The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and Uterus Implants in males

[OhHolyJesus]

PET is the Progress Education Trust.

https://www.progress.org.uk/

They were successful in campaigning for Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) or '3 parent embryos', where the nucleus of the egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus from the egg of another women, so to eradicate the risk of an embryo carrying a hereditary disease.

(This was made famous in its experiments with Dolly the Sheep).

I'm guessing that since that has been archieved PET are now to campaign for changes to the Human Fertilisation Act to include uterus implants in men:

The HFE Act defines women and men as respectively being a girl and a boy from birth – ie, cis people. This is problematic due to its inferred discrimination towards trans people. While legislation in the UK provides no alternate definitions of men or women, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was designed to enable trans people to be legally recognised by their 'acquired gender' if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
Thus, the wording in the HFE Act could not only be considered discriminatory but essentially means that the prohibitions do not apply to men or non-binary people (although non-binary people are currently not recognised within any legislation in the UK). This is significant because social and scientific advances mean that 'men' as defined by the HFE Act increasingly have possibilities to gestate and birth a child.
If a cis man was to receive a uterus transplant, there are no limitations in terms of what could be legally placed inside him. Additionally, if 'acquired genders' are claimed to be recognised in the HFE Act, then what can be placed inside a (trans)man who has his own uterus is also unregulated. Consultations with policy staff at the HFEA and the Department of Health and Social Care revealed that neither institution was able to clarify the implications that these gender-based prohibitions could have or how they relate to the GRCs. In this context, I decided to discuss the implications the gender-based prohibitions could have in an article in Reproductive Biomedicine Online.
Campaigning to amend the HFE Act to avoid such discrimination could feasibly be next on PET's list. Nonetheless, the mounting pressure such issues generate means that sooner or later the HFE Act will have to be amended to reflect the growing social and scientific advances, particularly those afforded by ARTs on a larger scale. I have no doubt that when the new Bill is drafted to address matters such as the gender-based prohibitions, the 14-day rule, and egg freezing, PET will be at the forefront of ensuring that nothing is overlooked.

https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_155094

(I got this from a clever and well connected woman and her comment was "I'm starting to think Orwell was lacking in imagination.")

If a cis man was to receive a uterus transplant, there are no limitations in terms of what could be legally placed inside him.

Presumably it would already be covered by whatever general rules limit experimenting by placing human embryos inside sheep or artificial wombs? At least for whatever rules are in place considering the embryo's rights... Or is there a general omission there, and nothing other than female humans have been considered?

Maybe there's something missing about the safety of the carrier, but I suspect any tightened rules would be in danger of stopping whatever he's worried about - putting a uterus in a male AND demanding safety concerns for the carrier seems like an oxymoron.

I suspect whatever is being written about here would be a lot clearer if you just dropped all the "gender" bits, as gender is not relevant to sexual reproduction.

I'm guessing that since that has been archieved PET are now to campaign for changes to the Human Fertilisation Act to include uterus implants in men:
I'm not sure what brings you to that conclusion. I don't see MRT as being remotely connected to uterus transplants for men. Do you not agree with MRT?

I hate to invoke Godwin's law so quickly but I thought Josef Mengele was dead and gone.

Surely you need more than a uterus to create and grow a baby?

"This is significant because social and scientific advances mean that 'men' as defined by the HFE Act increasingly have possibilities to gestate and birth a child."

What do you mean by this?
Are you implying that scientific advances mean biological males will soon be able to gestate and birth a child?
Because they can't. We are a long, long way from that being possible!

Or are you referring to the fact that trans men can gestate and birth a child? Because they would seem to be already covered by the definition on the HFA act if it defines women as "girls from birth".

(Hope this is not against posting rules to state this. But biologically, transmen are female - only females can gestate a child.)

That the HFA act agrees with woman = adult human female is not a problem to me.

@Imnobody4 sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that PET have achieved that particular goal with MRT (which is controversial but I think in some ways well-intentioned), so they have a new goal in sight with uterus implants.

Something on the Chinese MRT scientists

www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/25/138962/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/

Do you have any evidence that PET will be campaigning for uterus transplants in men?
Because that's quite a claim.

More on gene-editing Dr Jiankui and his fine and prison sentence.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00001-y

Advances in gene editing have nothing to do with uterus implants in males. Males gestating babies exist only in the realms of science fiction and Schwarzenegger comedies.

This article just seems to show up the logic holes with the GRA more than anything else.

This bit is hilarious

the prohibitions to prevent a genetically edited child from being born in the UK are based on gender identities

Yeah totally... Dolly the Sheep-style human cloning to make actual human babies was definitely banned because of gender identity prejudice..... Definitely not on safety and ethics at all. Down with those transphobic meanies marching about banning stuff!

Squishy is right, gene editing and uterus implants aren't connected, only by both being an interest of PET.

They were successful before, on MRT. I'd like to doubt that they would be successful again with uterus implants.

I'd like to hope that there are still some ethics applied in the medical profession and in the law. I think I'm just being paranoid but the article tells me all I need to knew about this organisation that has both 'progress' and 'education' in their name.

OHJ, I’d keep your powder dry for a bit. This is one guest blog from a PhD student. They have zillions of guest blogs on that site. Comments are also allowed.

As for Progress Educational Trust, www.progress.org.uk/objectives
Their ‘mission is to educate and debate the responsible application of reproductive and genetic science.’ The commitment to public debate is a good thing. Nothing in science or medicine should be off-limits.

If you look at the events page they know what a woman is and have free public events online. Also says in the advert ‘All are welcome – to attend/participate via the web’ www.progress.org.uk/

The Business of Egg Freezing: From Bluster to Best Practice
Thursday, 11 March 2021, 5.30pm - 7.30pm

IVF and Women's Health: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Find Out?
Tuesday, 16 March 2021

I totally understand the wariness though and the feeling that this anti-women politics is everywhere. That’s not an unhealthy starting point either because it does seem to be everywhere. Commitment to debate is rare though so that seemed worth noting.