A transgender man who gave birth has lost his latest court battle to be registered as "father" or "parent" on the birth certificate, rather than "mother".

Freddy McConnell said that forcing him to be recorded as his child's "mother" is a breach of his human right to respect for private and family life.

On Wednesday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled against him, saying the issue raised complicated "interlinked" legislation, and that the reform is a matter for parliament.

September 2019: Are families let down by the law?

Mr McConnell, who was the first transgender man in the UK to carry and give birth to his own baby, launched the appeal after he was ruled against at the High Court in London in September.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said that people who give birth are legally the mother of their child, regardless of their gender, adding that there is a "material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent".


Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice and most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh, all upheld the original High Court ruling, after considering arguments made at a Court of Appeal hearing in March.

Mr McConnell could now head to the Supreme Court for a fresh appeal.

Image: Mr McConnell does not want to be recorded as 'mother 'on the birth certificate

The judges heard that Mr McConnell is a single parent who was born female, but now lives as a man.

At the time of conception, Mr McConnell was biologically able to get pregnant and give birth and legally changed his gender following the birth of his child.

He was told a new law from parliament would be required to change the legislation on how people who give birth are able to record their gender.

He has taken legal action against the General Register Office, which is the office responsible for administering births and deaths in England and Wales.

Image: Mr McConnell took his case to the High Court

The Court of Appeal judges said in a written ruling: "The court necessarily operates on the basis of relatively limited evidence, which is adduced by the parties in the context of particular litigation.

"In contrast, parliament has the means and opportunities to obtain wider information, from much wider sources."

According to the judges, the government and MPs could be lobbied and legislators can acquire information from as many people as possible to attain the widest range of opinions.

:: Listen to the New Lines podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

"We have no idea, for example, whether all trans men object to the use of the word 'mother' to refer to them when they have given birth to a child," they said.

"Moreover, we do not have evidence before this court as to how other members of society would feel if they were no longer to be referred to on their child's birth certificate as a mother or a father but simply as 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2'."

They added: "In our view, this illustrates how inapt the subject matter is for determination by the courts as compared with parliament.

"If there is to be reform of the complicated, interlinked legislation in this context, it must be for parliament and not for this court."