We're still working out some of our lgbt+ law in the UK. In this case a man who gave birth to a child wished to be named as the father on the birth certificate. This wasn't allowed, so he went to...
We're still working out some of our lgbt+ law in the UK. In this case a man who gave birth to a child wished to be named as the father on the birth certificate.
This wasn't allowed, so he went to court.
This case has to balance several things: the father's rights under the UK's "gender recognition act" to be called a man, his rights under the children act (mothers automatically get parental responsibility, fathers don't, and this has important consequences), his convention rights to a private and family life, the incompatibility of the UK's laws around registering births with those convention rights, but then all of these have to be balanced against the rights of the child.
The case goes through a lot of current UK law (laws around IVF, surrogacy, adoption, etc etc) to list how parliament have made these laws and how the courts need to be careful not to destroy the intent of those laws.
Sadly, he lost, and if he goes on the birth certificate he'll be listed as the mother.
Reluctantly, I feel this is probably the right decision because I think the child has important rights here and I'm always going to place the rights of children higher than the rights of adults.
To me I think the important thing is that we've lived with patriarchal bullshit forcing needless gender divides in everything, and transrights are a good way for us to move away from this. A lot of the legal documentation in the UK is still rigidly gendered, and we're slowly getting some changes introduced.
There are some nice things that are worth highlighting:
Being a “mother” or “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
This is an extremely simple case. It has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with health; especially with rapid advances in genetic medicine. A health care provider needs to know...
This is an extremely simple case. It has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with health; especially with rapid advances in genetic medicine.
A health care provider needs to know who provided the female side and who provided the male side of the child's genetic makeup. Finding out this information in a time of crisis from a panicking incoherent parent wastes time. Looking at a child's medical record does not. Biology is more important than identity.
The entire basis of your argument rests on it being absolutely crucial that a healthcare provider be able to know which parent provided the egg and which the sperm in order to provide diagnosis or...
The entire basis of your argument rests on it being absolutely crucial that a healthcare provider be able to know which parent provided the egg and which the sperm in order to provide diagnosis or treatment in a time of crises when simply asking the patient or their parents would not suffice or be possible... but when would that ever actually be the case?
Certain genes/diseases are passed down from certain parents. Family history is a part of every patient's medical record. A mother with a family history of X, but not passed down via the mother...
Certain genes/diseases are passed down from certain parents. Family history is a part of every patient's medical record. A mother with a family history of X, but not passed down via the mother allows X to be likely ruled out in an emergency. During an emergency people are by and large irrational, incapable of thinking or answering clearly, patients and parents included. Patients aren't always conscious, parents aren't always present.
That seems a rather flimsy answer to me, TBH. Can you provide an actual, realistic example/scenario where this information would be critical for a healthcare worker to know in an emergency, or are...
That seems a rather flimsy answer to me, TBH. Can you provide an actual, realistic example/scenario where this information would be critical for a healthcare worker to know in an emergency, or are you just speculating in order to justify your opinion on the outcome of this case?
I can. But you'll just pick it apart in some obvious logical fallacy fashion in order to support your own case and I'm in no mood to entertain today. All I can tell you is that as a medical...
I can.
But you'll just pick it apart in some obvious logical fallacy fashion in order to support your own case and I'm in no mood to entertain today. All I can tell you is that as a medical professional that has dealt with emergency scenarios on a daily basis, an accurate medical record including family history has saved more lives than it has cost. Adulteration of that data can only cause harm.
Only if you assume I am arguing in bad faith, which you seem to be doing, I guess. But believe it or not, I am actually genuinely curious if there truly are any scenarios where needing to know who...
But you'll just pick it apart in some obvious logical fallacy fashion in order to support your own case.
Only if you assume I am arguing in bad faith, which you seem to be doing, I guess. But believe it or not, I am actually genuinely curious if there truly are any scenarios where needing to know who is the biological father and mother would be critical in an emergency situation. And the only reason I stipulate "emergency situation" is because that seems to be the crux of your argument in support of this ruling, based on your very first reply:
"Finding out this information in a time of crisis from a panicking incoherent parent wastes time. Looking at a child's medical record does not."
Which I do based on how you approached this and began your replies. Which is correct, because outside of an emergency situation the gathering of medical history isn't time critical and a physician...
Which I do based on how you approached this and began your replies.
Which is correct, because outside of an emergency situation the gathering of medical history isn't time critical and a physician having an extended family history biological mother/father vs identifying mother/father conversation won't be potentially life threatening.
Are you confusing me for the OP? Because I am not the OP (who was the person you were originally arguing with). My first reply to you was this one: https://tild.es/oaa#comment-4yoq And nothing...
Are you confusing me for the OP? Because I am not the OP (who was the person you were originally arguing with). My first reply to you was this one: https://tild.es/oaa#comment-4yoq
And nothing about my comment there was in bad faith; I asked the question in earnest and still am... but I apologize if it somehow came off that way to you.
because outside of an emergency situation the gathering of medical history isn't time critical and a physician having an extended family history biological mother/father vs identifying mother/father conversation won't be potentially life threatening.
Which is precisely why I keep asking for any examples of how this particular information (biological father/mother) could be critical in an emergency... because if there aren't any, then what does it matter who is listed as the father or mother on a birth certificate?
Nope. I stated that the information is important in an crisis scenario. You dismissed this stating how it would be possible for there to be a scenario where the information could not be gathered...
Are you confusing me for the OP?
Nope.
I stated that the information is important in an crisis scenario. You dismissed this stating how it would be possible for there to be a scenario where the information could not be gathered immediately.
I stated that in emergencies patients aren't always conscious and parents aren't always present. This was "flimsy".
To give the benefit of the doubt and attempt not to be condescending I'll give an example which I believe clearly outlines my point and will be the end of my participation in this conversation.
In this example this case was reversed/won and the female that gave birth is listed on the birth certificate and in the medical history as "father". You are the male child in this court case, at some point you will drive alone or with someone that does not know your family history. During this time you will be in a traffic collision that knocked you unconscious. While unconscious you will be taken to an emergency room. Your parents will be contacted, but it will go to voicemail. During this time providers will attempt to determine why you are unconscious and provide treatment. The most likely cause is head trauma as you have a bruise on your temple, so they will begin there. These tests take time. In that time you are internally bleeding to death because you are an undiagnosed hemophiliac. Hemophilia is in your family history, but on your "father's" side. Hemophilia is carried on the X chromosome. The female component of your genetic makeup provided the X chromosome in your XY status. Being that the female component was listed as your "father" this was ignored by the providers as the male cannot pass hemophilia down to male offspring. While awaiting results your blood pressure finally crashes, the providers rush in, but it's too late and you die. You died because a court case was won to adulterate your medical history under the guise of transrights.
Now you're probably thinking why wasn't some explanation that the "father" is actually the biological mother in the medical record. I can counterpoint that with why should the entire medical record system be redesigned to accommodate fringe medical cases where a transman gives birth when "father" and "mother" already handle this without issue since it's concerning sex and not gender. There may have been an explanation that "father" is biological mother. It was probably buried somewhere deep in the family medical history pages in a paragraph outlining the whole thing. However just like when you read something quickly for just the pertinent information you look for keywords. You don't pull out a history of the 19th century and start at 1801 if you are looking for information about 1852.
And finally you may think this some fantasy made up to support my statements and whether you believe it or not is up to you. However I know it to be a true case where the details have been switched to fit this transrights example where the real case involved some adoptive parents that wanted to save face by not admitting to their child that he was adopted, even though they knew the medical history of the biological parents, including not stating such in his family medical history. They sued for malpractice against one of my physicians and lost their case in addition to their son.
Everyone has/should have a right to identify and present themselves however they see fit and I firmly believe that. But, how a person wants to be perceived has no bearing in medicine.
I wasn't being dismissive of the idea that patients can be rendered unconscious and that medical records can help in such situations... I got that part, which is precisely why I mentioned it. It...
I stated that the information is important in an crisis scenario. You dismissed this stating how it would be possible for there to be a scenario where the information could not be gathered immediately.
I stated that in emergencies patients aren't always conscious and parents aren't always present. This was "flimsy".
I wasn't being dismissive of the idea that patients can be rendered unconscious and that medical records can help in such situations... I got that part, which is precisely why I mentioned it. It was you stating that there are hereditary diseases (no duh) and that people are "irrational during emergencies" being used as justification for denying this person the right to be listed as the father on the birth certificate, without providing any actual examples of that potentially interfering with emergency medicine, that was the flimsy part IMO. And frankly, ~lgbt is an LGBT space, so IMO if you're going to come in here to argue that something many people here likely strongly support the idea of, and some may even be currently fighting for, should not be granted due to legitimate medical reasons, you had better be willing to actually engage with people who are skeptical of your claims and provide more than just your say so, taken on faith that you know what you're talking about.
Now with that said, thank you for actually taking the time to provide a real world example of how if this person were granted the right to be listed as the father it might hamper things in a medical emergency. I didn't know that hemophilia was potentially matrilineal. However, if you will permit me to ask a follow up question; How often do Doctors actually look at birth certificates and then use that information to determine the potential for hereditary diseases in emergency situations? Is all that information really just a few clicks away, so that's the standard procedure, rather than physical tests of some sort?
If so, fair enough, and I see your point... however I still think a compromise might be in order here, where the birth certificate has separate listings for biological father/mother and gender of the parents, since unfortunately as it stands the "mother" and "father" listed on the certificate are often granted different legal rights from one another regarding their children, so those labels effect more than just medical records.
I expect them to have the common sense to know that their gender and their sex are not one in the same and that how they wish to present has no bearing on their biology. It shouldn't need greater...
And frankly, ~lgbt is an LGBT space, so IMO if you're going to come in here to argue that something many people here likely strongly support the idea of, and some may even be currently fighting for, should not be granted due to legitimate medical reasons, you had better be willing to actually engage with people who are skeptical of your claims and provide more than just your say so, taken on faith that you know what you're talking about.
I expect them to have the common sense to know that their gender and their sex are not one in the same and that how they wish to present has no bearing on their biology. It shouldn't need greater explanation than that.
How often do Doctors actually look at birth certificates and then use that information to determine the potential for hereditary diseases in emergency situations? Is all that information really just a few clicks away, so that's the standard procedure, rather than physical tests of some sort?
The actual certificate? Never. However the medical records for a child will start with the birth certificate and so the data from it will carry down into records going forward. This is even more important now as records are almost universally digital and shareable between providers. Twenty years ago when practically everything was still on paper the record would be entirely the word of the parent.
If so, fair enough, and I see your point... however I still think a compromise might be in order here, where the birth certificate has separate listings for biological father/mother and gender of the parents, since unfortunately as it stands the "mother" and "father" listed on the certificate are often granted different legal rights from one another regarding their children, so those labels effect more than just medical records.
I'm in complete agreement on the legal standings of the titles of mother/father and there is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done on that front. What the wording should be is another deal and one that I find humorous as legal definitions tend to be to me. Mother and father having such gendered definitions I can see the fields being:
Biologically Female Genetic Material Provider:
Biologically Male Genetic Material Provider:
Uh... nobody here is arguing they are the same AFAICT, and I certainly wasn't, so what are you talking about? That's also not what's really being discussed here; This is about is who should have...
I expect them to have the common sense to know that their gender and their sex are not one in the same and that how they wish to present has no bearing on their biology. It shouldn't need greater explanation than that.
Uh... nobody here is arguing they are the same AFAICT, and I certainly wasn't, so what are you talking about? That's also not what's really being discussed here; This is about is who should have the right to the labels of "mother" and "father" on their child's birth certificate. You want to argue that since it's partly a medical record it should be purely representative of biological sex, fine and I can see your point about that now... but since it's also a legal document with significant rights being applied to whoever does have those labels applied to them on it, it's clearly more complicated than that, especially since in the UK a transgender man is legally allowed to apply for all other legal identification using male gendered terms, and vice versa.
The argument was taking only the legal side into account and not the medical one and has been since the start. Arguing that on a legal and medical document that a transman should be labeled...
The argument was taking only the legal side into account and not the medical one and has been since the start. Arguing that on a legal and medical document that a transman should be labeled "father" is not taking the entirety of the issue into account and can cause more harm than good. We are already in agreement that the legal definition needs to change, but until it does expecting the biological one to suit the legal one will kill people.
I wonder if it would be possible to replace it though? I mean civil rights is about a persons place in society and social structures - and in this case it might help (if it is possible) to swap...
I wonder if it would be possible to replace it though? I mean civil rights is about a persons place in society and social structures - and in this case it might help (if it is possible) to swap out the gendered father/mother for say "XY" or similar shorthand to clearly define the genetical background of the child without placing a social gender on the parent.
The argument is one that is also mentioned in terms of adoption and surrogate mothers here - since it adds a level of complexity when the past of the patient is tricky to know - BUT the counter then has been that the level of complexity isn't that high.
It's a tricky subject because we, like most, think that the term mother/father can be whatever chosen - at the same time it's worth taking it slow to avoid further, larger complications in the future. :/
In my opinion it is possible to replace, but governments tend to move slowly. I'm in complete agreement on the legal standings of the titles of mother/father and there is an incredible amount of...
In my opinion it is possible to replace, but governments tend to move slowly.
I'm in complete agreement on the legal standings of the titles of mother/father and there is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done on that front. What the wording should be is another deal and one that I find humorous as legal definitions tend to be to me. "Mother" and "father" having such gendered definitions I can see the fields being:
Biologically Female Genetic Material Provider:
Biologically Male Genetic Material Provider:
Because a court rules on law, not writes it. Doesn't make my interpretation of the ruling and how they came to the same conclusion incorrect. A mother is a female whose egg is inseminated in their...
Because a court rules on law, not writes it. Doesn't make my interpretation of the ruling and how they came to the same conclusion incorrect. A mother is a female whose egg is inseminated in their womb, becomes pregnant, and gives birth to a child.
Simple biology and nothing to do with transrights. Through the wonders of modern medicine and the progression of transrights men can thankfully give birth if they so choose. That doesn't change the fact that males cannot. One is sex, one is gender, one is biology, one is societal/identity.
I can't find this genetic medicine reasoning anywhere in the judgment, nor in any of the laws used to come to this judgment. Can you point out what I'm missing please? Below I've linked all the UK...
This is an extremely simple case. It has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with health; especially with rapid advances in genetic medicine.
I can't find this genetic medicine reasoning anywhere in the judgment, nor in any of the laws used to come to this judgment. Can you point out what I'm missing please? Below I've linked all the UK / English acts mentioned in the judgment.
As a simple/naive label change, birth parent could replace mother for such a case. This implies the parent that gave birth/carried through pregnancy. It's also similar to labelling change from...
As a simple/naive label change, birth parent could replace mother for such a case. This implies the parent that gave birth/carried through pregnancy. It's also similar to labelling change from maternal leave to parental leave.
My question is, should parental details on birth certificates reflect the "social" gender of the parents, or their biological sex? I lean towards the latter, as it is more medically relevant, but...
My question is, should parental details on birth certificates reflect the "social" gender of the parents, or their biological sex?
I lean towards the latter, as it is more medically relevant, but I respect that some people absolutely do not want to ever by identified by their biological sex. Perhaps separate fields for gender and sex would be appropriate.
So what is the problem with having separate fields for sex and gender? A checkbox indicating surrogacy is probably a good idea too. More information is always better.
So what is the problem with having separate fields for sex and gender? A checkbox indicating surrogacy is probably a good idea too.
I don't think I ever implied that "sex" should be a binary field. If it's included on a form, then all possible values should be options. Who provided what chromosomes is important information,...
"Sex" is really tricky, in medicine. First of all, as I mentioned in the other comment, a decent percentage of people (as many as 1%) have some kind of intersex condition, like PCOS or CAIS. That means that a lot of the assumptions we make about "biological sex" already don't hold.
I don't think I ever implied that "sex" should be a binary field. If it's included on a form, then all possible values should be options.
Who provided what chromosomes is important information, especially concerning genetic defects present on the X chromosome. Many people only have one, so recessive genes on it play an important role in their genetic health. Completely ignoring a persons chromosome configuration doesn't seem any more a good idea than ignoring other genetic factors. If a certain piece of data unimportant in the particular study you are doing, then it's pretty easy to just remove it from the equation when running your numbers.
I consider myself to be maximum progressive, but it’s funny how often my social conditioning turns up nevertheless. My first thought on reading the title was to wonder what miracle of science...
I consider myself to be maximum progressive, but it’s funny how often my social conditioning turns up nevertheless. My first thought on reading the title was to wonder what miracle of science enabled a “man” to give birth?
Side note, i have heard of biological xy’s being able to lactate.
E = oestrogen I guess? (sry I am tired AF and was thinking "how does giving extacy to dudes help them lactate?" and adding this just if someone else is in the same boat (IE tired + a tad thick)
E = oestrogen I guess? (sry I am tired AF and was thinking "how does giving extacy to dudes help them lactate?" and adding this just if someone else is in the same boat (IE tired + a tad thick)
Yes. E = Estrogen Helps them lactate because men and women are relatively close genetically and so it just takes a little hormones to help the process along to lactate.
Yes. E = Estrogen
Helps them lactate because men and women are relatively close genetically and so it just takes a little hormones to help the process along to lactate.
We're still working out some of our lgbt+ law in the UK. In this case a man who gave birth to a child wished to be named as the father on the birth certificate.
This wasn't allowed, so he went to court.
This case has to balance several things: the father's rights under the UK's "gender recognition act" to be called a man, his rights under the children act (mothers automatically get parental responsibility, fathers don't, and this has important consequences), his convention rights to a private and family life, the incompatibility of the UK's laws around registering births with those convention rights, but then all of these have to be balanced against the rights of the child.
The case goes through a lot of current UK law (laws around IVF, surrogacy, adoption, etc etc) to list how parliament have made these laws and how the courts need to be careful not to destroy the intent of those laws.
Sadly, he lost, and if he goes on the birth certificate he'll be listed as the mother.
Reluctantly, I feel this is probably the right decision because I think the child has important rights here and I'm always going to place the rights of children higher than the rights of adults.
To me I think the important thing is that we've lived with patriarchal bullshit forcing needless gender divides in everything, and transrights are a good way for us to move away from this. A lot of the legal documentation in the UK is still rigidly gendered, and we're slowly getting some changes introduced.
There are some nice things that are worth highlighting:
This is an extremely simple case. It has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with health; especially with rapid advances in genetic medicine.
A health care provider needs to know who provided the female side and who provided the male side of the child's genetic makeup. Finding out this information in a time of crisis from a panicking incoherent parent wastes time. Looking at a child's medical record does not. Biology is more important than identity.
The entire basis of your argument rests on it being absolutely crucial that a healthcare provider be able to know which parent provided the egg and which the sperm in order to provide diagnosis or treatment in a time of crises when simply asking the patient or their parents would not suffice or be possible... but when would that ever actually be the case?
Certain genes/diseases are passed down from certain parents. Family history is a part of every patient's medical record. A mother with a family history of X, but not passed down via the mother allows X to be likely ruled out in an emergency. During an emergency people are by and large irrational, incapable of thinking or answering clearly, patients and parents included. Patients aren't always conscious, parents aren't always present.
That seems a rather flimsy answer to me, TBH. Can you provide an actual, realistic example/scenario where this information would be critical for a healthcare worker to know in an emergency, or are you just speculating in order to justify your opinion on the outcome of this case?
I can.
But you'll just pick it apart in some obvious logical fallacy fashion in order to support your own case and I'm in no mood to entertain today. All I can tell you is that as a medical professional that has dealt with emergency scenarios on a daily basis, an accurate medical record including family history has saved more lives than it has cost. Adulteration of that data can only cause harm.
Only if you assume I am arguing in bad faith, which you seem to be doing, I guess. But believe it or not, I am actually genuinely curious if there truly are any scenarios where needing to know who is the biological father and mother would be critical in an emergency situation. And the only reason I stipulate "emergency situation" is because that seems to be the crux of your argument in support of this ruling, based on your very first reply:
"Finding out this information in a time of crisis from a panicking incoherent parent wastes time. Looking at a child's medical record does not."
Which I do based on how you approached this and began your replies.
Which is correct, because outside of an emergency situation the gathering of medical history isn't time critical and a physician having an extended family history biological mother/father vs identifying mother/father conversation won't be potentially life threatening.
Are you confusing me for the OP? Because I am not the OP (who was the person you were originally arguing with). My first reply to you was this one: https://tild.es/oaa#comment-4yoq
And nothing about my comment there was in bad faith; I asked the question in earnest and still am... but I apologize if it somehow came off that way to you.
Which is precisely why I keep asking for any examples of how this particular information (biological father/mother) could be critical in an emergency... because if there aren't any, then what does it matter who is listed as the father or mother on a birth certificate?
Nope.
I stated that the information is important in an crisis scenario. You dismissed this stating how it would be possible for there to be a scenario where the information could not be gathered immediately.
I stated that in emergencies patients aren't always conscious and parents aren't always present. This was "flimsy".
To give the benefit of the doubt and attempt not to be condescending I'll give an example which I believe clearly outlines my point and will be the end of my participation in this conversation.
In this example this case was reversed/won and the female that gave birth is listed on the birth certificate and in the medical history as "father". You are the male child in this court case, at some point you will drive alone or with someone that does not know your family history. During this time you will be in a traffic collision that knocked you unconscious. While unconscious you will be taken to an emergency room. Your parents will be contacted, but it will go to voicemail. During this time providers will attempt to determine why you are unconscious and provide treatment. The most likely cause is head trauma as you have a bruise on your temple, so they will begin there. These tests take time. In that time you are internally bleeding to death because you are an undiagnosed hemophiliac. Hemophilia is in your family history, but on your "father's" side. Hemophilia is carried on the X chromosome. The female component of your genetic makeup provided the X chromosome in your XY status. Being that the female component was listed as your "father" this was ignored by the providers as the male cannot pass hemophilia down to male offspring. While awaiting results your blood pressure finally crashes, the providers rush in, but it's too late and you die. You died because a court case was won to adulterate your medical history under the guise of transrights.
Now you're probably thinking why wasn't some explanation that the "father" is actually the biological mother in the medical record. I can counterpoint that with why should the entire medical record system be redesigned to accommodate fringe medical cases where a transman gives birth when "father" and "mother" already handle this without issue since it's concerning sex and not gender. There may have been an explanation that "father" is biological mother. It was probably buried somewhere deep in the family medical history pages in a paragraph outlining the whole thing. However just like when you read something quickly for just the pertinent information you look for keywords. You don't pull out a history of the 19th century and start at 1801 if you are looking for information about 1852.
And finally you may think this some fantasy made up to support my statements and whether you believe it or not is up to you. However I know it to be a true case where the details have been switched to fit this transrights example where the real case involved some adoptive parents that wanted to save face by not admitting to their child that he was adopted, even though they knew the medical history of the biological parents, including not stating such in his family medical history. They sued for malpractice against one of my physicians and lost their case in addition to their son.
Everyone has/should have a right to identify and present themselves however they see fit and I firmly believe that. But, how a person wants to be perceived has no bearing in medicine.
I wasn't being dismissive of the idea that patients can be rendered unconscious and that medical records can help in such situations... I got that part, which is precisely why I mentioned it. It was you stating that there are hereditary diseases (no duh) and that people are "irrational during emergencies" being used as justification for denying this person the right to be listed as the father on the birth certificate, without providing any actual examples of that potentially interfering with emergency medicine, that was the flimsy part IMO. And frankly, ~lgbt is an LGBT space, so IMO if you're going to come in here to argue that something many people here likely strongly support the idea of, and some may even be currently fighting for, should not be granted due to legitimate medical reasons, you had better be willing to actually engage with people who are skeptical of your claims and provide more than just your say so, taken on faith that you know what you're talking about.
Now with that said, thank you for actually taking the time to provide a real world example of how if this person were granted the right to be listed as the father it might hamper things in a medical emergency. I didn't know that hemophilia was potentially matrilineal. However, if you will permit me to ask a follow up question; How often do Doctors actually look at birth certificates and then use that information to determine the potential for hereditary diseases in emergency situations? Is all that information really just a few clicks away, so that's the standard procedure, rather than physical tests of some sort?
If so, fair enough, and I see your point... however I still think a compromise might be in order here, where the birth certificate has separate listings for biological father/mother and gender of the parents, since unfortunately as it stands the "mother" and "father" listed on the certificate are often granted different legal rights from one another regarding their children, so those labels effect more than just medical records.
I expect them to have the common sense to know that their gender and their sex are not one in the same and that how they wish to present has no bearing on their biology. It shouldn't need greater explanation than that.
The actual certificate? Never. However the medical records for a child will start with the birth certificate and so the data from it will carry down into records going forward. This is even more important now as records are almost universally digital and shareable between providers. Twenty years ago when practically everything was still on paper the record would be entirely the word of the parent.
I'm in complete agreement on the legal standings of the titles of mother/father and there is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done on that front. What the wording should be is another deal and one that I find humorous as legal definitions tend to be to me. Mother and father having such gendered definitions I can see the fields being:
Biologically Female Genetic Material Provider:
Biologically Male Genetic Material Provider:
Uh... nobody here is arguing they are the same AFAICT, and I certainly wasn't, so what are you talking about? That's also not what's really being discussed here; This is about is who should have the right to the labels of "mother" and "father" on their child's birth certificate. You want to argue that since it's partly a medical record it should be purely representative of biological sex, fine and I can see your point about that now... but since it's also a legal document with significant rights being applied to whoever does have those labels applied to them on it, it's clearly more complicated than that, especially since in the UK a transgender man is legally allowed to apply for all other legal identification using male gendered terms, and vice versa.
The argument was taking only the legal side into account and not the medical one and has been since the start. Arguing that on a legal and medical document that a transman should be labeled "father" is not taking the entirety of the issue into account and can cause more harm than good. We are already in agreement that the legal definition needs to change, but until it does expecting the biological one to suit the legal one will kill people.
I wonder if it would be possible to replace it though? I mean civil rights is about a persons place in society and social structures - and in this case it might help (if it is possible) to swap out the gendered father/mother for say "XY" or similar shorthand to clearly define the genetical background of the child without placing a social gender on the parent.
The argument is one that is also mentioned in terms of adoption and surrogate mothers here - since it adds a level of complexity when the past of the patient is tricky to know - BUT the counter then has been that the level of complexity isn't that high.
It's a tricky subject because we, like most, think that the term mother/father can be whatever chosen - at the same time it's worth taking it slow to avoid further, larger complications in the future. :/
In my opinion it is possible to replace, but governments tend to move slowly.
I'm in complete agreement on the legal standings of the titles of mother/father and there is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done on that front. What the wording should be is another deal and one that I find humorous as legal definitions tend to be to me. "Mother" and "father" having such gendered definitions I can see the fields being:
Biologically Female Genetic Material Provider:
Biologically Male Genetic Material Provider:
XX:
XY:
Sperm Machine:
Egg Incubator:
Okay, maybe not that last one...
Top ten most awkward sex ed book titles?
I'd have to see the other candidates, but I'll say it's probably up there in the list.
And yet none of your claims were tested in court, were they?
Because a court rules on law, not writes it. Doesn't make my interpretation of the ruling and how they came to the same conclusion incorrect. A mother is a female whose egg is inseminated in their womb, becomes pregnant, and gives birth to a child.
Simple biology and nothing to do with transrights. Through the wonders of modern medicine and the progression of transrights men can thankfully give birth if they so choose. That doesn't change the fact that males cannot. One is sex, one is gender, one is biology, one is societal/identity.
Edited for peacekeeping, not content.
I'm sure you can explain your side without including this level of condescension in it.
I am capable of such, yes.
I just gave as much as I received in this case.
Edited.
I can't find this genetic medicine reasoning anywhere in the judgment, nor in any of the laws used to come to this judgment. Can you point out what I'm missing please? Below I've linked all the UK / English acts mentioned in the judgment.
Family Law Act (1986)
Children Act (1989)
Gender Recognition Act (2004)
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990)
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008)
Human Rights Act (1998)
Births and Deaths Registration Act (1953)
Surrogacy Arrangements Act (1985)
Adoption and Children Act (2002)
Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 2088)
A butterfly flaps its wings in Japan...
As a simple/naive label change, birth parent could replace mother for such a case. This implies the parent that gave birth/carried through pregnancy. It's also similar to labelling change from maternal leave to parental leave.
My question is, should parental details on birth certificates reflect the "social" gender of the parents, or their biological sex?
I lean towards the latter, as it is more medically relevant, but I respect that some people absolutely do not want to ever by identified by their biological sex. Perhaps separate fields for gender and sex would be appropriate.
So what is the problem with having separate fields for sex and gender? A checkbox indicating surrogacy is probably a good idea too.
More information is always better.
I don't think I ever implied that "sex" should be a binary field. If it's included on a form, then all possible values should be options.
Who provided what chromosomes is important information, especially concerning genetic defects present on the X chromosome. Many people only have one, so recessive genes on it play an important role in their genetic health. Completely ignoring a persons chromosome configuration doesn't seem any more a good idea than ignoring other genetic factors. If a certain piece of data unimportant in the particular study you are doing, then it's pretty easy to just remove it from the equation when running your numbers.
I consider myself to be maximum progressive, but it’s funny how often my social conditioning turns up nevertheless. My first thought on reading the title was to wonder what miracle of science enabled a “man” to give birth?
Side note, i have heard of biological xy’s being able to lactate.
E = oestrogen I guess? (sry I am tired AF and was thinking "how does giving extacy to dudes help them lactate?" and adding this just if someone else is in the same boat (IE tired + a tad thick)
Yes. E = Estrogen
Helps them lactate because men and women are relatively close genetically and so it just takes a little hormones to help the process along to lactate.
Source?
/s