Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?

This is a procedure that shouldn't be carried out.
Considering the long lists for gynae services and lack of medical knowledge in gynaecology in general, uterus implants (even if they are medically safe) are cosmetic procedures on the lines of liposuction or skin removal.

Apart from anything else, can you imagine the whining! Will somewhere have to start selling maternity dressing gowns of doom?

I can see any ethics committee voting to allow this.

It's is beyond unethical.

It's biologically questionable. Even if a transplanted uterus were not rejected by the host, male bodies are not designed to carry a pregnancy - a male's ligaments do not relax and move to accommodate a growing foetus.

The prospect of medical personnel using drugs to stop transplanted uteruses being rejected by their male hosts, in actuality means experimenting on developing foetuses.

It is grotesque.

Thank you. I was just looking for that experiment to post. It needs to be posted every page for any lurkers who jump onto the thread without reading the thread.

Yes, it's deliberately provocative speculation carefully worded to suggest this a feasible scenario with the body parts and recipients all ready to go, and that it's just awaiting some boring final paperwork sign-off somewhere along the line.

I have seen this 'fantasy' from several different male individuals.

I believe we actually had one male poster who even posted this as a fantasy scenario. Never, never doubt the abortion fetish. Many people deny it is out there, but once you see it, you will see it again and again.

There's a good thread on X about this: https://twitter.com/WildfireWhisper/status/1678141758054756354

Ridiculous idea, can't see it happening myself.

Exactly. That's why they use the idiotic qualifier "that we know of" in relation to a successful procedure in a male.

It has not happened. They know that, so this wording is being used for another purpose.

No, if this kind of experimentation went ahead, the transwomen would be victims here. Even if they were willing and signed consent, they would be the victims of terrible experimentation IMO.

Isn't it odd that something off limits for infertile women is suddenly a real possibility when men start demanding it 🙄

The purpose of this paper is not to actually discuss whether they should be subsidised, it is to move the Overton window. It tries to making the starting assumption that uterus implants into males take place. Therefore we must not be draw into the trap of discussing the paper’s question. It is totally unethical implant a uterus into a male, it is unethical to the male and the deceased female - we should not even be contemplating taking body parts from dead individuals purely for ‘validation’ purposes. If that starts then I will remove myself from any donation register and I very much doubt I would be alone.

Of course, they wouldn’t want uteruses from deceased women though even the paper seems to hold back on that.

And that is before you consider the next step of wanting to get pregnant.

Jeez, so f-ed up. The world is sick.

It is not medically possible and unlikely to be. So why ask this question. Is it just to create another thread for people to frothover about trans people.

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. The lack of a uterus also closes off the prospect of gestating a child in a way that is available to women as a class.

My emphasis - I couldn't get past this paragraph- it's looney tunes! Women 'as a class' have a uterus because they are female- women. Transwomen lack a uterus because their physical bodies are male. It sounds like women have deliberately hoarded all the uteruses just to be mean.

Also they should watch Guardians of the Galaxy 3. This is the evil they were fighting - even Marvel thinks this is wrong!

Uterus implants (they are not replacing an organ, they are adding one that should never be there) have been discussed in great detail on FWR.

Agreed, there have been a number of threads about uterus implants (appropriate term) and transplants.

Transplants for women have already been done and produced children. Good use of medical technology.

iirc, it's the prospect of implants that has given rise to the, "I want a uterus to become pregnant to have an abortion" validation of being a woman meme.

Where's the fetus going to gestate, Loretta? Are you going to keep it in a box?

There was an experiment with rats where they implanted a uterus in to males and tried to gestate a pregnancy? It required a female to be surgically attached and to share a blood supply and even then nearly all the pregnancies failed.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/study-that-impregnated-male-rats-stirs-controversy-68928

Uterus implants (they are not replacing an organ, they are adding one that should never be there) have been discussed in great detail on FWR. Subsidising them, though? No fucking way that should be happening !

It would be Unit 731 level of medical experimentation. The sort of thing that should be restricted to horror/sci-fi novels and not done IRL.

IIRC Lili Elbe died due to a uterine transplant and the entirely predictable comlications. I don't know if they had anti-regection drugs back then (which are pretty brutal in their own right).

I think that it is always worth remembering that this kind of experiment starts with a healthy body. If you go back into the patient's history to pre any medical intervention, you find a healthy body at the start that functions and works as nature intended. This isn't fixing an injury, curing a disease or cutting out a tumour. It is completely different.

Anyone remember that doctor a few years ago who said he was looking for someone to do a head transplant on? He said the technology was there - he was definitely ready and able to do it.

No? Uterus transplants in male bodies are the same - just around the corner my arse.

When they get some poor male pig pregnant without sewing him up to some poor sow, and he and the piglets are still alive and healthy at the end, then I'll take notice.

Weird how they don't seem to be giving the same amount of headspace to penis transplants for transmen which you feel should be easier*

(*Not easy because human bodies are not plug and play as every fule kno)

I don't know why they always word this hypothetical procedure as being for "trans women". If this procedure becomes available it will become available for all men. And probably you will have a better chance of success if you haven't already spent years your life taking medications and surgically altering your body. Also "trans men's uteruses might already be a bit fucked due to testosterone usage and not much good for womb transplants.

If you're having a child as a way of regulating/soothing your own 'psychological dissonance' then I suggest you shouldn't have a child!

Babies should be born into families where they'll be loved, nurtured, grown into healthy, stable adults, not born to 'fix' their parent's dysphoria.

This makes me feel really sad.

If uterus transplant were possible, it is unlikely a trans woman would get to the top of the waiting list before an infertile woman.

And surely the priority should be infertile women.

Anyone who's been pregnant or involved with birth knows that this isn't possible and certainly not ethical. But, who would have thought that medically experimenting on children using off label drugs with no supporting data and research would ever happen in this country with our tight regulations? Yet unbelievably it is the norm for a vulnerable cohort of children in the NHS via the GIDS services.

So experimenting on babies in the womb for these twisted medics and the queer theory activists who support them is the logical next step and we must always be alert to their next demands.