Transgender man wants to be named as father...

neris

this gender stuff is getting out of hand

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!

SortingYouOut

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

Call Me Jimmy

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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Can you imagine the child in all of this.

It's going to be a confusing childhood. Me Ma me's Da.

Franz Von Peppercorn

wexie wrote: »

the hell just happened to that post?

Dunno. I replied fairly quickly and it has disappeared.

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Dunno. I replied fairly quickly and it has disappeared.

very strange, not really the kinda thing a mod would see a need to remove either afaik

mdwexford

The inmates are running the asylum.

TheValeyard

mdwexford wrote: »

The inmates are running the asylum.

Asylum has burned down at this stage

GreeBo

neris wrote: »

this gender stuff is getting out of hand

My hand identifies as a foot, so I'd prefer if you said "this gender stuff is getting out of limb" as I find it offensive otherwise.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

You're kinda hitting it in spots as to what is relative to culture and social constructs and communication of our ideas, and in that sense the language we use to describe what we observe is indeed a socially constructed product relative to culture. Different cultures have long recognised a third gender.

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.

We're not changing biology though, the point is that we're challenging biology through observing reality, and then altering that reality, so whereas at one point in time I would have had to live with a gammy hip, I no longer have to, because of scientific and medical advances. Effectively we're overcoming our own biological limitations, and that's the idea behind transhumanism.

I wouldn't immediately consider an artificial hip replacement a great example of bionics as it hasn't enhanced my human capabilities, but I know what you meant at least -


Definition of bionic
1
: of or relating to bionics
2
: having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

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.

Of course not, and I would never suggest otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that we are now already at that point, and the law has to catch up with advances in medical and scientific technology to reflect current reality so that in the future cases like this aren't a big deal for people who don't align neatly with our categorisation of a species based solely on sexually dimorphic reproductive capacity.

Women who are infertile for example previously had no capacity to reproduce, and now they can, thanks to developments in modern medicine, science and technology. It doesn't mean they weren't women because they couldn't reproduce due to biological realities which have now been overcome by science and technology, and the law needs to catch up in the area of surrogacy and assisted reproduction to reflect that biological reality, or what has at least now become a biological reality.

2 Scoops

It's pretty sickening political and media types will push their twisted ideological at the expense of entertaining delusion whilst ignoring realities based in science. Those who genuinely feel like they have a problem I'm not rallying against, it's the types like the story in the OP, or parents deciding which gender their pre pubescent child should, or the social science university types making up all these crazy genders and teaching make believe courses based on them. The whole thing I find repugnant attention seeking honestly and as a result many kids are going to grow up having major problems.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're kinda hitting it in spots as to what is relative to culture and social constructs and communication of our ideas, and in that sense the language we use to describe what we observe is indeed a socially constructed product relative to culture. Different cultures have long recognised a third gender.

Different cultures believe a lot of stuff. Science isn’t just a culture. I’ll find that pinker quote in a minute.

We're not changing biology though, the point is that we're challenging biology through observing reality, and then altering that reality, so whereas at one point in time I would have had to live with a gammy hip, I no longer have to, because of scientific and medical advances. Effectively we're overcoming our own biological limitations, and that's the idea behind transhumanism.

The very fact that you have to change the biology means the biology reflects reality. This is a world away from it being a construct to begin with.

I wouldn't immediately consider an artificial hip replacement a great example of bionics as it hasn't enhanced my human capabilities, but I know what you meant at least -


Definition of bionic
1
: of or relating to bionics
2
: having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

A fairly quick google by myself returns nothing about enhanced performance. Why the pedantry though? Even if you were right it’s not adding much to your argument.

The google search for bionic returns

having or denoting an artificial, typically electromechanical, body part or parts.

Of course not, and I would never suggest otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that we are now already at that point, and the law has to catch up with advances in medical and scientific technology to reflect current reality so that in the future cases like this aren't a big deal for people who don't align neatly with our categorisation of a species based solely on sexually dimorphic reproductive capacity.

Personally I don’t think science is anywhere close to the thought experiment I presented about a post op being indistinguishable from a woman but it doesn’t matter in this case because the biological reality at birth was that the birth mother was a biological she.

Women who are infertile for example previously had no capacity to reproduce, and now they can, thanks to developments in modern medicine, science and technology. It doesn't mean they weren't women because they couldn't reproduce due to biological realities which have now been overcome by science and technology, and the law needs to catch up in the area of surrogacy and assisted reproduction to reflect that biological reality, or what has at least now become a biological reality.

That’s because there are multiple biological reasons beyond ability to give birth that distinguish a biological man from a biological woman.

This is a world away from gender anyway. Which isn’t, we are told, biological.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Different cultures believe a lot of stuff. Science isn’t just a culture. I’ll find that pinker quote in a minute.

It had better not be anything related to his promotion of evolutionary psychology, because that's entirely based upon presenting cultural biases as scientific theories.

The very fact that you have to change the biology means the biology reflects reality. This is a world away from it being a construct to begin with.

But nobody is changing biology here. It's simply the terminology is changing, the biology remains the same. How we describe reality is changing, because we are now observing the nature of reality is changing, and the laws which are informed by society and culture will have to change. Biology remains the same, laws can be changed.

A fairly quick google by myself returns nothing about enhanced performance. Why the pedantry though? Even if you were right it’s not adding much to your argument.

I wasn't intending it to be pedantic, I meant it as an example of how definitions are formed by language which is a cultural construct. Language changes all the time. That was from the Merriam Webster dictionary btw, I should have provided the source and it might have made my point clearer. As another example remember when gay used to mean happy? Nowadays in Western culture most people associate the term gay with ones sexual orientation.

Personally I don’t think science is anywhere close to the thought experiment I presented about a post op being indistinguishable from a woman but it doesn’t matter in this case because the biological reality at birth was that the birth mother was a she.

It's not a thought experiment any more. Advances in medicine, science and technology are at the point now where a post-op transgender woman is indistinguishable from someone who was born a woman at birth. Unless you're suggesting that everyone remove their clothing so you can be certain, you're unlikely to be able to distinguish between someone who has altered their outward appearance with medical intervention, and someone who has developed that way naturally.

The reason it absolutely matters in this case is because of the legal implications. We aren't speaking in the context of science, we're speaking in the context of legal and social implications whereby a person who was previously legally recognised as a woman is now legally recognised as a man, and now wishes to be legally recognised as a father.

It's all about legal recognition, not science or biology.

That’s because there are multiple biological reasons beyond ability to give birth that distinguish a biological man from a woman.

Yes there are, and so to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion, then identification as either a woman or a man isn't solely limited to biology or a persons reproductive capacity.

This is a world away from gender anyway. Which isn’t, we are told, biological.

It's not a world away from gender, but rather it's a world away from our previous understanding of biology, and if science is based upon observation, then we must acknowledge this new information which informs us about the nature of reality. This case isn't something that can be addressed in the realm of science, but rather it can only be addressed in the legal realm, which is informed by society and culture.

evolving_doors

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life's too short.

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

c montgomery

Attention seaking freak !
Feel sorry for the child.

TheValeyard

evolving_doors wrote: »

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

Planets not dying, just becoming less hospitable for us. We may die out, but planet will live on, survive and florish.

conorhal

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life's too short.

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

Because what the world needs now more than ever is your fatalism. Lie down croppy, lie down.
You sound like an Emo teen. We're all DOOMED so why shouldn't reality be just another casualty of our state of decay!

evolving_doors

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Planets not dying, just becoming less hospitable for us. We may die out, but planet will live on, survive and florish.

True that.
It's all relative I suppose. You could say mars is flourishing now.

evolving_doors

c montgomery wrote: »

Attention seaking freak !
Feel sorry for the child.

Why?

evolving_doors

conorhal wrote: »

Because what the world needs now more than ever is your fatalism. Lie down croppy, lie down.
You sound like an Emo teen. We're all DOOMED so why shouldn't reality be just another casualty of our state of decay!

Meh! The kid probably doesn't care as long as his parents love them.
I'd care more about the child dying on the streets in India while they work hard on their space program, or child soldiers in Africa, or kids in Ireland with f'ckd up scoliosis in agony on a waiting list.
Other kids are more deserving of our outrage.

TheValeyard

evolving_doors wrote: »

True that.
It's all relative I suppose. You could say mars is flourishing now.

Or Mars is in recovery mode! Slowly healing....

c montgomery

evolving_doors wrote: »

Why?

Attention seeking nutjob parent.

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

c montgomery wrote: »

Attention seeking nutjob parent.

So what.
Plenty of the above, no matter what the gender orientation.

conorhal

evolving_doors wrote: »

Meh! The kid probably doesn't care as long as his parents love them.
I'd care more about the child dying on the streets in India while they work hard on their space program, or child soldiers in Africa, or kids in Ireland with f'ckd up scoliosis in agony on a waiting list.
Other kids are more deserving of our outrage.

You don't care though. You just like to virtue signal that you do while wallowing in ennui. Which is the sure fire sign of a narcissist desperate for attention
I however, really don't care.

griffin100

Whenever these threads come up I always think of this scene.........

mayobumblebee

i do wonder why he wants his past eradicated. i can understand he wants to live now as a man fine off with him but as a biological woman she carried that child for nine months and gave birth to the child. The child has every right to look at his or her medical records, does this parent want them changed so that his own child would have incorrect medical charts? is that not a breach of the childs rights to know their true parents and also to know there own medical history. As a parent he should come to terms with the fact thats its no longer about him. the bigger picture is about the child he created with the biological father. should he not be listed at all? so the child would never know its true father or true mother because this man wants to erase the fact of how he was born. the mind boggles.
medically he will still need different treatments and medical attention because he will alway be biolocally female ie overaries, mammory glands etc.

shamrock55

Your a woman get over yourself ffs

Billy86

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life doesn't move on though, and it's because that kid has adults pointing and making angry comments at their parent throughout their childhood, shouting 'freak!' and so on at them, and then turning around and feigning that they 'feel sorry' for the child for being in a 'difficult circumstance'.

There's some seriously dark irony in there.

Billy86

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

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.

And here's an example of that in action:

X - homosexual acts are no longer illegal (1993)
Y - gay couples are allowed enter civil partnerships (2009)
Z - gay couples are allowed to marry (2015).

Disgusting carry on from them altogether, I think we can all agree. Shouldn't those damn liberals just be happy that gay people are no longer breaking any laws by riding each other? Sure they'll be wanting inseminated gay women to have access to abortions next...

c montgomery

evolving_doors wrote: »

So what.
Plenty of the above, no matter what the gender orientation.

So i feel sorry for the child

_Kaiser_

These attempts at historical and biological revisionism are getting more extreme and bizzaire by the week.

As I've said before.. You are born male or female. That's it. You can later feel/believe that you were born as the wrong one and decide to live as the other and that's fine. If you choose to take surgical steps to reinforce the change that's also fine. If you ask people to treat you as your assumed gender and call you by a preferred name that again is perfectly fine.

But it doesn't change the reality that you were born as something else, nor does it mean that you have the right to be offended if others don't always recognise or celebrate your decisions, and nor does it mean that you are now biologically and otherwise indistinguishable from a (for want of a better term) "original" man/woman.

And in this case, this individual should be spending more time thinking about the welfare of their child rather than their personal crusade. Male or female, any parent should be putting their child's interests first.

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And in this case, this individual should be spending more time thinking about the welfare of their child rather than their personal crusade. Male or female, any parent should be putting their child's interests first.

How do you think this will negatively affect the child?