father.


  • Options
    #100
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    wexie wrote: »
    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.

    Right, so at that point it seems sort of irrelevant?

    On the birth cert you're basically saying, "hey, by the way, the person who gave birth identified as a man at the time of the birth"

    Why is that necessary?


  • Options
    #101
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    No there really isn't. Just look at her. Obama is black by American standards. Valerie Jarrett isn't. She is African American by identification (but she's the equivalent of a plastic).

    She has the exact same ratio of whiteness and blackness biologically as Obama. 50-50. You are confusing genotype with phenotype.

    In short she isn’t just self identifying as black.

    Her parents are European and some African-American descent. On the television series Finding Your Roots, DNA testing indicated that Jarrett is of 49% European, 46% African, and 5% Native American descent

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Jarrett


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    neris
    Registered Users Posts: 20,046 ✭✭✭✭neris


    this gender stuff is getting out of hand


  • Options
    #103
    How Soon Is Now
    Registered Users Posts: 13,109 ✭✭✭✭How Soon Is Now


    Soon as we started "accepting" everyone and taking that so called progressive step forward the door was well and truly opened to the point where do you draw the line?

    Well the line is no where to been seen at this stage!


  • Options
    #104
    SortingYouOut
    Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    If you provided the XY chromosome, you are the father. End of.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Options
    #105
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Paislee Tasteless Thesaurus wrote: »
    Why is what he identified as relevant on the birth cert?
    Why is a parent's job relevant on the birth cert? Why is the parents' address relevant?

    Ultimately it's mostly a snapshot of the main facts at the time of birth, its main use is historical analysis. From that point of view, and seeing as one can legally change their gender, then one can see how recording the parents' gender makes sense.

    It's often used as ID, but it's just a document with peoples' names on it, so as ID it's quite pointless.


  • Options
    #106
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    wexie wrote: »
    and that's only the human ones

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin

    I'm considering identifying as a badger currently.


  • Options
    #107
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    seamus wrote: »
    Why is a parent's job relevant on the birth cert? Why is the parents' address relevant?

    Ultimately it's mostly a snapshot of the main facts at the time of birth, its main use is historical analysis. From that point of view, and seeing as one can legally change their gender, then one can see how recording the parents' gender makes sense.

    It's often used as ID, but it's just a document with peoples' names on it, so as ID it's quite pointless.

    I don't see how their job is relevant either.

    Address is relevant because it's the place the parents were living when the child was born and presumably where the child lived at the beginning of its life.

    Surely there are already records available regarding changes in gender, in which case there is no need to additionally record a mother/father's preferred gender identity on the birth cert?


  • Options
    #108
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    To be honest it doesn’t matter. If we record a man as giving birth the future will know exactly what’s up.


  • Options
    #109
    Skullface McGubbin
    Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭Skullface McGubbin


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    ....How far is too far?


    I thought about that question too. Then I realized that with Leftists/Progressives and their causes, there is no "too far". There is only "too soon" .


    Liberal: We want the right to X


    Conservative: Are you crazy? Why would you want that? If you get X, you will probably want Y & Z later on. Do you really think such things are acceptable?


    Liberal: Of course we don't want Y or Z. We only just want X. Don't use that slippery slope fallacy.



    Liberals get X. Then 10 years later...


    Liberal: We want the right to Y


    Conservative: Are you mad? why would you want that? If you get Y then what's going to stop you from demanding Z. Do you think Z is acceptable?


    Liberal: Of course we don't want Z. We only just want Y. DUDE SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY LMAO.


    Liberals get Y. Then about 10 years later


    Liberal: We want the right to Z...


    Well, you get the idea.


  • Options
    #110
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    neris wrote: »
    this gender stuff is getting out of hand

    I think this is how it will get sorted. The more out of hand it gets, the more it will be in public debate. And once everyone takes part in the discussion it will be clear that for exemple people who think it makes sense to call someone who gave birth a father are in a small minority (they have a disproportionately large influence related to their number and their voices are heard more than others, but once there is large public debate it won’t give them as much influence).


  • Options
    #111
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    I don't like my past therefore it doesn't exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    OH FFS! That's it, I've had enough. Someone send me on a rocket and shoot me towards the sun, or towards some other planet and I'll chance being able to breathe its atmosphere... either way I'm no worse off! I don't wanna live on this rock anymore. The insanity nowadays is too much. F***ing pc f***ing world, you cannot change biology! ENOUGH WITH THIS SH@T!!!!!!

    Ian Malcolm's quote in Jurassic Park was dead on: the rape of the natural world.


  • Options
    #113
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Paislee Tasteless Thesaurus wrote: »
    I don't see how their job is relevant either.

    Address is relevant because it's the place the parents were living when the child was born and presumably where the child lived at the beginning of its life.
    Is the address relevant though? Why? :)

    I guess in general there needs to be a discussion about why we record the information that we do on birth certs; what purpose that serves. The certificate itself has a function as proof that a person has been born and their particular position in the world. Hence why the parents' names and nationalities are recorded.

    If that's all it's for, then all other information seems to be somewhat superfluous.
    Surely there are already records available regarding changes in gender, in which case there is no need to additionally record a mother/father's preferred gender identity on the birth cert?
    Yep. And I suppose if someone supports the concept of gender identity, a complete removal of gender from the certificate would be more favourable to them.


  • Options
    #114
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    seamus wrote: »
    Is the address relevant though? Why? :)

    I guess in general there needs to be a discussion about why we record the information that we do on birth certs; what purpose that serves. The certificate itself has a function as proof that a person has been born and their particular position in the world. Hence why the parents' names and nationalities are recorded.

    If that's all it's for, then all other information seems to be somewhat superfluous.

    Yep. And I suppose if someone supports the concept of gender identity, a complete removal of gender from the certificate would be more favourable to them.

    As you said, for historical purposes. We can look back and say, ah, X was born in 2002, parents lived in Y village, so maybe they went to school nearby, lets have a look.

    I'm not sure. I support the idea of gender identity, at least to the extent of a trans person choosing to identify as the opposite gender.

    However the concept of mother and father are biologically defined and immutable surely.


  • Options
    #115
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Paislee Tasteless Thesaurus wrote: »
    Right, so at that point it seems sort of irrelevant?

    On the birth cert you're basically saying, "hey, by the way, the person who gave birth identified as a man at the time of the birth"

    Why is that necessary?

    It's not necessary at all.

    Just seems perhaps like a more sensible approach than putting the biological mother down as the father....


  • Options
    #116
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Note that this inference is your opinion, and clearly not the one of the British registrar in charge of enforcing the law.


    In fairness it's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the person who is challenging the law to have it changed.

    And it is another can of worms for another thread, but when someone sees themselves as a man and requests official recognition of this change; I don’t think it should be seen as obvious that the person should still be able to be artificially inseminated. There should be open debates and votes with large public engagement related to bioethics and what makes and doesn’t make sense.


    I don't think every single case needs to be up for public discussion, just the law really is all that needs to be discussed, because everyone is affected by our laws, whereas people's personal choices in how they choose to reproduce (or not, as the case may be), are matters for themselves to decide.

    I also don't think what does or doesn't make sense should be a criteria for judging the validity of an argument, otherwise who is the arbiter of what does and doesn't make sense but the individual. Plenty of things make no sense to me, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore their existence.

    Someone asking to be recognised as a man but wanting to carry a child is challenging biology in which they are making use of their body in a way biology describes as a mother and then refusing to acknowledge biology and asking to be called a father.


    They're asking to be recognised in law. They cannot change biology, and we can certainly change terminology. Biology doesn't describe anything as mother or father, we do, socially, nothing to do with science. They're as far as I'm aware acutely cognisant of their biology, but that has nothing to do with recognition by the law of their legal status as a man, and challenging current law which recognises them as the childs mother.


    FWIW btw we challenge biology all the time in many different ways, it's how society evolves, when we're able to challenge biology to enable us to live longer than previous generations for example.


  • Options
    #117
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,157 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    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?

    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.

    This is talking about changing the birth record as far as I know.
    He is talking about registration, not what they are called when they go to the kids school.

    And the simple fact is a woman gives birth, not a man.
    It doesn't matter how the fook they identified at time of birth.

    And the person that gives birth is a mother, unless you are freaking seahorse.

    That is basic science.

    The human race, in the Western world anyway, is now going up it's own ar**.

    Next thing we will have yer wan Jenner claiming the Olympic record is wrong and the winner of the 1976 Decathlon was a woman. :rolleyes:

    All I would say is I pity the poor kid.


  • Options
    #118
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Biology doesn't describe anything as mother or father, we do, socially, nothing to do with science.

    Biology can’t itself “describe” mothers and fathers because it isn’t a person. The human science of biology does categorise animals who sexually reproduce into mothers and fathers. Any intelligent alien species who similarly reproduce (and most would) would have similar nomenclature. Of course to cultural relativists because we have to name something to communicate this thing then becomes a construction, but nobody can take that seriously as literally everything is therefore a construct.

    FWIW btw we challenge biology all the time in many different ways, it's how society evolves, when we're able to challenge biology to enable us to live longer than previous generations for example.

    We fight against biological realities but they, to begin with, still remain biological realities. And if we change the biology then that’s science intervening. A man with an artificial hip is part bionic but hips still exist as a biological reality.

    If we ever get to a time where we can’t tell a post op trans woman from a woman that doesn’t mean that biological women don’t exist, or that this now biological woman wasn’t once a biological man.


  • Options
    #119
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    They're as far as I'm aware acutely cognisant of their biology, but that has nothing to do with recognition by the law of their legal status as a man, and challenging current law which recognises them as the childs mother.

    Because he IS the child's mother...

    (now there's a sentence you wouldn't have thought you'd ever hear 20 years ago:D)


  • Options
    #120
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    This is not necessarily the case. The principle of Mater semper certa est no longer applies due to IVF and surrogacy. A case regarding it was in the high court last year iirc.

    Mater semper certa means the mother is always known. For those of you interested.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Originally Posted by Trasna1 View Post
    This is not necessarily the case. The principle of Mater semper certa est no longer applies due to IVF and surrogacy. A case regarding it was in the high court last year iirc.

    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Mater semper certa means the mother is always known. For those of you interested.

    the hell just happened to that post?


Advertisement