Talk

Advanced search

Can biology types explain this to me? Transwomen womb transplant

(22 Posts)
PratStick Sun 02-Jul-17 14:27:07

I can stick a basin on a cabinet but it still won't have any of the plumbing. It won't work as a sink. How can a male 'run' a womb?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/3929272/calls-for-transgender-women-born-male-to-be-given-womb-transplants-on-the-nhs-so-they-can-have-kids-but-some-critics-slam-idea/amp/

grumpysquash3 Sun 02-Jul-17 14:42:55

Yes, there would be a few problems with that. Even if you could sort out the plumbing, it would still be an organ transplant and have all the issues that go with that. Then there's the hormonal side.

The man in the article was born female, so has a natural womb - not a good example. Not a good article IMO.

PratStick Sun 02-Jul-17 15:30:51

How would the body 'know' to run it anyway?

Like with a normal transplant you're just replacing something, this is totally new.

PratStick Sun 02-Jul-17 15:31:51

I was hmm about the tm as well. I never understood the excitement over the first man giving birth. Well yes they have a womb and ovaries and that's all pretty standard

Griffintoes Sun 02-Jul-17 15:36:35

I don't think it's something anyone is actually planning to do, as it's not currently possible to have a baby that way for the reasons stated above and more.

"Calls for" just means "Someone Has an Opinion", not that it will happen even in our lifetime.

ohmywhatamisaying Sun 02-Jul-17 15:36:40

It's an article in The Sun.

That's all you should need to know.

alpacasandwich Sun 02-Jul-17 15:41:15

I'm more interested in the "man giving birth". confused

Why would a FTM who has accessed free gender clinic treatment due to dysphoria be perfectly happy to go through pregnancy and labour - THE most female defining activities possible?

VestalVirgin Sun 02-Jul-17 15:43:02

A male cannot get pregnant, for the simple reason that if he could, he would be female.

Everything that makes men different from women is about men's inability to be pregnant and give birth.

Simple example: Cellulite. Female skin is built so that it can expand in pregnancy. Male skin can't do that. Perhaps the result of putting a male body through pregnancy would be merely much worse stretch marks than a woman would get, but I doubt it. There has got to be an evolutionary reason for female skin to be made up that way, and "it looks somewhat nicer" isn't really relevant for survival.

The easiest way to make a male give birth would probably be to transplant a male brain into a female body. And that is only a male giving birth if you believe that the self is located in the brain. But at least it would be the interesting experiment of making a brain that experienced male socialisation go through pregnancy and birth.

PoppyPopcorn Sun 02-Jul-17 15:43:46

It's only three years since the first baby was born to a woman who had had a womb transplant.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29485996

Very early days for this sort of treatment and the BBC link says there have been issues with miscarriage, rejection and disease. We are a LONG way off being able to put a womb into a man and plumb it in successfully to enable him to carry a foetus to full term.

VestalVirgin Sun 02-Jul-17 15:49:24

Why would a FTM who has accessed free gender clinic treatment due to dysphoria be perfectly happy to go through pregnancy and labour - THE most female defining activities possible?

Because it is gender dysphoria, not sex dysphoria. There are many trans who are perfectly fine with their bodies, they just don't like the gender stereotypes forced on their sex.

As we speak, men sit around in women's shelters and talk about their "female penis".

Doobigetta Sun 02-Jul-17 16:04:50

There are many trans who are perfectly fine with their bodies, they just don't like the gender stereotypes forced on their sex.

And they are different from ordinary feminist women because....?

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Sun 02-Jul-17 16:08:29

I wonder if they'd get hyperemesis...

(Fwiw I don't believe this is going to happen in the foreseeable future. The female body is involved in pregnancy in far too many ways - it's not just a matter of an inert womb sitting there.)

alpacasandwich Sun 02-Jul-17 16:35:58

There are many trans who are perfectly fine with their bodies, they just don't like the gender stereotypes forced on their sex.

Most women I meet don't like the gender stereotypes inflicted on them. Because that's what you get when you live in a patriarchy. They are not trans.

I don't believe that trans without dysphoria is legitimate at all.

PratStick Sun 02-Jul-17 16:38:40

Doobigetta, feminists prefer no sterotypes. trans individuals seems to feel more comfortable with stereotypes of the other sex

Terfing Sun 02-Jul-17 16:45:01

Humans are a dimorphic mammalian species, and that's the end of it.

VestalVirgin Sun 02-Jul-17 17:30:35

And they are different from ordinary feminist women because....?

They think sexist stereotypes are just fine for other women, just not for them.
The misogyny seems to be the difference.

It is kinda the difference between a poor farm boy who wants to marry a princess and become king, leaving his uncouth farmer relatives behind, and a poor farm boy who wants to start a communist revolution so that no farmers ever have to be poor again.

OlennasWimple Sun 02-Jul-17 17:36:27

Yeah, I'm not a biologist, but I can't see how it would be possible to stick a womb into a male body and expect everything to work, never mind that body to actually grow a baby to term.

I really don't think that men understand what happens to a female body whilst gestating, probably because I don't think doctors fully understand it either. For example, why do we just counter the fact that pregnancy takes its toll on our teeth by offering free dental treatment on the NHS, rather than some protective or preventative measure like a supplement to stop damage occurring in the first place?

As a pp said on a bf thread recently, we understand more about cow lactation - because of the commercial aspect - than we do about human lactation. I suspect the same is true of human pregnancy too.

noeffingidea Sun 02-Jul-17 17:44:22

It isn't possible, and isn't likely to be ever possible, at least how medicine stands now. The uterus is only one part of the incredibly complex female reproduction system, you can't just transplant one part into a male body and expect it to work.
Unfortunately you get a lot of pseudoscience and just plain bullshit floating around. The Sun is being rather irresponsible here, given that some people might actually believe it and be given false hopes.

VladmirsPoutine Sun 02-Jul-17 17:44:44

I'm not a biologist but I can assure you this will never be a thing.From what I've read so far they've been able to develop artificial wombs, if you like, which could in the future work towards preventing premature births. But that's not something being rolled out at the minute for human foetuses.
So in all likelihood this dystopian idea that transwomen will be able to carry babies to term is not going to happen, perhaps we'll all get to use these artificial wombs then come pick up the baby at 9months from the storage clinic.

rinabean Sun 02-Jul-17 17:45:02

I am glad they are saying these things and getting attention. It's good for people to see them for what they are.

They want to steal women's wombs. This is like the women who attack pregnant women and cut their babies out.

People are dying from lack of transplants. People are reluctant to donate alive or dead.

Why should living women donate their wombs to men? Why should resources be spent on extracting wombs from dead women when actual life saving organs need the attention/resources at that time?

So many people seem to think it's still just gay men who want to pass as part of a straight couple. I want them to see what the trans movement really is

PratStick Sun 02-Jul-17 17:57:47

a pp said on a bf thread recently, we understand more about cow lactation - because of the commercial aspect - than we do about human lactation. I suspect the same is true of human pregnancy too

I've never considered that! And I have wondered why we've got no fucking idea about human lactation and the rules hangs so often. shock I feel a bit mind blown by that

VestalVirgin Sun 02-Jul-17 18:15:09

or example, why do we just counter the fact that pregnancy takes its toll on our teeth by offering free dental treatment on the NHS, rather than some protective or preventative measure like a supplement to stop damage occurring in the first place?

... really? confused
I somehow had some illusions about pregnant women in the developed world getting recommendations on calcium supplementation, etc.

But then, not much surprised. Someone clearly makes more money with treating the damaged teeth than the supplement industry does with the supplements.

(Animal medicine is very interesting, in general. Horses, too, there's things known about horses that you think they'd know about humans, but don't.)

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: