Do people have to be so self important.

[Beso]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6181167/amp/Transgender-man-locked-historic-legal-battle-named-babys-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 :fist::fist:

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

[Beso]

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

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.:nono:

[Tom4784]

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]

We're gonna need a transgender subforum soon.Marsh why are you attempting to murder Vicky?

[arista]

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]

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]

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]

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? :think:

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 :joker:

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

[Cherie]

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 :joker:

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

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]

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]

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? :think:

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.]

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]

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 :laugh:

[Cherie]

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.]

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 :p)

[bots]

‘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 :sad:

[Toy Soldier]

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 :laugh:

That's sort of my point though, if my great great grandkids look me up they'll say "Ooooh interesting, our great great grandfather was a chef!" and they might as well think I was Batman :think:. It's not an accurate piece of data at all... it's misleading.

Again though it's not that I think it's a problem, just that I don't think there should be any huge issue with altering or updating the format of these documents. I understand people thinking "there's no need to", but also, I don't really understand why there'd be any specific objection to doing so? Is it particularly important for the certificate to say "Mother / Father" and if so... why is it important?

[Cherie]

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 :p)

Oh I get you, yes I think it is important as well

[Marsh.]

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

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

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?

[Toy Soldier]

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?:nono: it doesn't, it says so right at the top of the article.

[Livia]

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?

"He said the child at the centre of the case had not been given a birth certificate because a judge had yet to rule on the man’s challenge."

[Cherie]

"He said the child at the centre of the case had not been given a birth certificate because a judge had yet to rule on the man’s challenge."

Correct, no birth cert, no child benefit, though I thought a cert was also needed for a passport so that is an odd one

[Toy Soldier]

Correct, no birth cert, no child benefit, though I thought a cert was also needed for a passport so that is an odd oneWell, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

[Cherie]

Well, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

aw right I can only imagine how difficult that was!

Thinking about this case again I think the cert should be left as it is, just the same as the hospital and the time the child was born, the father was the mother at the time so as a record of accuracy that it how it should remain, now the mother is the father and going forward that it how he will be known. Also if he were to change his mind down the line and want to revert to being a woman then this would have to be revisited so maybe better left as it is.

[Livia]

Well, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

I remember a story like this when I worked for an MP... We had an old boy who was struggling to get a passport for the first time, he was going abroad to see an Andre Rieu concert. He'd been adopted... it was very complicated. He got his passport in the end though.

[Niamh.]

I remember a story like this when I worked for an MP... We had an old boy who was struggling to get a passport for the first time, he was going abroad to see an Andre Rieu concert. He'd been adopted... it was very complicated. He got his passport in the end though.

one of my best friends is adopted and she has no birth cert, it's something that really upsets her actually

[Livia]

one of my best friends is adopted and she has no birth cert, it's something that really upsets her actually

There must be a way someone can help her, although I have no idea who. I don't think some people realise what an impact stuff like this has on people.

[Niamh.]

There must be a way someone can help her, although I have no idea who. I don't think some people realise what an impact stuff like this has on people.

She does have an adoption document which works like a Birth Cert so it's not that she needs it as such, it just the idea of it I guess

[Livia]

She does have an adoption document which works like a Birth Cert so it's not that she needs it as such, it just the idea of it I guess

It's a shame... something that singles her out as different, I suppose. Must be awful not to know where you come from.

[Niamh.]

It's a shame... something that singles her out as different, I suppose. Must be awful not to know where you come from.

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

[Livia]

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

Yes, I agree. And if he was a woman when he gave birth... which he must have been, right? Then that's what should go on the birth certificate: Mother. Like TS, he was a chef at the time. I think we're agreeing on this, right?

[Toy Soldier]

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

I'm not saying the document itself is junk or that birth certificates should be scrapped or anything like that, though? I'm just failing to understand why we would be so precious about them that we wouldn't want the format to be altered or modernised to better fit modern circumstances (e.g. I don't personally feel that profession is as relevant as it once was, because people very rarely have a profession or trade "for life" like they did in the past).

There are probably NEW metrics that could be added that are far more relevant in a modern context, and would serve as an even better piece of historical documentation 100 years in the future.

So I get why people would have a problem IF I was saying "let's not bother with birth certificates"... but why the aversion to even the suggestion that they might have their format altered? If anyone can offer a solid argument for keeping the format sacrosanct, I'm all ears, but as it stands I'm a bit confused.

[Toy Soldier]

Yes, I agree. And if he was a woman when he gave birth... which he must have been, right? Then that's what should go on the birth certificate: Mother. Like TS, he was a chef at the time. I think we're agreeing on this, right?

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there :joker:.

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

[Niamh.]

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there :joker:.

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

I really don't think the job part is that important TS, you seem very focused on that part :laugh:

[Toy Soldier]

I really don't think the job part is that important TS, you seem very focused on that part :laugh:

I'm focussed on the whole idea that the form be set in stone and not open to alteration. It just seems like an odd sort of dogma... and fairly realistic to say that as times / society chances, it makes sense for the data gathered on birth certificates to be reviewed from time to time to see if it is adequate or reflective of the times. I'm not saying that past records should be poured over and altered... just that new registrations using a different form doesn't seem like it should be a major issue?

I guess my question would be, what is actually important about the document saying "Mother" and "Father" rather than "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". If the reason is purely tradition / sentiment, then it's got nothing to do with the historical accuracy or usefulness of the document, and is purely down to personal preference that it retains the traditional terms.

[Niamh.]

I'm focussed on the whole idea that the form be set in stone and not open to alteration. It just seems like an odd sort of dogma... and fairly realistic to say that as times / society chances, it makes sense for the data gathered on birth certificates to be reviewed from time to time to see if it is adequate or reflective of the times. I'm not saying that past records should be poured over and altered... just that new registrations using a different form doesn't seem like it should be a major issue?

I guess my question would be, what is actually important about the document saying "Mother" and "Father" rather than "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". If the reason is purely tradition / sentiment, then it's got nothing to do with the historical accuracy or usefulness of the document, and is purely down to personal preference that it retains the traditional terms.

Because every child born has to have a mother and a father......that's biology. They may end up with 2 dads or 2 moms or whatever raising them but from a factual, biological and historically accurate point of view, it's always a mother and father

[Livia]

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there :joker:.

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

Them describing you as a chef when you're flipping burgers (flippant, I see what you did there...) isn't the same as naming a parent. I mean, there're only two choices: mother or father. The fact that he now considers himself to be a man doesn't alter the fact that at the time she was giving birth, she was female, surely no one could argue with that.

And yes, definitely a missed opportunity.

[Toy Soldier]

Because every child born has to have a mother and a father......that's biology. They may end up with 2 dads or 2 moms or whatever raising them but from a factual, biological and historically accurate point of view, it's always a mother and fatherYes but... So what? Where is the actual PROBLEM in naming the fields differently, as parent 1 and parent 2? It doesn't change the fact that one is the mother and one is the father, and in most cases, its going to be obvious which is which, or it could even just be made standard that the person giving birth is always "Parent 1", or whatever. It really makes no difference to the form at all... It would be a simple change in the terminology that wouldn't affect the document in any way at all.

The statement that "There has to be a mother and a father!" is sort of irrelevant. Like I said, it seems like a dogma, like it "must" remain as it is "on principle" (or else the world has "gone mad" or whatever)? But logically and in terms of accurate record keeping, there's just no legitimate argument for why the form "must" remain the same.

In fact... In the digital age there's really no reason that there couldn't simply be a "parent 1/2" option and a "mother/father" option with a "what do you want printed on the certificate" checkbox :think:.

[Niamh.]

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

[Beso]

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

I can't argue with this.

[Marsh.]

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

But then what about the mothers who register their babies with no name for the father given?

People are insisting accuracy (although I don't see what's inaccurate about labelling Betty and Len "Parents" rather than "Mother and Father") but there doesn't seem to be a lot of insistency on gathering all of the relevant and accurate information on them anyway. The mother can literally take any boyfriend and claim he is the father.

[AnnieK]

But then what about the mothers who register their babies with no name for the father given?

People are insisting accuracy (although I don't see what's inaccurate about labelling Betty and Len "Parents" rather than "Mother and Father") but there doesn't seem to be a lot of insistency on gathering all of the relevant and accurate information on them anyway. The mother can literally take any boyfriend and claim he is the father.

Unmarried couples both have to be present when you register the birth. If you are unmarried and just mother goes, to register they cannot include the fathers name. Married couples, either parent can register the birth and include both names.

[Marsh.]

Unmarried couples both have to be present when you register the birth. If you are unmarried and just mother goes, to register they cannot include the fathers name. Married couples, either parent can register the birth and include both names.

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is. The unmarried mother either goes with the father, on her own where no father is registered, or takes her boyfriend (either knowingly or unknowingly :hehe:) to register him as the father.

My point is, it's not very accurate in and of itself.

[Beso]

I wish I could remember what I was on my sons certificate.

[Marsh.]

I wish I could remember what I was on my sons certificate.

The father hopefully? :smug:

[Beso]

The father hopefully? :smug:

I was definatly that...the occupation.....I'm sure I jazzed it up a bit through shame.

[Niamh.]

But then what about the mothers who register their babies with no name for the father given?

People are insisting accuracy (although I don't see what's inaccurate about labelling Betty and Len "Parents" rather than "Mother and Father") but there doesn't seem to be a lot of insistency on gathering all of the relevant and accurate information on them anyway. The mother can literally take any boyfriend and claim he is the father.So if it doesn't matter so much why does it matter enough to change it? :think:

[Cherie]

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is. The unmarried mother either goes with the father, on her own where no father is registered, or takes her boyfriend (either knowingly or unknowingly :hehe:) to register him as the father.

My point is, it's not very accurate in and of itself.

Parents, could be anything though step parents, God parents, guardians

this is a BIRTH certificate, so the person who gave birth should be named, Parent 1 or Parent 6 doesn't really tell you anything

[Toy Soldier]

Parents, could be anything though step parents, God parents, guardians



this is a BIRTH certificate, so the person who gave birth should be named, Parent 1 or Parent 6 doesn't really tell you anythingIt does if the birth-giver is always listed as Parent 1. Simple solutions to simple problems Cherie :hee:

[Marsh.]

Parents, could be anything though step parents, God parents, guardians

this is a BIRTH certificate, so the person who gave birth should be named, Parent 1 or Parent 6 doesn't really tell you anything

Well, if the two names on a certificate are Wendy and Keith it doesn't take three degrees and a 6 month internship to work out who gave birth. :hehe:

The point I was making was, IMO, for them to be as accurate as possible they should only have the names of the two people who made the baby. In the case of a single mother/absent or unknown father, have only the mother.

[Marsh.]

So if it doesn't matter so much why does it matter enough to change it? :think:

I've no idea. I don't necessarily agree with the person from the article's thinking.

But, if we're against changing these documents because they need to "retain historical accurate information" then they need a major overhaul already.

[Cherie]

Well, if the two names on a certificate are Wendy and Keith it doesn't take three degrees and a 6 month internship to work out who gave birth. :hehe:

The point I was making was, IMO, for them to be as accurate as possible they should only have the names of the two people who made the baby. In the case of a single mother/absent or unknown father, have only the mother.

Well it would if this case goes through as it will be a male name on the birth cert?

[Cherie]

It does if the birth-giver is always listed as Parent 1. Simple solutions to simple problems Cherie :hee:

What if Parent 2 wants to be listed as Parent 1, imagine being at the school gates and the Head comes out and asks for Emilys Parent 1 to come into the office, just ridiculous and robotic, sorry

[Toy Soldier]

What if Parent 2 wants to be listed as Parent 1, imagine being at the school gates and the Head comes out and asks for Emilys Parent 1 to come into the office, just ridiculous and robotic, sorry

Like I said, the person who gave birth would be automatically listed as Parent 1.

School gates? What do school gates have to do with birth certificates? Im not saying we should do away with the terms altogether I'm literally ONLY talking about birth certificates :think:.

[Marsh.]

Well it would if this case goes through as it will be a male name on the birth cert?

Maybe a gender field to be added to denote that the birth parent is trans?

[Beso]

Maybe a gender field to be added to denote that the birth parent is trans?

Or everyone could just like not give a ****...I'm not having my taxes paid to pandering.

[Toy Soldier]

Or everyone could just like not give a ****...I'm not having my taxes paid to pandering.

I don't see how it would cost anything... it's all filed electronically these days. It would literally take two seconds to add a checkbox.

I strongly suspect people are just "uncomfortable with the idea".

[Cherie]

Maybe a gender field to be added to denote that the birth parent is trans?

I don't see how it would cost anything... it's all filed electronically these days. It would literally take two seconds to add a checkbox.

I strongly suspect people are just "uncomfortable with the idea".

The father was not trans when he gave birth

[Toy Soldier]

The father was not trans when he gave birth

He just didn't register the birth for other reasons? As far as I understand the story, it's not that he later wants to go back and alter a birth certificate, he was told it couldn't be issued in the first place, so when he went to register (I assume, relatively soon after the birth) he was told that it wasn't allowed. It seems unlikely that he wasn't trans at the time of the birth, but was trans a week or two later :umm2:. Unless you don't mean transgendered and are referring specifically to surgical alterations, which isn't really what this is about.

[Becs]

I wish people would think more about their children than themselves.

[Cherie]

I suppose its possible half way through the pain of labour she decided to self identify as a man :laugh:

[Beso]

I don't see how it would cost anything... it's all filed electronically these days. It would literally take two seconds to add a checkbox.

I strongly suspect people are just "uncomfortable with the idea".

It would be the torys in charge of changing it.:nono:

[Toy Soldier]

It would be the torys in charge of changing it.:nono:That's true, it would end up costing billions.

[Beso]

That's true, it would end up costing billions.

Well we can't be having that, can we?

[Marsh.]

The father was not trans when he gave birth

It doesn't work like that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Birth certs say the status at birth Sperm and egg donors. Nowt else.no vanity