A TRANSSEXUAL is not legally the 'parent' of his daughter because he was still a woman when the girl was conceived, the Court of Appeal ruled today.
The female-to-male transsexual's 17-year marriage to a wealthy heiress was nullified when his wife discovered that she had, in fact married a woman.
The transsexual, referred to in court as Mr J, was born with gender dysmorphia. He underwent hormone treatment and had breasts removed before, at the age of 30, he met and married Mrs C, then aged 20 in 1977.
Though it beggars belief, it seems that Mrs C didn’t twig that she’d married another woman, even when she found herself unable to conceive a child.
He concealed the truth of his gender from her for 17 years, using a home-made artificial penis for sex. It’s unclear what the penis was made of, its size or how often it was used.
Unsurprisingly, Mrs C was forced to use artificial insemination in order to become pregnant. Lord Justice Ward described the marriage as a "travesty" and said: "Many, and I am one of them, will find it quite astonishing that there was no single occasion in 17 years of life together when her eyes did not see, or her hands or her body feel, or her senses tell her that she was living with a man who had the genital formation of a woman, a man who did not simply have a small or deformed penis, but had no penis at all."
The judges said the law required that when a woman conceived and gave birth through artificial insemination by donor, as happened in this case, the other party to the marriage must be a man in order to qualify as a parent.
As Mr J was still a woman when his wife, referred to as Mrs C, conceived in 1991 he could not be "a party" to the conception.
He is now recognised as a man under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and can legally marry a woman.
At a Court of Appeal hearing in 1996, Mr J failed in a bid for a share of the marriage wealth, including a £400,000 home. It’s easy to imagine the poor woman screaming,
“You took 17 years of my life with a fake cock, you’re not getting my money too.”
Lords Justices Thorpe, Wall and Richards said the highly unusual facts of the case were unlikely to recur because of changes in the law.
They ordered that neither party should be identified to protect the daughter and an elder child, also born through AID and now 18.
The judges explained that the issue of when, how and from whom the two children were to learn the truth about their origins remained highly sensitive. T he mother, now remarried, has agreed to take advice from a consultant psychiatrist before explaining their background to them. Quite what their mother will say when quizzed by her teens is anybody’s guess. Perhaps she should look into the distance and curtly explain that,
“It was the ‘70s. Things were different back then”.