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

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42164007]so a man is a mother on paper? this doesn't make sense[/quote] In which case, a woman shouldn't be listed as the father. Since the child in the article was born by a woman still in the process of transitioning to male, the man is still the biological mother, and not the father.

It would be nice if they could list biological parents by mother and father (something else may be required for non-natural births, such as using a surrogate or in-vitro), and legal parents by whatever they wish to be called, but unfortunately that isn't the case. The only problem here is whether the father's wishes to be recognized as the father on a birth certificate should be respected or not. With the current law, you have a few viewpoints to consider, either the medical, which lists the biological mother and father so you can use that for data for anything medical or otherwise, or the legal, which lists what each person who can legally be considered a parent and considers themselves a parent wishes to call themselves. Another thing to take into consideration is how will having "incorrect biological information" affect anyone, especially the child. Will it have any affect at all? Will people need to call the parents to get the correct biological information on the birth from them? Personally, I can't really make a call on this myself, so I'm just giving out the information of the situation in the way I view it.

I remember back in america that "Man got pregnant" but it was just a trans female but everyone believed he was born male or something and it was all over the media.

when kids are adopted at birth do they have their biological parents on the birth certificate?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42164132]when kids are adopted at birth do they have their biological parents on the birth certificate?[/QUOTE] Yes. It's up to the adoptive parents whether or not they show it to them.

[QUOTE=Shadaez;42163946]evidence? the person had a child and is a man "a man in relation to his natural child or children." so he's a father.[/QUOTE] Wait, this is fucking crazy, but somehow now interesting. He's basically a woman, but through identifying and some efforts, she or he and probably I would consider him more of a man than a woman. But since (s)he gave birth, which is a very womanly thing to do and is only possible to him because he was female by birth, it creates a problem, which one is he to the child? Anyway, by definition, I would say he indeed is a trans man of a mother to the child.

so if the kid ever needs their birth certificate for anything their pretty much gonna find out they're adopted?

I think we just need a new word or system for such cases

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42164154]so if the kid ever needs their birth certificate for anything their pretty much gonna find out they're adopted?[/QUOTE] It does happen. If the adoptive parents don't want the child to find out, they have to options. They can either completely deal with whatever the scenario is, which'll be suspicious after a certain age, or they can forge the documents, which'll be illegal.

[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] Except the person who pushed the baby out won't practically exist, anymore. They will be someone else, and it won't make sense to say "That man is his mother" any more than "that man gave birth to a child". It's wholly dumb semantics and whoever says it should be any other way other than the person would be most comfortable with is an insensitive dipshit who sticks nose into things they have absolutely no reason to talk into. Nobody cares about your OCD image of black and white world where everything has to make strict semantic sense just because you are too insecure to think out of the box and accept unusual concepts. [editline]12th September 2013[/editline] Just think about the implications of either possibility. They will put "Mother" into the birth certificate. That means that "Mother" has to be in all other official documents the kid will have, every single time bringing up the fact the man is a tran to everyone, confuse the child, and probably lead to completely pointless ridicule to them both, in future. If they put "Father" into the birth certificate, bad things that could happen are: ... Ideas? [editline]12th September 2013[/editline] Seriously, people are ready to argue about absolute BULLSHIT, even tho it doesn't influence them in the slightest while being crucial for somebody else, with nobody ever going to be harmed if it's the way the person wants it. Have a bit of fucking heart and take your "logic" and dictionary waving to political debate or something.

what fucking ever who gives a shit like wow who cares if some guy you don't know and will never see wants to be called daddy instead of mommy grow up just grow the fuck up jesus christ my brain hurts

Woman is biologically woman, gives birth, is mother Is how world works, if you don't like that, move to another planet

I remember the good old days when gender was the one thing people could be sure about now I struggle when I try to choose public restrooms [img]http://www.hollyturner.co.uk/Rock_Bottom_files/Picture%205.png[/img]

They could just add some notes to the birth certificate saying who the Parents are, THEN put the 'Biological' parents. Bam, non-existent problem solved. Also, I've seen some straight up transphobia in this thread and it's concerning.

if you start listing transpeople as father or mother without them being the biological equivalent you can end up compromising a doctor's ability to recognize/diagnose several hereditary issues so if you're all about endangering a human being's health in the name of political correctness...

[QUOTE=popbob;42164819]if you start listing transpeople as father or mother without them being the biological equivalent you can end up compromising a doctor's ability to recognize/diagnose several hereditary issues so if you're all about endangering a human being's health in the name of political correctness...[/QUOTE] Listing biological sex is inappropriate so... Why not "birther," and "inseminator" Instead of "biological mother," and "biological father?"

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42164909]Listing biological sex is inappropriate so... Why not "birther," and "inseminator" Instead of "biological mother," and "biological father?"[/QUOTE] why change all birth certificates to make a very small minority feel good about themselves?

[QUOTE=popbob;42164819]if you start listing transpeople as father or mother without them being the biological equivalent you can end up compromising a doctor's ability to recognize/diagnose several hereditary issues so if you're all about endangering a human being's health in the name of political correctness...[/QUOTE] Surely they could check the medical history of the parent? "Oh it says here they are transgender. That must mean they used to be a different gender" Doesn't sound hard.

[QUOTE=popbob;42164921]why change all birth certificates to make a very small minority feel good about themselves?[/QUOTE] People are discussing the legal ramifications of being called a biological female when you are already legally known as a male, which may be important. My proposition avoids the legality situation by using gender neutral language, and allows biomedical professionals get the pertinent information. Change is needed anyway for lots of things in society so might as well start now.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42164909]Listing biological sex is inappropriate so... Why not "birther," and "inseminator" Instead of "biological mother," and "biological father?"[/QUOTE] That's the same damn thing? Biological mother can only mean one thing, that is, the one that gave birth.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;42165328]That's the same damn thing? Biological mother can only mean one thing, that is, the one that gave birth.[/QUOTE] But you're not allowed to use that word or something. It's rude to mention your biological sex according to this thread. That's why I put the compromise.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42164211]Except the person who pushed the baby out won't practically exist, anymore. They will be someone else, and it won't make sense to say "That man is his mother" any more than "that man gave birth to a child". It's wholly dumb semantics and whoever says it should be any other way other than the person would be most comfortable with is an insensitive dipshit who sticks nose into things they have absolutely no reason to talk into. Nobody cares about your OCD image of black and white world where everything has to make strict semantic sense just because you are too insecure to think out of the box and accept unusual concepts. [editline]12th September 2013[/editline] Just think about the implications of either possibility. They will put "Mother" into the birth certificate. That means that "Mother" has to be in all other official documents the kid will have, every single time bringing up the fact the [B]man is a tran to everyone,[/B] [B]confuse the child,[/B] and probably lead to completely pointless ridicule to them both, in future. If they put "Father" into the birth certificate, bad things that could happen are: ... Ideas? [editline]12th September 2013[/editline] Seriously, people are ready to argue about absolute BULLSHIT, even tho it doesn't influence them in the slightest while being crucial for somebody else, with nobody ever going to be harmed if it's the way the person wants it. Have a bit of fucking heart and take your "logic" and dictionary waving to political debate or something.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the debate, but this argument is a bit horseshit them being listed as biologically female in a certificate that is incredibly rarely seen would 'confuse the child', but a birth certificate that only lists a single person wouldn't? comeon now also I think you're overblowing just how many people see a birth certificate

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42165533]I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the debate, but this argument is a bit horseshit them being listed as biologically female in a certificate that is incredibly rarely seen would 'confuse the child', but a birth certificate that only lists a single person wouldn't? comeon now also I think you're overblowing just how many people see a birth certificate[/QUOTE] You get your parents copied into your passport and other paperwork, and it's all derived off info on the birth certificate.

Don't you need ovaries to be able to give birth? I don't know the full details or anything, but how is this even physically possible?

[QUOTE=amorax;42165665]Don't you need ovaries to be able to give birth? I don't know the full details or anything, but how is this even physically possible?[/QUOTE] How about you read the source before posting.

Why did he want to get pregnant in the first place?

[QUOTE=RobbL;42165733]Why did he want to get pregnant in the first place?[/QUOTE] i don't know maybe he wanted a kid??

It seems like the last thing someone who's suffered from gender dysphoria would want to do, I dunno

Biologically he's still a woman despite the treatments or surgeries. There's nothing wrong with identifying as the opposite gender but the birth certificate is not about the gender they identify with, it's about biology. People should treat others with the gender they identify with, but records like this don't care about gender identification and it has little to do with it, it's about data organization.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42165878]i don't know maybe he wanted a kid??[/QUOTE] But if you identify as the other gender, why not act like that too? If a male wants a kid, they either adopt, or find a female.