• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transgender man gives birth

Porpoise of Life said:
There's freedom of speech, and then there's professional conduct.
I'd oppose a law that tried to keep them from speaking out at all, but not being allowed to bully elderly people in the nursing home where they live (and can't leave), while they're getting paid to care for said elderly people?

I don't think that's a clear-cut case of 'just free speech'.
Click to expand...

No, but the jail time is what makes this proposal an awful idea. Saying rude stuff you're not supposed to at work should get you fired, maybe have your license stripped in some jobs but not jail time.
 
Civet said:
No, but the jail time is what makes this proposal an awful idea. Saying rude stuff you're not supposed to at work should get you fired, maybe have your license stripped in some jobs but not jail time.
Click to expand...


The blog post mentions jail but the actual linked text of the law does not. In fact it mentions that these offenses are misdemeanors which, AFAIK, usually don't include jail time.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.
Click to expand...

So from what I've read, if there is potential jail time it must be spelled out in the existing law and this new law simply extends that law to cover the unique circumstances of LGBT patients. I'd bet that in the existing law jail would only apply after repeated convictions for abuse.
 
After much searching I found the original law which this new amendment extends to LGBT patients and the unique considerations around their welfare. The original law was enacted in 1985 so anyone upset about this law having potential jail time should have been speaking out about it for over 30 years.
 
Transgender man loses court battle to be registered as father

A transgender man from Kent who gave birth with the help of fertility treatment cannot be registered as his child’s father, the most senior family judge in England and Wales has ruled.

In the first legal definition of a mother in English common law, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the high court’s family division, ruled on Wednesday that motherhood was about being pregnant and giving birth regardless of whether the person who does so was considered a man or a woman in law.

Freddy McConnell, 32, who has lived as a man for several years but retained his female reproductive system and gave birth in 2018, went to court after a registrar insisted he was recorded as the baby’s mother on the birth certificate despite holding a gender recognition certificate that made it clear the law considered him male.
Click to expand...
 
Venom said:
Transgender man loses court battle to be registered as father
Click to expand...
I read about this and I agree with the judge, the judge looked at the purpose of registering a birth and therefore what was required. I have no problem with the bloke being called a bloke and treated as a bloke in all situations but regardless of his gender he was the mother to this child in terms of biology. Which is what the birth registration is concerned about.
 
Darat said:
I read about this and I agree with the judge, the judge looked at the purpose of registering a birth and therefore what was required. I have no problem with the bloke being called a bloke and treated as a bloke in all situations but regardless of his gender he was the mother to this child in terms of biology. Which is what the birth registration is concerned about.
Click to expand...

Is there a specific legal interest of the state in distinguishing between "father" and "mother" on the birth certificate?

As I understand it, the fields are concerned with identifying a child's biological parents because there are potential legal ramifications to being a child's biological parent. And although I'm not sure to what extent it's part of the intent of the form, there are practical medical concerns that a child may want to have a record of their biological parents.

But I'd have trouble thinking of any legal use of a birth certificate which depends on the gendered parental title aligning with the parent's biological sex.
 
Just one of the reasons you give, for medical reasons is I think enough of a reason to justify indicating who the mother was and who the father was.

Personally I don't see the big deal about this no one is saying he can't be a dad to the kid, there is no need for the name on the birth certificate to be anything but the male gendered name, all the birth certificate is doing is recording the biological function he had in regards to the child.

However I can understand why it is a big deal to him, and I have some sympathy but sometimes we simply can't have everything the way we want it to be and I think this is one of those areas in which there is a reasonable reason not to accommodate his wishes.
 
Darat said:
Just one of the reasons you give, for medical reasons is I think enough of a reason to justify indicating who the mother was and who the father was.
Click to expand...

I had that thought, but then, that could only be potentially useful if the parent willingly shares their medical history with their child.

The only situation in which it could possibly cause a problem would be if a child had a particular risk of a serious medical condition with a genetic component highly reliant on the sex of the parent who carries the gene, AND a genetic parent was willing to share their medical history and genetic markers, but chose to hide their biological sex from their own child.

I can't see that coming up often, it seems a huge stretch to call an almost impossibly unlikely hypothetical a compelling reason.

Unless I'm missing another, more plausible medical scenario?
 
Cavemonster said:
I had that thought, but then, that could only be potentially useful if the parent willingly shares their medical history with their child.

The only situation in which it could possibly cause a problem would be if a child had a particular risk of a serious medical condition with a genetic component highly reliant on the sex of the parent who carries the gene, AND a genetic parent was willing to share their medical history and genetic markers, but chose to hide their biological sex from their own child.

I can't see that coming up often, it seems a huge stretch to call an almost impossibly unlikely hypothetical a compelling reason.

Unless I'm missing another, more plausible medical scenario?
Click to expand...

I suppose it might be a bit of bother to implement, but one could, I think, change the way things are registered. A child has two biological parents, and they could be described thus, and if necessary for medical conditions that depend on the sex of a parent, there could be a blank space or check box with the line of descent listed as maternal or paternal without specifying the chosen gender of the parent. It would be almost completely unnecessary for an enormous percentage of cases, but it would also cause very little, if any, inconvenience for them.

Just a thought, but it seems as if a lot of issues could be bypassed simply by chaning the way forms are printed the next time a print run comes around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom