Going off of that reasoning in the future when a lesbian couple uses artificial gametes from stem cells to have a child that is biologically both of theirs, does the mother who provided the cell...
Going off of that reasoning in the future when a lesbian couple uses artificial gametes from stem cells to have a child that is biologically both of theirs, does the mother who provided the cell that became the sperm have to be labeled as "father" on the birth certificate?
(I think they fixed the headline now Ignore the headline, which is wrong.) This case is about someone who transitioned to male, then became pregnant and gave birth to a child. He wanted to be...
(I think they fixed the headline now Ignore the headline, which is wrong.)
This case is about someone who transitioned to male, then became pregnant and gave birth to a child. He wanted to be listed on the birth certificate as "father", but this was refused. He went to court. Sadly, he lost, but the president of the family courts did say that government needs to put some urgent thought into how to handle cases like this.
The end of that document, para 279 onwards, are the important conclusions.
---begin quote---
The principal conclusion at the centre of this extensive judgment can be shortly stated. It is that there is a material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent. Being a 'mother', whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person's gender is 'male', their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of 'mother'.
At paragraph 149, I set out my preliminary conclusions with respect to domestic law, these can now be firmly stated as:
a) At common law a person whose egg is inseminated in their womb and who then becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child is that child's 'mother';
b) The status of being a 'mother' arises from the role that a person has undertaken in the biological process of conception, pregnancy and birth;
c) Being a 'mother' or a 'father' with respect to the conception, pregnancy and birth of a child is not necessarily gender specific, although until recent decades it invariably was so. It is now possible, and recognised by the law, for a 'mother' to have an acquired gender of male, and for a 'father' to have an acquired gender of female;
d) GRA 2004, s 12 is both retrospective and prospective. The status of a person as the father or mother of a child is not affected by the acquisition of gender under the Act, even where the relevant birth has taken place after the issue of a GR certificate.
At paragraph 273 I have concluded that the impact of the UK legislative scheme on TT and YY, whilst interfering with the right to respect that they each have in relation to private and family life, is justified in ECHR terms with the consequence that there is no breach of Art 8 in relation to either parent or child. I have also concluded that there is no separate breach under Art 14 in either case.
It follows that the preliminary conclusion with respect to domestic law now stands as my final determination, with the consequence that in law TT is YY's 'mother' for the purposes of the registration of YY's birth under the BDRA 1953.
The Claimant's application for judicial review, for which I formally give leave, has therefore failed and must be dismissed.
A Declaration of Parentage under Family Law Act 1986, s 55A will be issued confirming that TT is YY's mother.
As YY's mother, TT will automatically have parental responsibility for his son under CA 1989, s 2(2)(a)
My first thought was, making the distinction of who physically gave birth to the child (traditionally: mother) as compared to who is the other parent is important, but when I thought about it a...
My first thought was, making the distinction of who physically gave birth to the child (traditionally: mother) as compared to who is the other parent is important, but when I thought about it a little more, I can't think of any good reason as to why this is actually necessary.
Knowing who the parents are will let you know what genes were inherited. Sure, certain things are only passed along with an X or Y chromosome, and knowing which parent passed which chromosome can help isolate where a genetic abnormality was passed down from, but the reality is that this doesn't matter because the end result (what chromosomes/genes the child has) is measurable without knowing any of this.
But the fact that I had this thought at all is perhaps proof that there's a gut reaction to mother/father on a birth certificate and something that might take some time for people to get used to a gender neutral term such as "parent" to appear on a birth certificate instead.
EDIT: Slight change in wording to the first paragraph for clarity
There is some usage of the "mother" field, to gather data on teenage pregnancy, prenatal and postnatal diseases, etc, but it's mostly statistics gathering. It could presumably be replaced with a...
There is some usage of the "mother" field, to gather data on teenage pregnancy, prenatal and postnatal diseases, etc, but it's mostly statistics gathering. It could presumably be replaced with a "birthing parent" and "nonbirthing parent" (but I'd hire someone to pick better names".
If the parents are gender nonconforming in some respect, I would imagine the balance of who does what work in the home is likely quite different than a 'traditional' household. It might be better...
If the parents are gender nonconforming in some respect, I would imagine the balance of who does what work in the home is likely quite different than a 'traditional' household. It might be better for metrics such as teenage pregnancy to not be including these data points anyhow, as they would just end up making the data even more confusing. If the goal is to see whether there's a motherly figure in the household, the terms 'mother' and 'father' based on biological sex don't really do much for this unless you're operating under the assumption that the household is 'traditional' as many modern households include stay at home dads which would be fulfilling what are traditionally 'motherly' duties.
Prenatal and postnatal diseases can be captured without information of who the 'birthing parent' is, and I think there's a stronger case here as their health absolutely is important for pretty much all prenatal diseases and some postnatal diseases - this information doesn't necessarily have to be tied back to that parent if the documentation on the child is adequate.
While I agree with you on certain points, from a medical provider standpoint it's far more important to be able to have accurate records based on the health of the person incubating the child, and...
While I agree with you on certain points, from a medical provider standpoint it's far more important to be able to have accurate records based on the health of the person incubating the child, and AFAIK it seems like we still rely on birth records for that. FAS, smoking, the health status of the birthing parent, and all diseases that do not appear until later, and must eventually be crosschecked with birth records (ie statistics about cancer risk in the birthing parent vs the child, stroke risk in the birthing parent and child) all rely on accurate birthing records. And, if one parent is not a teenager yet the birthing parent is, under current definition that would be considered a teenage pregnancy, which would not be captured if we do not record who the birthing parent is.
I think that we can totally get past gendered terms, but I think you will face medical pushback unless you continue recording which parent carried the baby.
Edit: I should also note, none of what I think is important relates to gendered duties, such as "motherhood". That said, it is clearly rooted in the biological (but not social) concept of sex, which is significant from a healthcare standpoint.
I have never at any point in my medical career seen a doctor, nurse, or other provider look up a birth record in order to obtain any information on a child. This information is collected from the...
from a medical provider standpoint it's far more important to be able to have accurate records based on the health of the person incubating the child, and AFAIK it seems like we still rely on birth records for that.
I have never at any point in my medical career seen a doctor, nurse, or other provider look up a birth record in order to obtain any information on a child.
This information is collected from the parents or legal guardians of the child during encounters in which the child is receiving care from the providers (or, in some cases, from the child themselves).
(ie statistics about cancer risk in the birthing parent vs the child, stroke risk in the birthing parent and child)
This is definitely the one situation in which I can see this information being important, but there are probably a higher number of inaccuracies in birth records than there are transgender parents who wish to be identified as a different gender than their biological birth sex. Furthermore, you may want to isolate these individuals anyways as people who are transgender are often on hormone therapy or other drugs which could affect these rates and being able to easily isolate them (two fathers or two mothers on the birth certificate, for example) would actually be more beneficial than trying to force them into the currently existing categories.
if one parent is not a teenager yet the birthing parent is, under current definition that would be considered a teenage pregnancy, which would not be captured if we do not record who the birthing parent is.
Ah okay I misunderstood what you were getting at with teenage pregnancy. Yes, this would be a situation in which I'm not sure how you'd resolve it. I would, however, like to point out again that the extremely low incidence of two fathers or mothers on a birth certificate would make this really a non-issue.
This exposes my relative inexperience with human medicine. Most of what I know pertains to veterinary medicine, so excuse my misunderstanding. I do not know if there is a system of recording this...
I have never at any point in my medical career seen a doctor, nurse, or other provider look up a birth record in order to obtain any information on a child.
This exposes my relative inexperience with human medicine. Most of what I know pertains to veterinary medicine, so excuse my misunderstanding. I do not know if there is a system of recording this info other than through birth records, for the purpose of medical statistics. It's wholly possible that this is primarily done by collecting info from patients/the parents of patients. That said, it seems like it could be useful.
But there are probably a higher number of inaccuracies in birth records than there are transgender parents who wish to be identified as a different gender than their biological birth sex
Also totally fair. The birth certificate situation is kinda a mess. So from a purely practical standpoint I agree, we could drop "mother" and "father" and almost nothing would change, but I suppose I'm being wishful in hoping we could have a more robust medical statistics & recording system.
To get into this a bit, there's a lot of different statistics going on. In some cases, public health statistics does rely pretty heavily on public or governmental records. So it is theoretically...
for the purpose of medical statistics
To get into this a bit, there's a lot of different statistics going on.
In some cases, public health statistics does rely pretty heavily on public or governmental records. So it is theoretically possible that they would be looking at the birth certificates to gather basic information. They might then look for the parents birth certificates in order to gather information about race, etc. This could potentially get confusing for the tiny amount of patients which theoretically could have two birth mothers or fathers recorded on their record. Traditional statistical methods would indicate that eliminating these individuals from the stats would be a good idea anyhow as these patients represent a very different cohort than everyone else. Of note, this is also a good way to identify individuals who have transgender parents which would allow better statistics targeted at this population.
The moment they cross over into any truly medical information (such as the parent's diagnoses, medical conditions, medications, etc.), you're talking about medical records - at this point there's no reason to rely on the birth certificate as the source for this information, as the medical record will have much more accurate and pertinent information on the patient.
I agree. I think every child has a right to know their origin and have access to their family and history. We cannot escape our biology and society should enable children to know who their...
I thoroughly disagree.
I agree.
I think every child has a right to know their origin and have access to their family and history. We cannot escape our biology and society should enable children to know who their biological parents are (within reason) even though those parents would want to deny that information.
Legislation in countries where you at a certain age have the right to know the identity of a sperm or egg donor regardless of what your parents would want are sensible rules.
Upbringing is important too. I believe children should have the right to know who raised them. Say you were raised in an orphanage or foster family at an age you cannot remember or barely remember.
It doesn't matter to me what word we use to describe these biological parents. Using respectful language is important and worthwhile.
To me terminology often seems to be the only way real and important issues get brought up and discussed. Sadly the debate too often stops at the discussion regarding the words and the underlying principles we collectively choose to base our communities on remain unexplored.
Absolutely, I was simply arguing with the terminology choice of mother, father, or parent on a birth certificate. I was not making the case that parents should be entirely excluded from a birth...
I think every child has a right to know their origin and have access to their family and history. We cannot escape our biology and society should enable children to know who their biological parents are (within reason) even though those parents would want to deny that information.
Absolutely, I was simply arguing with the terminology choice of mother, father, or parent on a birth certificate. I was not making the case that parents should be entirely excluded from a birth certificate.
I can see now how my wording may have made this confusing. I am going to update my post so that it is more clear.
I misunderstood you completely. Your new wording is much clearer. I hadn't even considered that we do in fact differentiate between birthing parent and other parent. There really is no reason for...
I misunderstood you completely. Your new wording is much clearer.
I hadn't even considered that we do in fact differentiate between birthing parent and other parent. There really is no reason for that in this context.
Medical history is recorded for both parents, knowing which is the birthing parent and which is not is really not all that important and can still be recorded for the child as "biological mother:...
Medical history is recorded for both parents, knowing which is the birthing parent and which is not is really not all that important and can still be recorded for the child as "biological mother: xx". Whether they are listed as the mother or father on the birth certificate is entirely irrelevant to the medical documentation process.
I can see how this might get tricky when we deal with surrogacy, but I'm no expert in legal matters so I'll have to defer to someone else to explain the nuances and whether this would truly matter or not.
To be clear I'm not necessarily arguing that we shouldn't list it by default, I'm just saying that having two mothers or two fathers on a birth certificate should be allowed. The incidence of this...
To be clear I'm not necessarily arguing that we shouldn't list it by default, I'm just saying that having two mothers or two fathers on a birth certificate should be allowed. The incidence of this happening will be extremely rare, and it might actually help researchers using public data sets as it's a way to quickly identify children who have transgender parents (which you may want to study directly, or toss out of larger public health studies because they would be outliers and a different cohort by nature).
There are factors that are important, are based on the person who carried the child, and are not necessarily testable; I can immediately think of exposure to things in utero. While it is not...
There are factors that are important, are based on the person who carried the child, and are not necessarily testable; I can immediately think of exposure to things in utero.
While it is not relevant to this case or any recent births, an example is DES, a drug (in its less sinister uses) administered during pregnancies in the middle of the 20th century that was later found to have major long-term adverse medical effects on the offspring of those treated with it. Knowing whether someone was exposed to it in utero can't, to my knowledge, be tested, and does affect what regular screenings are recommended for the person.
Whether a birth certificate, which in my mind is primarily a legal, rather than medical, document, is the right place for such medical information, however, seems like a relevant question.
Measurable doesn't mean it's actually measured. Doctors still check on self-reported accounts of family history before they default to expensive and time-consuming genetic testing, which is...
but the reality is that this doesn't matter because the end result (what chromosomes/genes the child has) is measurable without knowing any of this.
Measurable doesn't mean it's actually measured. Doctors still check on self-reported accounts of family history before they default to expensive and time-consuming genetic testing, which is reserved for serious issues.
It's also used for tons of population level metrics to determine things like maternal health, fertility rates, infant mortality, etc.
Initially, when I read this, I thought it shouldn't be that big of a deal. After all, this man was able to conceive, carry, and deliver his baby, surely that must've been more difficult than being...
Initially, when I read this, I thought it shouldn't be that big of a deal. After all, this man was able to conceive, carry, and deliver his baby, surely that must've been more difficult than being listed as "mother" once on a birth certificate that will only been seen a few times in his life. Or would that not be the end of it? Will this mean he will have to refer to himself as the child's mother in other official documents in the future, like for schools and doctors visits? I understand the philosophical issue here, but what exactly is the practical issue?
I understand, I just figured that the birth certificate would be nothing compared to the nine months of pregnancy and the dysphoria that I assume would go along with it. After all the books and...
I understand, I just figured that the birth certificate would be nothing compared to the nine months of pregnancy and the dysphoria that I assume would go along with it. After all the books and classes and body changes, what's a piece of paper? Again, if it means that he would regularly have to identify as the child mother in any official capacity, then I would totally understand the desire to sue. Otherwise, it just seems like going through a lot of trouble for something so small. As for practical reasons behind being listed as "mother", wouldn't accurate record keeping for future historical or genealogical research be one? Not that it really matters.
So you're arguing that it sucks but it's relatively minor compared to the rest of what they went through, but I don't think that's a logical argument. It's like saying something like "Women have...
So you're arguing that it sucks but it's relatively minor compared to the rest of what they went through, but I don't think that's a logical argument. It's like saying something like "Women have gone through so much to get the right to vote, so they should be happy with that and not worry about the wage gap." And as for the accurate record keeping, that's been discussed above, and it seems the solution would be just listing them as "birth parent", or something similar.
I don't think that's a very fair analogy, especially since I acknowledged that he would have a strong case if he has to regularly identify as the mother. I was just saying that it's a lot of...
I don't think that's a very fair analogy, especially since I acknowledged that he would have a strong case if he has to regularly identify as the mother. I was just saying that it's a lot of hassle for something that is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Admittedly, this is something I'm not very familiar with, which is why I was asking questions in the first place. I just have trouble wrapping my head around the issue that this person has if he was able to go through an entire pregnancy. If no one is going to call him "mother," and no one is really going to see the certificate, and it's just a slip of paper used for record keeping, how bad can it be? Why not just lump it in with the baby books, birthing classes, body changes, and all the other stuff from the pregnancy that must've been difficult and move on?
Regardless, given all the new possibilities we have these days, I do think that there should be a gender-neutral term that identifies the parents on the birth certificate. A gender-neutral term like 'parent' makes more sense than listing two fathers or mothers, and it covers more people by providing an option for non-binary parents.
You're right about the analogy not being great, it's just what I came up with on the spot. I agree with you that it's relatively minor compared to all the other dysphoria inducing things they have...
You're right about the analogy not being great, it's just what I came up with on the spot. I agree with you that it's relatively minor compared to all the other dysphoria inducing things they have been through, but I still don't feel that it being minor is a reason to suck it up and deal with it. I think we should try to improve the world and make it more inclusive to all, including in areas as small as the word on a birth certificate.
Going off of that reasoning in the future when a lesbian couple uses artificial gametes from stem cells to have a child that is biologically both of theirs, does the mother who provided the cell that became the sperm have to be labeled as "father" on the birth certificate?
(I think they fixed the headline now Ignore the headline, which is wrong.)
This case is about someone who transitioned to male, then became pregnant and gave birth to a child. He wanted to be listed on the birth certificate as "father", but this was refused. He went to court. Sadly, he lost, but the president of the family courts did say that government needs to put some urgent thought into how to handle cases like this.
The full case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2019/2384.html
The end of that document, para 279 onwards, are the important conclusions.
---begin quote---
The principal conclusion at the centre of this extensive judgment can be shortly stated. It is that there is a material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent. Being a 'mother', whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person's gender is 'male', their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of 'mother'.
At paragraph 149, I set out my preliminary conclusions with respect to domestic law, these can now be firmly stated as:
At paragraph 273 I have concluded that the impact of the UK legislative scheme on TT and YY, whilst interfering with the right to respect that they each have in relation to private and family life, is justified in ECHR terms with the consequence that there is no breach of Art 8 in relation to either parent or child. I have also concluded that there is no separate breach under Art 14 in either case.
It follows that the preliminary conclusion with respect to domestic law now stands as my final determination, with the consequence that in law TT is YY's 'mother' for the purposes of the registration of YY's birth under the BDRA 1953.
The Claimant's application for judicial review, for which I formally give leave, has therefore failed and must be dismissed.
A Declaration of Parentage under Family Law Act 1986, s 55A will be issued confirming that TT is YY's mother.
As YY's mother, TT will automatically have parental responsibility for his son under CA 1989, s 2(2)(a)
My first thought was, making the distinction of who physically gave birth to the child (traditionally: mother) as compared to who is the other parent is important, but when I thought about it a little more, I can't think of any good reason as to why this is actually necessary.
Knowing who the parents are will let you know what genes were inherited. Sure, certain things are only passed along with an X or Y chromosome, and knowing which parent passed which chromosome can help isolate where a genetic abnormality was passed down from, but the reality is that this doesn't matter because the end result (what chromosomes/genes the child has) is measurable without knowing any of this.
But the fact that I had this thought at all is perhaps proof that there's a gut reaction to mother/father on a birth certificate and something that might take some time for people to get used to a gender neutral term such as "parent" to appear on a birth certificate instead.
EDIT: Slight change in wording to the first paragraph for clarity
There is some usage of the "mother" field, to gather data on teenage pregnancy, prenatal and postnatal diseases, etc, but it's mostly statistics gathering. It could presumably be replaced with a "birthing parent" and "nonbirthing parent" (but I'd hire someone to pick better names".
If the parents are gender nonconforming in some respect, I would imagine the balance of who does what work in the home is likely quite different than a 'traditional' household. It might be better for metrics such as teenage pregnancy to not be including these data points anyhow, as they would just end up making the data even more confusing. If the goal is to see whether there's a motherly figure in the household, the terms 'mother' and 'father' based on biological sex don't really do much for this unless you're operating under the assumption that the household is 'traditional' as many modern households include stay at home dads which would be fulfilling what are traditionally 'motherly' duties.
Prenatal and postnatal diseases can be captured without information of who the 'birthing parent' is, and I think there's a stronger case here as their health absolutely is important for pretty much all prenatal diseases and some postnatal diseases - this information doesn't necessarily have to be tied back to that parent if the documentation on the child is adequate.
While I agree with you on certain points, from a medical provider standpoint it's far more important to be able to have accurate records based on the health of the person incubating the child, and AFAIK it seems like we still rely on birth records for that. FAS, smoking, the health status of the birthing parent, and all diseases that do not appear until later, and must eventually be crosschecked with birth records (ie statistics about cancer risk in the birthing parent vs the child, stroke risk in the birthing parent and child) all rely on accurate birthing records. And, if one parent is not a teenager yet the birthing parent is, under current definition that would be considered a teenage pregnancy, which would not be captured if we do not record who the birthing parent is.
I think that we can totally get past gendered terms, but I think you will face medical pushback unless you continue recording which parent carried the baby.
Edit: I should also note, none of what I think is important relates to gendered duties, such as "motherhood". That said, it is clearly rooted in the biological (but not social) concept of sex, which is significant from a healthcare standpoint.
I have never at any point in my medical career seen a doctor, nurse, or other provider look up a birth record in order to obtain any information on a child.
This information is collected from the parents or legal guardians of the child during encounters in which the child is receiving care from the providers (or, in some cases, from the child themselves).
This is definitely the one situation in which I can see this information being important, but there are probably a higher number of inaccuracies in birth records than there are transgender parents who wish to be identified as a different gender than their biological birth sex. Furthermore, you may want to isolate these individuals anyways as people who are transgender are often on hormone therapy or other drugs which could affect these rates and being able to easily isolate them (two fathers or two mothers on the birth certificate, for example) would actually be more beneficial than trying to force them into the currently existing categories.
Ah okay I misunderstood what you were getting at with teenage pregnancy. Yes, this would be a situation in which I'm not sure how you'd resolve it. I would, however, like to point out again that the extremely low incidence of two fathers or mothers on a birth certificate would make this really a non-issue.
This exposes my relative inexperience with human medicine. Most of what I know pertains to veterinary medicine, so excuse my misunderstanding. I do not know if there is a system of recording this info other than through birth records, for the purpose of medical statistics. It's wholly possible that this is primarily done by collecting info from patients/the parents of patients. That said, it seems like it could be useful.
Also totally fair. The birth certificate situation is kinda a mess. So from a purely practical standpoint I agree, we could drop "mother" and "father" and almost nothing would change, but I suppose I'm being wishful in hoping we could have a more robust medical statistics & recording system.
To get into this a bit, there's a lot of different statistics going on.
In some cases, public health statistics does rely pretty heavily on public or governmental records. So it is theoretically possible that they would be looking at the birth certificates to gather basic information. They might then look for the parents birth certificates in order to gather information about race, etc. This could potentially get confusing for the tiny amount of patients which theoretically could have two birth mothers or fathers recorded on their record. Traditional statistical methods would indicate that eliminating these individuals from the stats would be a good idea anyhow as these patients represent a very different cohort than everyone else. Of note, this is also a good way to identify individuals who have transgender parents which would allow better statistics targeted at this population.
The moment they cross over into any truly medical information (such as the parent's diagnoses, medical conditions, medications, etc.), you're talking about medical records - at this point there's no reason to rely on the birth certificate as the source for this information, as the medical record will have much more accurate and pertinent information on the patient.
I thoroughly disagree.I agree.
I think every child has a right to know their origin and have access to their family and history. We cannot escape our biology and society should enable children to know who their biological parents are (within reason) even though those parents would want to deny that information.
Legislation in countries where you at a certain age have the right to know the identity of a sperm or egg donor regardless of what your parents would want are sensible rules.
Upbringing is important too. I believe children should have the right to know who raised them. Say you were raised in an orphanage or foster family at an age you cannot remember or barely remember.
It doesn't matter to me what word we use to describe these biological parents. Using respectful language is important and worthwhile.
To me terminology often seems to be the only way real and important issues get brought up and discussed. Sadly the debate too often stops at the discussion regarding the words and the underlying principles we collectively choose to base our communities on remain unexplored.
Absolutely, I was simply arguing with the terminology choice of mother, father, or parent on a birth certificate. I was not making the case that parents should be entirely excluded from a birth certificate.
I can see now how my wording may have made this confusing. I am going to update my post so that it is more clear.
I misunderstood you completely. Your new wording is much clearer.
I hadn't even considered that we do in fact differentiate between birthing parent and other parent. There really is no reason for that in this context.
Medical history is recorded for both parents, knowing which is the birthing parent and which is not is really not all that important and can still be recorded for the child as "biological mother: xx". Whether they are listed as the mother or father on the birth certificate is entirely irrelevant to the medical documentation process.
I can see how this might get tricky when we deal with surrogacy, but I'm no expert in legal matters so I'll have to defer to someone else to explain the nuances and whether this would truly matter or not.
This can be entirely resolved with medical records and does not need to exist on the birth certificate which exists for other legal purposes.
To be clear I'm not necessarily arguing that we shouldn't list it by default, I'm just saying that having two mothers or two fathers on a birth certificate should be allowed. The incidence of this happening will be extremely rare, and it might actually help researchers using public data sets as it's a way to quickly identify children who have transgender parents (which you may want to study directly, or toss out of larger public health studies because they would be outliers and a different cohort by nature).
There are factors that are important, are based on the person who carried the child, and are not necessarily testable; I can immediately think of exposure to things in utero.
While it is not relevant to this case or any recent births, an example is DES, a drug (in its less sinister uses) administered during pregnancies in the middle of the 20th century that was later found to have major long-term adverse medical effects on the offspring of those treated with it. Knowing whether someone was exposed to it in utero can't, to my knowledge, be tested, and does affect what regular screenings are recommended for the person.
Whether a birth certificate, which in my mind is primarily a legal, rather than medical, document, is the right place for such medical information, however, seems like a relevant question.
Measurable doesn't mean it's actually measured. Doctors still check on self-reported accounts of family history before they default to expensive and time-consuming genetic testing, which is reserved for serious issues.
It's also used for tons of population level metrics to determine things like maternal health, fertility rates, infant mortality, etc.
You're absolutely right, and this information is gathered from humans, not from legal documents.
Initially, when I read this, I thought it shouldn't be that big of a deal. After all, this man was able to conceive, carry, and deliver his baby, surely that must've been more difficult than being listed as "mother" once on a birth certificate that will only been seen a few times in his life. Or would that not be the end of it? Will this mean he will have to refer to himself as the child's mother in other official documents in the future, like for schools and doctors visits? I understand the philosophical issue here, but what exactly is the practical issue?
It triggers gender dysphoria for no practical reason.
I understand, I just figured that the birth certificate would be nothing compared to the nine months of pregnancy and the dysphoria that I assume would go along with it. After all the books and classes and body changes, what's a piece of paper? Again, if it means that he would regularly have to identify as the child mother in any official capacity, then I would totally understand the desire to sue. Otherwise, it just seems like going through a lot of trouble for something so small. As for practical reasons behind being listed as "mother", wouldn't accurate record keeping for future historical or genealogical research be one? Not that it really matters.
So you're arguing that it sucks but it's relatively minor compared to the rest of what they went through, but I don't think that's a logical argument. It's like saying something like "Women have gone through so much to get the right to vote, so they should be happy with that and not worry about the wage gap." And as for the accurate record keeping, that's been discussed above, and it seems the solution would be just listing them as "birth parent", or something similar.
I don't think that's a very fair analogy, especially since I acknowledged that he would have a strong case if he has to regularly identify as the mother. I was just saying that it's a lot of hassle for something that is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Admittedly, this is something I'm not very familiar with, which is why I was asking questions in the first place. I just have trouble wrapping my head around the issue that this person has if he was able to go through an entire pregnancy. If no one is going to call him "mother," and no one is really going to see the certificate, and it's just a slip of paper used for record keeping, how bad can it be? Why not just lump it in with the baby books, birthing classes, body changes, and all the other stuff from the pregnancy that must've been difficult and move on?
Regardless, given all the new possibilities we have these days, I do think that there should be a gender-neutral term that identifies the parents on the birth certificate. A gender-neutral term like 'parent' makes more sense than listing two fathers or mothers, and it covers more people by providing an option for non-binary parents.
You're right about the analogy not being great, it's just what I came up with on the spot. I agree with you that it's relatively minor compared to all the other dysphoria inducing things they have been through, but I still don't feel that it being minor is a reason to suck it up and deal with it. I think we should try to improve the world and make it more inclusive to all, including in areas as small as the word on a birth certificate.