A TRANSGENDER ‘man’ who has given birth to a child, but who was ‘himself’ born female, cannot be registered as the child’s father on account of UK law favouring “the right of a child born to a transgender parent to know the biological reality of its birth, rather than the parent’s right to be recognised on the birth certificate in their legal gender.” Freddy McConnell (pictured), a Guardian journalist, has spent time living as a ‘man’ – even being in receipt of a gender reassignment certificate to ‘prove’ it – but after becoming pregnant wishes to retain ‘male’ status.

Although I personally believe in the existence of just two sexes, it remains a fact that certain hormonal and chromosomal factors can lead to instances of intersexuality and I can therefore sympathise with those who feel that they were born in the ‘wrong’ body or, to put it another way, with the ‘wrong’ set of genitalia. However, whilst I don’t have any objection to McConnell describing him/herself in any way s/he desires, as well as the child being made aware of the full circumstances of the birth, it is completely illogical to imagine that alternative ways of approaching gender will ever be accepted by the mainstream. Not without brainwashing the up-and-coming generation, at least, something which is ordinarily described as ‘education’.

Whilst, given my own views on the matter, it may seem contradictory for me to state that I am prepared to support those who wish to describe themselves in the manner of their own choosing, I am under no illusion that unless mass society is broken down into separate units there will continue to be a fundamental clash of racial, religious, cultural and sexual values. I do not wish to impose my ‘truth’ on others, and neither do I wish the ‘truth’ of others to be imposed upon me, but the fact that McConnell has taken his/her case to the Court of Human Rights suggests that s/he is not simply trying to earn the right to ‘fatherhood’ in the way that, ultimately, we are all free to describe ourselves exactly as we wish, but to force a legally binding tenet upon society at large.

After all, McConnell is being portrayed as a victim of an existing law which, if overturned, would inevitably have an impact on those of us who maintain a purely binary approach to sex. One appears as a deprivation, the other as an imposition, yet a single judicial ruling could mean that matters are soon reversed. Indeed, what the two sides share in common is an intolerant universality and thus it seems fair to say that this case is a struggle between two competing narratives.