Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?

Man wants to have an abortion?! - YouTube

Straight from the horses mouth.
So to speak.

A lot of people aren’t aware that transplants don’t last forever. A transplanted organ will last between 5 and 20 years, depending on the type of organ and how lucky you are. The anti rejection drugs fuck you up too. Basically they suppress your immune system, making you susceptible to all sorts of diseases - even a bad flu can make you seriously ill. And in the long term the drugs cause cancer after maybe 20-30 years. Who is realistically going to expose themselves to that because of “feelings”?

It should not be allowed to happen, or be part of any research ever, just as other monstrous acts are not allowed because they are evil.

Rosa Freedman is excellent on the origin of human rights post WW2. The Helsinki Declaration and regulation of medical experimentation are key parts of human rights.

The people who negotiated and wrote those must be spinning like they're in a centrifuge.

It should be illegal to even consider pulling body parts out of real women to try & sew into men.

It should not be allowed to happen, or be part of any research ever,

As I mentioned, when questioned about their intentions in 2019, Imperial College flat out lied about it. The research lead, Ben Jones, told Kellie Jay Keen that they were not looking at uterus transplants into men because it was impossible, illegal and there was no demand for it. When you read their literature it says that they believe it would have to be legal under the Equality Act as otherwise it would be discrimination, which is nonsense but that's the beliefs of the people who were researching it.

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

It should be illegal to even consider pulling body parts out of real women to try & sew into men.

It should not be allowed to happen, or be part of any research ever, just as other monstrous acts are not allowed because they are evil.

Even considering doing this is something nobody with a shred of humanity would do.

This is so abhorrent that I cannot believe any surgeon would do this

And yet they will perform mastectomies on mentally distressed young women and girls or genital surgery on young men.
Anything for money.

What needs to happen is people actually saying no to all these male fantasists and fetishists who, let's face it, have zero fucking clue about how a woman's body actually works.

Useful discussion about transplants, implants, reproductive justice, ethics, and the NHS in this thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546250-indian-surgeon-plans-to-transplant-a-womb-into-a-transwomen?reply=117140342&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

No, it's absolute madness. The NHS can hardly afford cancer treatments. If trans people want it they should fund this type of unnecessary operation. Girls having their breast cut off for preference rather than need should be self funded too. I find it grotesque.

UTx is clinically safe and effective in principle

To be fair, it is. It's been done and there have been successful pregnancies and births.

Uterus implant is a very different matter.

Should this Mengele-type procedure ever happen, would the pregnant males be subjected to the same abortion restrictions that are imposed upon pregnant females? If they are entitled to be made pregnant because it's what they want, would they be equally entitled to be made un-pregnant because it's what they want? Or would they consider it discriminatory to be treated the same as women in this context?

Having skimmed that paper, it needs tearing apart (before being torn up).
The cost of UTx in a woman is not comparable to the likely costs of attempting this in a male or even a masculinised woman. As to As UTx is clinically safe and effective in principle ... there's no evidence that is the case in these groups (neither for the adult or potential offspring), the awful rat study cited upthread suggests otherwise and the necessary animal experiments that would need to precede anything in humans are unethical.

" The social goods attached to women's identity"

What dystopia is this?

It makes me think of the male breastfeeding issue.

To me it all seems like a sexual fetish.

In the Imperial College documents given to their survey participants they said about hormone treatment:

"... a cyclical regime would be given instead, to enable the recipient to experience periods."

Exactly my thoughts. What of the biological women who face heartbreak every day because their body that is supposed to work this way , doesn't

It makes me think of the male breastfeeding issue.

To me it all seems like a sexual fetish. A fetish that needs to involve children to happen. Children who cannot consent.

NHS money shouldn't be funding child abuse.

Maybe they could put the money into natal woman's healthcare as we know that's seriously in need. Or put it into research into sexual fetishisation of womanhood and female experiences

I've seen a couple of posts on this area of the forum where posters have corrected the language to reality/fact based language (eg use male and female correctly) and it really brings everything into focus. I suspect that the paper in the original post would greatly benefit from that kind of update.

"Transwomen lack a trait (the ability to bear children) that may cause them to experience psychological dissonance in a way that undermines their health and well-being"

And what about the child born from such a uterus? What about their psychological dissonance that may undermine their health and well-being?

I found it particularly chilling that the research team framed MTF trans people not being able to get pregnant as suffering "absolute uterine factor infertility" as if they had otherwise female reproductive systems.

I agree.

When you realise the complication rates with these genital surgeries and how further corrective sugeries are often needed and then you can still end up with an incontinent patient at the end... well, it's really concerning.

My understanding is that urethral lengthening in a neo-phallus is the procedure with the highest complication rate. Although a fistula between a neo-vagina and an anal canal doesn't sound like much fun.

I get that there is obviously a doctor out there who wants to try this probably just because it is medically interesting to them.

In 2019 Imperial College in London went so far as to carry out a survey to gauge the potential demand. A male GC ally who had previously been suspended from the Labour Party for identifying as a woman part time applied to do the survey. It's an interesting read, where the proposed surgical procedure is discussed. The research lead also lied to Kellie Jay Keen about the survey when she asked him directly.

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

I get that there is obviously a doctor out there who wants to try this probably just because it is medically interesting to them. But should this be the norm NO WAY! I think part of being trans is accepting you’re infertile. Many many many women are infertile and have horrific journeys of trying to have a baby. So I think the research should go more into this! Than transplanting uteruses into men!!

It also worries me what a standard organ donation would look like… I’m on the register but no way would I want to donate my uterus to a man. I’d want my organs to be used for life saving surgery!

The thought experiment (that should have remained theoretical and then fallen out of favour when reality was pointed out) of 'TWAW and TMAM' was always going to lead to this as the end point. Of course, it was always going to be uterus implants in men rather than testical implants (real ones, not fake ones) in women that was put forward first.

This is what happens when an ideology is detached from reality.

What this paper is discussing is effectively growing a human infant in a 'bag'. Because that uterus being implanted into a male human has none of the connectivity that a female human has. Some connections to blood supply can be done, sure, but what part of the male body is then working to control building this embryo? Therefore a great deal of the components that an embryo needs to use to build itself must then be injected and it must be from either alternative sources (animal) or synthesised.

The ethical issue is not whether a male should have an implanted uterus, the ethical issue is growing a human in a bag.

Now, in the past, posters have attempted to have me deleted for using this blunt language. However, we need to strip this down to what it really is.

All the ethical discussion is going nowhere. Currently there are rather strict limitations to how long a human embryo can be grown for experimentation purposes before it has to be destroyed. Sure some embryos might be subject to gene alterations etc, there may be some interutero procedures done, but to be grown in a bag from conception to birth??? No, I don't believe it would ever pass the ethical standards panels.

This is the same old story with trans medicine, the medical professional likes to promote this myth that all of their surgery is so advanced, which acts as a promotional tool to get more customers.

How many detransitioners have we seen who talk about botched surgery or very basic surgery (such as sticking a long tube of flesh from the arm on a woman and calling it a "penis")? They all talk about being mis sold.

source?