Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?

It should be subsidised for trans women if anybody who wants a third arm attached to their shoulder, or a third leg attached to their hip can have one subsidised too.

A trans man is a biological woman (or they'd be a man) and assuming they meet the criteria that any other woman who wants one meets then there's no reason why they shouldn't.

If they get a uterus they'll have to have progesterone too somehow.

The endocrine system surely won't cope

@Rudderneck
It was originally developed for use in veterinary medicine; it is most widely used there; & WRT its usage & Covid-19, most of the issue is people quite literally purchasing horse wormer online & taking it, such that the FDA & other US government information providers warn against doing so. So rather than being in any way disingenuous it’s entirely accurate to say “horse wormer” because vanishingly few people are getting Ivermectin prescribed to them but are, as I said, purchasing & consuming the product intended for equines. And crucially, in the specific instance I was linking to, the man who died was taking the veterinary formulation of ivermectin.

Apparently Ivermectin’s drug class is actually antihelmintic so even narrower than just “antiparasitic”. 🤷‍♀️

In the UK it can be prescribed for: Papulopustular rosacea (explanation, no images); Chronic Strongyloides infection (aka threadworm, again, no images); Onchocerciasis (WHO information on River Blindness: no images on landing page, I’ve not read everything); & Scabies, in combination with topical drugs, for the treatment of hyperkeratotic (crusted or ‘Norwegian’) scabies that does not respond to topical treatment alone (NHS Inform - no images).

Only the first on the list is (again, in the UK) a licensed use; the others, ie oral usage, are unlicensed. Interestingly, that is also the one instance where it isn’t obviously acting as an antiparasitic/people might not appreciate it’s functioning as such; & it’s also the only topical usage. However, a 2016 paper in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology posited that there is a multifactorial etiology of the disease. Topical ivermectin has emerged as a viable treatment option, which is likely to be beneficial due to its activity as an anti-inflammatory and anti-parasitic agent targeting Demodex mites which may be colonizing the pilosebaceous units of patients with the disease. The NICE Evidence Summary from January that year is on pretty much the same page: The mechanism of action for treating the inflammatory lesions of rosacea is not known, but may be linked to the anti‑inflammatory effects of ivermectin, as well as causing the death of Demodex folliculorum mites. Crucially, though, this 2022 paper in Dermatologic Therapy confirms that the mechanism is as had been suggested in 2016. (The 2017 paper that made the confirmation is not open access but is referenced.)

I didn’t say ivermectin isn’t a useful drug. But, as per the 2022 Cochrane Review (link in my previous post) it’s not useful at all in treating Covid. Its uses full stop are pretty narrow: & they are all antiparasitic; although the one topical treatment exploits its anti-inflammatory properties too.

'Dawn of new era' as UK's first womb transplant takes place with surgery available for trans women 'within 10 years’ (msn.com)

Apparently available within 10 years.
Not.

I've withdrawn consent - and told my relatives - for all donation as I don't trust doctors one bit now. They're not getting one molecule of me after my death. They can stick their frankenfetishes. You can bet there will be doctors out there who'll push the boundaries regarding uterine implants in men. It'll happen, and my body won't be helping them.

Silence of the Lambs vibes too.

I can imagine this as a film.

It's a little disingenuous to call it horse wormer when it's being used for people. Like we don't talk about giving rat antibiotics to humans, when we use the exact same medicines.

Ivermectine is approved for human use and is quite a useful drug, and not only for parasites IIRC. Just not especially useful for covid, it appears.

I don't even want to answer as I feel I'm giving credence to something absolutely preposterous.

Still, it's a NO.

That rat experiment carried out on humans would make a fantastic horror movie.

A woman is kidnapped and stitched to her crossdressing ex husband so he can gestate ‘their’ child, as a some sort of fucked up revenge for her getting custody of their daughter in the divorce.

It would be like Boxing Helena, Martyrs, The Human Caterpillar and The Brood all rolled into one.

David Cronenberg, if you make this movie you owe me for concept copyright.

Sorry, I was getting confused which thread I was on, this is the FWR one.duh.

I can't believe that horrible rat experiment would have got ethical approval in a western country. The piece I read (there's a link in the thread on FWR) said it got a lot of criticism and the author asked for the paper to be withdrawn from the preprint server, but it wasn't. I don't know if it's been fully peer reviewed and published now?

@PorcelinaV
I’m genuinely not sure if you can prescribe a drug off-label that the FDA has stated is not to be used for that purpose. Off-label prescribing [n the US] is also generally reserved for when there are either no other drugs available or you’ve failed the usual treatments.

Poor rats. What a disgusting misuse of medical testing. We do not need to abuse animals to work out if males can gestate. There is no biological imperative to do so as women, the genuine version, are hardly unusual.
I am appalled that scientists have done this and in my mind it is akin to testing cosmetics on animals and fur coats.

Most of the rat embryos transferred into the male rats died. Of the live births, a further proportion died soon after birth.

Not RTFT and interested to read it in context of todays news about sisters having successful womb transplants.
I am interested in the question of how the NHS should deal with people changing their minds and wanting complex operations, because the NHS also funds elective cosmetic surgery operations to do with people ‘changing sex’. I wonder if it was ever a question for the innovators who began to offer this treatment on the NHS. It should be a specifically urgent question to answer for TM who have lost the opportunity to bear children themselves, especially if the womb removal was initially needed to avoid cancer risk after taking male hormones. It should be a part of full consent to give this information before doing an elective hysterectomy so women or transmen know what they are going into.

So I think the answer to OP question depends on how we answer the above question. And for example whether the NHS already pays to reverse vasectomies for men or reverses permanent contraception for women or not. All the above is regarding the possibility of womb transplants for transmen, who are biologically women.

Theres no way the NHS should find womb transplants for biological men whatever gender identity those men feel they are. That should never happen. Safety issues obviously for the man but also even if safety could be sorted out, which is never because men’s bodies aren’t designed to be pregnant, public money should never be spent the NHS to provide it. Too avoidably high risk for any baby to indulge in catering to any male wants there. It should also be banned completely by law so that men can’t get it done privately in the UK. Some unscrupulous other countries will always provide it privately at great risk, of course.

Done. I don't have much time for the rest of the day so maybe other people could jump on the AIBU thread if they have time.

I am already being called a terf

Long-time Mumsnetter but tend not to post much but hadn't seen any mention of this - in which a researcher/doctor mentions a completely non-existent law - Gender Equality Act anyone? - but also fails to understand that for a transwoman, unless armed with the legal fiction of a GRC, the comparator in proving discrimination is with a man ...

Apologies as don't know how to do archive links but assume the normal channels will work - link is from the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/23/womb-transplants-biological-men-pregnant-giving-birth/

@HeedlessAndUnbridledConcupiscence

Done. I don't have much time for the rest of the day so maybe other people could jump on the AIBU thread if they have time.

The charity, "Womb Transplants U.K." is the one who carried out the "uterine transplants for trans women" study with Imperial College in 2019, who I mentioned in my earlier posts linking to a thread by someone who participated in the survey.

I had a thorough browse on their website yesterday and any references to "trans women" being eligible are not apparent. However the lead surgeon in Oxford was listed as investigator on the trans study, and this paper which followed it.

It might be helpful if you'd post this information on the AIBU thread?

Apologies that paper was included in the survey participants' pack.

This is the paper written based on the survey itself:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33471119/

Results: A total of 182 transgender women completed the questionnaire; most women (109 [60%]) were aged 20 to 29 years. Most did not have children prior to transitioning (167 [92%]) and expressed a desire to have children in the future (171 [94%]). In addition, most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the ability to gestate and give birth to children (171 [94%]) and menstruate (161 [88%]) would enhance perceptions of their femininity. Similarly, high proportions strongly agreed or agreed that having a transplanted, functioning vagina would improve their sexual experience (163 [90%]), improve their quality of life (163 [90%]), and help them to feel like more of a woman (168 [92%]). Nearly all respondents (180 [99%]) believed that uterus transplant would lead to greater happiness in transgender women. More than three-quarters of the respondents (140 [77%]) strongly agreed or agreed that they would be more inclined to cryopreserve sperm if uterus transplant became a realistic option.

The surgery on the woman in Oxford is charity funded

The charity, "Womb Transplants U.K." is the one who carried out the "uterine transplants for trans women" study with Imperial College in 2019, who I mentioned in my earlier posts linking to a thread by someone who participated in the survey.

I had a thorough browse on their website yesterday and any references to "trans women" being eligible are not apparent. However the lead surgeon in Oxford was listed as investigator on the trans study, and this paper which followed it.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/

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

I dunno I feel really quite uncomfortable with this, it's not the same as other transplants, which are done to save a persons life. This is about creating a life. There are also some interesting articles on immunosuppressive drugs and risks to the foetus and long term affects on the baby / child, it seems, as yet, there is insufficient data, to determine the safety of using these drugs. Which surely becomes an ethical dilemma, because the embryo/ foetus/ baby is being deliberately exposed to potentially toxic chemicals.

I think the placenta is a two way task between the fetus and the uterus, but we know from the limited animal experiments that no, the male physiology can't support a pregnancy, even when a uterus is implanted.

The Chinese rat experiment relied on a female rat being attached to the male rat's blood supply, and in addition, that female rat needed to be pregnant at the same time that the male rat's implanted uterus was carrying a pregnancy.

No male rats became pregnant when attached to a non-pregnant female rat.

I think you could make an argument that the male rat wasn't actually ever pregnant. Instead, that rat's body became an extension of the female rat and she supported pregnancies in two uteri.