Transgender man gives birth in Germany, fights for the right to be called the father. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=fulgrim;42160662]oh just let him put what he wants on the certificate- seriously who is this going to adversely affect?[/QUOTE] Exactly

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160640]A birth certificate records who pushed the baby out, and who put the baby in. It doesn't care about their choice of gender[/QUOTE] where does it say that? this person birthed a child and is a man, he is a man and is the parent of a child so he's a father. that's all~

[QUOTE=fulgrim;42160662]oh just let him put what he wants on the certificate- seriously who is this going to adversely affect?[/QUOTE] The government.

it would literally cause more problems if it listed him as the mother, as people would question him every single time he has to use the certificate when registering the kid for school / whatever (don't really know how this all works in Germany)

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160717]where does it say that? this person birthed a child and is a man, he is a man and is the parent of a child so he's a father. that's all~[/QUOTE] You seem to have missed his other post. [QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160547]For what it's worth, the Wyoming DoH says natural father goes in father therefore birthing parent goes in mother [img]http://puu.sh/4p7pL.png[/img][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160640]A birth certificate records who pushed the baby out, and who put the baby in. It doesn't care about their choice of gender[/QUOTE] So? I ask again, what exactly harms society to say that the father is also the same person who birthed the baby?

[QUOTE=Valnar;42160790]So, I ask again, what exactly harms society to say that the father is also the same person who birthed the baby?[/QUOTE] Because they didn't provide the sperm that made the child, they provided the egg.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;42160788]You seem to have missed his other post.[/QUOTE] 1. define "natural father", show a source 2. this isn't wyoming

[QUOTE=Paramud;42160809]Because they didn't provide the sperm that made the child, they provided the egg.[/QUOTE] You are completely not answering my question.

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160820]1. define "natural father", show a source 2. this isn't wyoming[/QUOTE] "Male parent is referred to as father. A natural or biological father is the man whose sperm impregnated the child's biological mother. A natural father is also called a genetic father or birth father." bam. he isn't the one who provided the sperm, therefore the birth certificate cannot recognize him as father (source directly below me)

[QUOTE=Valnar;42160790]So? I ask again, what exactly harms society to say that the father is also the same person who birthed the baby?[/QUOTE] Well it sure creates a damn logistical nightmare as far as accounting and documenting is concerned. We'd basically have to double-check EVERY BIRTH CERTIFICATE EVER to find out who biologically birthed children in regards to recordkeeping, were this allowed. Let the parent refer to themselves as whatever they want, I'm okay with that. But we can't have a birth certificate without a birthing mother listed, it literally makes no sense.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160857]"Male parent is referred to as father. A natural or biological father is the man whose sperm impregnated the child's biological mother. A natural father is also called a genetic father or birth father." bam. he isn't the one who provided the sperm, therefore the birth certificate cannot recognize him as father (source directly below me)[/QUOTE] Well, then the law is outdated and needs to be fixed, which is why this man is fighting the law. It would harm no one if they allowed him to be listed as the father. It would harm the child, the father, and the rest of his family if they didn't. Also, this still isn't in Wyoming.

[QUOTE=simsfreak63;42160861]Well it sure creates a damn logistical nightmare as far as accounting and documenting is concerned. We'd basically have to double-check EVERY BIRTH CERTIFICATE EVER to find out who biologically birthed children in regards to recordkeeping, were this allowed. Let the parent refer to themselves as whatever they want, I'm okay with that. But we can't have a birth certificate without a birthing mother listed, it literally makes no sense.[/QUOTE] Why would you need to re check every birth certificate ever? The ones made before this point will still be correct because they already listed who biologically birthed the child. Most birth certificates are made in hospitals, so there would be checking already there. Now you would just need to double check birth certificates not made by hospitals, but that problem would have always existed regardless of this.

[QUOTE=simsfreak63;42160861]Well it sure creates a damn logistical nightmare as far as accounting and documenting is concerned. We'd basically have to double-check EVERY BIRTH CERTIFICATE EVER to find out who biologically birthed children in regards to recordkeeping, were this allowed. Let the parent refer to themselves as whatever they want, I'm okay with that. But we can't have a birth certificate without a birthing mother listed, it literally makes no sense.[/QUOTE] uh why would they need to double check every certificate? that makes no sense. In what way is who birthed the child important?

[QUOTE=Valnar;42160894]The ones made before this point will still be correct because they already listed who biologically birthed the child.[/QUOTE] Except for the part where the mother/father of this child wants no mother listed.

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160886]Well, then the law is outdated and needs to be fixed, which is why this man is fighting the law. It would harm no one if they allowed him to be listed as the father. It would harm the child, the father, and the rest of his family if they didn't. Also, this still isn't in Wyoming.[/QUOTE] Biologically, a baby always comes out of a fully functional uterus. At the end of the day the birth certificate is recording who owned the uterus, and who owned the penis. The penis holder isn't required to be there for the birth of the baby, but it's kind of impossible for the uterus owner to not be there when the baby is born. [editline]blayzd[/editline] would an acceptable alternative be changing mother/father to uterus/penis???

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160909]uh why would they need to double check every certificate? that makes no sense. In what way is who birthed the child important?[/QUOTE] Yes, in what way is a birthing parent important in a [b]birth certificate[/b]?

but why would you want to have a kid if you're "male"

[QUOTE=Paramud;42160918]Except for the part where the mother/father of this child wants no mother listed.[/QUOTE] So then in those rare exceptions you double check. simsfreak said that you would have to double check every birth certificate ever.

[QUOTE=Paramud;42160924]Yes, in what way is a birthing parent important in a [b]birth certificate[/b]?[/QUOTE] reposting the same thing over again with words bolded doesn't make a point answer the question, seriously why is it important? If it is important, change the damn document because it's outdated. Put birth parent: and keep gender out of it entirely? who knows

Legally, He should be the father. And I agree on that. Biologically, He is the mother, and I agree on that.

He might not be what you normally call a father, but men and women can either be a father or mother or both to a person. And by that I mean they assume the role of mother or father, not in the sense of male with a child = father and female with a child = mother.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160923]Biologically, a baby always comes out of a fully functional uterus. At the end of the day the birth certificate is recording who owned the uterus, and who owned the penis. The penis holder isn't required to be there for the birth of the baby, but it's kind of impossible for the uterus owner to not be there when the baby is born. [/QUOTE] no one's really disagreeing with this, though it's not entirely correct [QUOTE=LordCrypto;42160923]would an acceptable alternative be changing mother/father to uterus/penis???[/QUOTE] kinda, not entirely correct

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160951]reposting the same thing over again with words bolded doesn't make a point answer the question, seriously why is it important? If it is important, change the damn document because it's outdated. Put birth parent: and keep gender out of it entirely? who knows[/QUOTE] To be honest I wasn't trying to get a point across to you because if you couldn't understand what you had just asked it'd obviously be a moot one.

Way I see it, it goes back to the old gender vs sex rule. In a sexual sense I guess he is the mother, because of his role in child birth via female sexual organs. In the gender sense, he is the father.

[QUOTE=PSI Guy;42160435] I'm sorry, are people really going to ignore the definition of the words "mother" and "father" to make this person feel comfortable?[/QUOTE] But adoption...

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42161013]But adoption...[/QUOTE] Adopted children still have birth certificates listing their biological parents.

[QUOTE=Paramud;42161052]Adopted children still have birth certificates listing their biological parents.[/QUOTE] Yeah, they are sealed but someone still has record of original biological parents.

The more I think about it, the more of a quandary this one seems to be. On one hand is the immutable biological fact that he is the one that birthed a newborn, and the other is the legal and social distinction of being a gentleman. I don't know what to make of this one honestly, because both seem like they would be important in their own fields (e.g. a doctor would need to know who gave birth and who impregnated, while a school teacher would probably not need this information.)

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42160717]where does it say that? this person birthed a child and is a man, he is a man and is the parent of a child so he's a father. that's all~[/QUOTE] If you're the father or mother is entirely dependent on your role in conception. Not what you feel it you are.