[parmnion]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...ys-father.html


I don't get this need for documentation to define who you are...Can't people just live at home calling eachother what you know them as.

[Smithy]

Would it kill you to post the article instead of the link

But anyway, another day, another Daily Mail article about a trans person sure to rile up the right wing snowflakes

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Would it kill you to post the article instead of the link

But anyway, another day, another Daily Mail article about a trans person sure to rile up the right wing snowflakes

It was just reported on the BBC news, this article was the latest I could find about the case after searching.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Smithy

But anyway, another day, another Daily Mail article about a trans person sure to rile up the right wing snowflakes

Pretty much.

[Marsh.]

We're gonna need a transgender subforum soon.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

We're gonna need a transgender subforum soon.

Marsh why are you attempting to murder Vicky?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

We're gonna need a transgender subforum soon.

No that Sub Section
can Feck Off

[Cherie]

A transgender man whose baby is at the centre of an historic human rights battle cannot yet get child benefit, a High Court judge has been told.

The baby could become the first person born in England or Wales who will not legally have a mother due to a dispute about the infant's birth certificate.

Lawyers say the baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery.

ADVERTISING

They have told judges that he had been biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but had legally become a man when the child was born.

He wants to be identified as the child’s 'father' or 'parent' on a birth certificate but a registrar told him the law requires people who give birth to be registered as mothers.

The man has taken legal action after complaining of discrimination. He says forcing him to register as the child’s 'mother' breaches his human right to respect for privacy and family life.

Because of the delay in the completion of the birth certificate, he has been left unable to claim child benefit.

The case has been analysed at hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London and lawyers representing the man are lined up against lawyers representing the Registrar General for England and Wales and Government ministers. A trial might not take place until next year.

Mr Justice Holman was given updates on developments on Tuesday, when he oversaw the latest hearing

Lawyers said the baby had been given a passport because British citizenship had been established.



The law seems clear enough as it stands, it would require a change in the law to cover this meanwhile the child benefit which is the key issue here I feel will remain unpaid...oh well

[Cherie]

and in answer to Parms question I don't know, this seems to be a case of the father putting himself before the child

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

A transgender man whose baby is at the centre of an historic human rights battle cannot yet get child benefit, a High Court judge has been told.

The baby could become the first person born in England or Wales who will not legally have a mother due to a dispute about the infant's birth certificate.

Lawyers say the baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery.

ADVERTISING

They have told judges that he had been biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but had legally become a man when the child was born.

He wants to be identified as the child’s 'father' or 'parent' on a birth certificate but a registrar told him the law requires people who give birth to be registered as mothers.

The man has taken legal action after complaining of discrimination. He says forcing him to register as the child’s 'mother' breaches his human right to respect for privacy and family life.

Because of the delay in the completion of the birth certificate, he has been left unable to claim child benefit.

The case has been analysed at hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London and lawyers representing the man are lined up against lawyers representing the Registrar General for England and Wales and Government ministers. A trial might not take place until next year.

Mr Justice Holman was given updates on developments on Tuesday, when he oversaw the latest hearing

Lawyers said the baby had been given a passport because British citizenship had been established.



The law seems clear enough as it stands, it would require a change in the law to cover this meanwhile the child benefit which is the key issue here I feel will remain unpaid...oh well

Bold bit - there is nothing else to say. Except...

The baby has a passport? How'd the baby get passport without a birth certificate?

[Northern Monkey]

I mean i’m all for transexuals having their rights but there’s some things you can’t fight.
Biological fact is one of them.

Can’t they just put the parents old name as ‘biological mother’ then the new name as ‘father’ or ‘parent’ or whatever they want?

The birth certificate would have to recognise the birth mother.Covering up the truth can’t really be an option on documents?

[Toy Soldier]

To be fair, this would be pretty easily solved by changing the fields to "Biological Parent 1" and "Biological Parent 2".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair, this would be pretty easily solved by changing the fields to "Biological Parent 1" and "Biological Parent 2".

OH TS... really? We're going to get rid of the terms Mother and Father in case there's a transsexual parent who wants to make a stand.

Whatever he is now, he was a mother when he gave birth.

[Northern Monkey]

‘Hey there timmy who’s picking you up after school?Will it be your biological parent 1 or biological parent 2?’

Who gets to decide who’s number 1 and who’s number 2?
Imagine the arguments.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

OH TS... really? We're going to get rid of the terms Mother and Father in case there's a transsexual parent who wants to make a stand.

Whatever he is now, he was a mother when he gave birth.

Not in general usage but is there a huge issue with official documents using more technical terms? Like maybe they could make it XX-Parent and XY-parent?

I can't say it's something I'm all that fussed baout really but then I guess that's kind of my point. I don't know why people would have any sentimental attachment to the terms used on an official government document to the extent of being bothered if they get changed... and whether we like it or not, the issue of gender is becoming more complicated and documentation is going to have to adapt to the... nuances... or it'll end up even more complicated (with people being defiant and filling them in inaccurately). So long as the certificate makes it clear "whose egg it was" and "whose sperm the egg was covered in", that's all that's really needed for accurate historical records, and what each parent chooses to refer to themselves as is less relevant.

[Toy Soldier]

Half the stuff on them is so inaccurate anyway, I'm listed as a "Chef" on my eldest daughter's birth certificate because my most recent employment was flame grilling burgers and chicken, deep frying chips and microwaving frozen curries in a student bar. Chef

My wife's dad is listed as some totally random part-time thing too... he's been in IT for over 20 years .

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Half the stuff on them is so inaccurate anyway, I'm listed as a "Chef" on my eldest daughter's birth certificate because my most recent employment was flame grilling burgers and chicken, deep frying chips and microwaving frozen curries in a student bar. Chef

My wife's dad is listed as some totally random part-time thing too... he's been in IT for over 20 years .

With occupation they can only put on what you are doing at the time of child was born, they can't predict the future!

[thesheriff443]

New laws are being made all the time, laws need to be amended from time to time don’t see the problem to be honest.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

With occupation they can only put on what you are doing at the time of child was born, they can't predict the future!

Yes but my point is it's not really an accurate historical record, to the point where I don't think there's much point having it on there at all. It's sort of a throwback to a time where people did have life-long vocations that started early so you could look at an old birth certificate and actually get an idea of what that family lineage was all about (miners, ship builders, etc etc). Now it's like "Burger King. Part time at Tesco. Works nights in a care home"... and then a year later they're doing something entirely unrelated, or maybe DO start a "real" career path but that's never listed.

It's junk data basically, they might as well remove the field entirely.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not in general usage but is there a huge issue with official documents using more technical terms? Like maybe they could make it XX-Parent and XY-parent?

I can't say it's something I'm all that fussed baout really but then I guess that's kind of my point. I don't know why people would have any sentimental attachment to the terms used on an official government document to the extent of being bothered if they get changed... and whether we like it or not, the issue of gender is becoming more complicated and documentation is going to have to adapt to the... nuances... or it'll end up even more complicated (with people being defiant and filling them in inaccurately). So long as the certificate makes it clear "whose egg it was" and "whose sperm the egg was covered in", that's all that's really needed for accurate historical records, and what each parent chooses to refer to themselves as is less relevant.

If any changes are needed it's for the tiny minority of parents who'll have a problem like this. I don't think the terms Mother and Father should be altered unless one of the parents is transsexual.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but my point is it's not really an accurate historical record, to the point where I don't think there's much point having it on there at all. It's sort of a throwback to a time where people did have life-long vocations that started early so you could look at an old birth certificate and actually get an idea of what that family lineage was all about (miners, ship builders, etc etc). Now it's like "Burger King. Part time at Tesco. Works nights in a care home"... and then a year later they're doing something entirely unrelated, or maybe DO start a "real" career path but that's never listed.

It's junk data basically, they might as well remove the field entirely.

So why is it such an issue to change it if it's all just junk anyway?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but my point is it's not really an accurate historical record, to the point where I don't think there's much point having it on there at all. It's sort of a throwback to a time where people did have life-long vocations that started early so you could look at an old birth certificate and actually get an idea of what that family lineage was all about (miners, ship builders, etc etc). Now it's like "Burger King. Part time at Tesco. Works nights in a care home"... and then a year later they're doing something entirely unrelated, or maybe DO start a "real" career path but that's never listed.

It's junk data basically, they might as well remove the field entirely.

I don't think it is junk data though, particularly from a historical view point, just think when you great great grandkids are looking you up

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So why is it such an issue to change it if it's all just junk anyway?

Its not all junk though particularly in view of immigration, people can get dual nationality based on their grandparents nationality?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its not all junk though particularly in view of immigration, people can get dual nationality based on their grandparents nationality?

No I don't think it is Junk, I was just asking TS why if "it's all junk" it such a big deal to get parental status changed. its a historical document I don't think it's junk at all. Yes he may not be a chef right now but at that time in his life he was (of sorts )

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

‘Hey there timmy who’s picking you up after school?Will it be your biological parent 1 or biological parent 2?’

Who gets to decide who’s number 1 and who’s number 2?
Imagine the arguments.

i'm always a big number 2 in my household