Uterus transplants

@RoseslnTheHospital
”@Discovereads so, as I said, you don't have any clue as to what needs to be surmounted and how that might happen. You are assuming that unnamed "experts" will be able to experiment on animals sufficiently to work out how to achieve this in humans. The only animal experiment that I know of is the rat one, which is not evidence of issues being surmountable.”

No, I do have a clue. I even posted a 2019 study that goes through many of the physiological hurdles and addresses how to surmount them. I just didn’t list the names of all the studies and all the scientists in my response to you. Didn’t think I needed to as several studies and surveys have already been posted and linked in this thread about uterine transplants by myself and other posters. The information is also there for you to research.

I think too you didn’t understand what “theoretically surmountable” means it means that they have solutions that would probably in their expert medical opinion, but as it is all experimental and not yet been practiced, they haven’t actually proven they are surmountable.

Like it is some kind of tick list of womanhood.

It's odd isn't it because by the time any of this happens (if it does) TW will just have to joint the queue with every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Hardly the validating "female" experience they expect it to be.

I'm also concerned about my 'tissues' that I've donated to medical science 'for any purpose' being siphoned off for uses related to these Frankensteinian adventures.

I've always told the kids that I don't give a fuck what happens to me after I'm dead. I mean, I'll be dead, right? But I don't to be any part of propping up this macabre, unethical madness, even in death., because it encourages abuses in life.

Of course, the 'abortion' theme has also been used by at least one or two posters to push the agenda of 'wait until transitioned males can have abortions too!'. Like it is some kind of tick list of womanhood.

This is just a repetition of what some prominent activists have been posting too. Such as Lavery.

[Merail] Mr Menno's recent video about Davey Wavey with Haskell (?) as a TM includes Twitter screenshots, iirc, of TM arguing that no surgery nor hormones should be necessary to be recognised as a TM. This one is about surgery.

I'm sure there are more about 'neither surgery nor hormones' which is the more extreme TM version of Veronica Ivy's position, to some extent. [/merail]

But, extending that, if it's sufficient for someone to assert that they are a TW without any medical or surgical intervention, then there may well be a cohort of entirely healthy male bodies to put themselves forward as clinical trial participants on the absolute understanding that they might or might not embark on medical or surgical interventions later.

No. I don't believe this. But, this is where our legal fictions and the compelled societal acceptance of them may lead us.

if the right are going to be "no abortions ever - foetuses are sacrosanct!", then the left feel they have to support "no restrictions on what you do with foetuses ever - it's your body!"

This.

If there is any possibility of my uterus being donated after my death for this, I'm coming off the organ donor list. I don't want children being created from my body after my death. It's like being forced to be party to child abandonment.

People have children for all sorts of reasons, I don't think 'to benefit their sex life' is usually part of it.

Does having a functioning uterus benefit my sex life?
No. No it doesn't. It's either irrelevant or a whopping great barrier in reality

Exactly. Perhaps the TW suggesting this would also like to have electric shocks applied to their internal organs to simulate period cramps and endometriosis and a sizeable amount of blood extracted from their body to get that wonderful womanly anaemic feeling every month.

It's all very black and white thinking with little capacity for nuance, and high drama.

Cutted up pear comes to mind a lot.

If they were going to attempt this you'd think they'd be better off experimenting with a healthy male rather than one who had already had quite significant surgeries and are taking multiple synthetic hormones. I mean these things must complicate matters significantly I would think.

Ah so that's where the TRAs (esp to US ones) are going with this, @Helleofabore - to help them in their efforts to link GC women with right-wing evangelical fruitcakery, like that weird Montgomerie person on Twitter.

I think the culture war in the US encourages this sort of nutbaggery from the "left" - if the right are going to be "no abortions ever - foetuses are sacrosanct!", then the left feel they have to support "no restrictions on what you do with foetuses ever - it's your body!"

SpindleInTheWind

yes. It got whipped out very quickly on that other thread which was, if I remember, about a body always being male until death. The poster thought it was the ultimate as a 'gotcha'. They could not have cared less about the ethics of it all. It was only ever about telling us that we were outdated, and ridiculous, that it was happening in the next few years and to just get over it.

But yes. That we were obviously pro-life because we were against experimentation on viable human foetuses as a means to allow males to 'have babies'.

But that is what the bottom line is here. Anyone advocating to prevent these experiments is labelled a pro-lifer and to be reviled.

Ah so that's where the TRAs (esp to US ones) are going with this, @Helleofabore - to help them in their efforts to link GC women with right-wing evangelical fruitcakery, like that weird Montgomerie person on Twitter.

I think in the UK we are cool with repeating our lines of sanity. I tend to channel Sir Robert Winston in the House of Lords on these matters.

I bumped the other thread with a survey that explored some of these questions.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux?

The researcher in question believes TWAW and effectively declared that they would be viable recipients from his perspective (see survey reasons).

It's the same researcher as for this trial that does seem to be only for biological women.

clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04244409?

For this researcher, it would seem as if a uterus implant (he would say it's a transplant) might be considered for reasons other than reproduction but (as the upthread bioethics paper discussed) for the alleviation of dysphoria.

Children remain "special property" and/or a by-product of a commercial transaction in that newspaper article.

So slavery is legal if you are wealthy enough to buy a child.

Children Some humans remain "special property" and/or a by-product of a commercial transaction in that newspaper article.

The right to buy is given a false equivalence to the ability to produce. If you can make it, I have a right to buy and own it too.

Be Kind, everybody who wants to have a baby should have the right to have a baby and everybody should have the right not to have a baby.

Be Kind, everybody woman who can not grow a baby or men who could never grow babies, who want to have a baby human should have the right to have a baby human and everybody once sperm production is finished men loose the right to choose if they have a human (or not) but women who grow the babies should have the right not to have a baby human.

So one size fits all is never going to work.

That's why countries which have loose or no laws about the rights of children as citizens are popular when they allow trading contracts for commissioned babies (citizens who have no ability to seek redress). I am sure that if I wanted to adopt or foster a child in those States that I would have to go through a process to prove that I would be a good parent for the child. What checks are needed if I commission a child?

Abortion and the right to abortion look at the right of the carrier and the carried. Where the right conflict abortion legislation rank the two rights. Even then all societies which have abortion recognise that there is a time when a "preterm carried" can go through medical interventions and survive without the carrier and impose restrictions which recognise these rights. These restrictions do not benefit the carrier so the ranking of rights change.

Transplanting an organ with the sole intention of growing a baby human is to start out with the intent to carry out a experiment on a baby human from the time of implantation of a viable embryo to the birth.

Ethical discussions which debate about the carrier not the carried reinforce the social standard that children some humans are "special property".

Words are important, changing meaning of words has an impact.

Im currently debating whether to go through the trauma of a hysterectomy as I've been crippled with pain from endometriosis - if they'd like my uterus and to have some idea of the realities of being a woman for even a week, then they're welcome to it. They'd be pretty quick at asking for it to be taken out again if they experienced even half of what I and 1/10 women go through!

A simplistic view of it all I know

All of this stuff falls under the head transplant (or rather body transplant) type of out there science.

It's pure science fiction and 'what-iffery'
File it under "Would you rather fight 10 badger sized humans or one human sized badger"

If a TM needs an assisted conception, is this a case where, although the legal standing is that the TM is male (following gender affirmation), this wouldn't count as implanting an embryo in a male body?

Would the same be true for NBs who were recorded as F at birth but would now reject that they have a sex?

yes... that is an interesting discussion point too.

women should never be allowed to end a pregnancy because pro life, tiny human, omg the horror

but lets create a foetus specifically to experiment on and then destroy to enable this agenda.

On another thread that wandered into this topic, I did get called a 'pro-lifer' for actually having the gall to not want foetuses over a certain age to be used as experimental fodder.

Because let's be open and honest here. Male uterine implants wanders into experimenting on viable foetuses (not just ethically monitored embryos) after a certain number of weeks. Just how many of those will survive these experiments? How many are considered ok to experiment on to allow males to have viable pregnancies, and .... for what purpose is that for again?

And we all keep coming back to what will be the health repercussions to any that do survive? Yes, considering the foods and substances we can ingest as females that are known to have issues with either the pregnancy or the child's health.

I don't believe any longevity was allowed for the lamb in a bag. And I am not sure how relevant those tests would have been anyway for humans and for the full effects over the life span of a human.

But that is what the bottom line is here. Anyone advocating to prevent these experiments is labelled a pro-lifer and to be reviled.

That's interesting for a number of reasons.

If a TM needs an assisted conception, is this a case where, although the legal standing is that the TM is male (following gender affirmation), this wouldn't count as implanting an embryo in a male body?

Would the same be true for NBs who were recorded as F at birth but would now reject that they have a sex?

The bioethics paper upthread discusses the possibility of a uterus implant for TW as a means of relieving dysphoria rather than, necessarily, for reproductive purposes. (See also the bumped thread on the Imperial survey.)

My understanding of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 is that it is currently unlawful to implant an embryo into a male body. The law would need to be changed.

So the UK surgeons suggesting that this is a possibility (in the UK) are really just exploiting potential clients by unjustifiably raising their hopes.

Personalky, I think there will be artificial incubators growing foetuses to term before there is any success in growing foetuses in male bodies, no matter what cocktail of hormones they take.

I've bumped the Womb Transplant Survey thread from 2019 as it is relevant to some of this discussion.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux?

Do they actually enjoy the sensation of cognitive dissonance?

With a believer in gender ideology you are starting from the pov of subjective feelings create reality, facts are selectively chosen to support the desired reality and match feelings, and unwanted facts can be disapparated. They don't exist. You are a hater, and unkind and denying existence and literally violent and bigoted and Other Words Too if you point out those facts or inconvenient bits of reality that are being disapparated to enable the chosen reality to exist.

It is entirely based in embracing and rationalising cognitive dissonance. Which you then protect by whackamole tactics to try and prevent anyone saying or doing anything that jars the personal reality.

This does involve dividing society into two groups: those who get to set reality and demand that everyone else enables it or else, and those who don't get to choose reality or make choices or do anything but serve the others to maintain their reality uninterrupted and shut up, or else.