Some nutter will want to legislate here

Atransgender man who attempted to create legal history by having his baby become the first to legally not have a mother has lost his High Court fight, with the presiding judge citing the “basic facts of life”.

Freddy McConnell, who was born a woman but later transitioned to become a man, took the Government to court earlier this year for refusing to let him register as the “father” on his child’s birth certificate.

The Government argued that he must be the “mother” because he gave birth to the child, who has a “right to know the identity of the person who carried him or her”.

Handing down his decision in the High Court today, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, sided with the Government, telling Mr McConnell that he must appear as “mother” on the birth certificate.

In his written judgment, Sir Andrew “looked back on earlier times” to draw upon the common law definition of a mother “prior to the mid-20th century, when conception and pregnancy other than through sexual intercourse was unknown.”

Because it’s such a common thing that a woman insisting she’s a man gives birth. And then wants the birth certificate to read that the child doesn’t have a mother.

But there will be that call for legislation because rights……

7 thoughts on “Some nutter will want to legislate here”

  1. The lawyer claims that this case shows the law has not kept pace with modern society.

    No. Thank god.

    Still, nice to see you can be flagrantly mentally ill and the State will only step in to protect the child’s right to an accurate birth certificate. Not a normal life.

  2. Reminds me of Pratchett’s Nobby Nobbs who claimed he didn’t know who his mother was because she left before he was born.

  3. Who is this vile old hater referring to such fascistic concepts as “the basic facts of life”?

    As Interested said, this is all utter lunacy, simply reading that report. Our political class is utterly deranged.

  4. The reasonable thing to do is for they’s name not to appear at all on the birth certificate, as the child would have been taken out of they’s control immediately by a protective social service and a birth certificate issued with only the adoptive parents on it (ideally being one male and one female, both sex and gender). The other party to the actual birth would, as an accessory, not be recorded as a parent.

  5. Assume they referred to the rights of the child in the matter to try and stop a claim under human rights.
    Wonder how much this all cost and who paid for it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *