If women are expected to donate eggs and a uterus, men should donate their penis and testicles?

[WhatHaveYou]

I see from the comments here people are happy for women alive and dead to donate, if that's ok then why aren't transmen being offered the same primary sex organs?

Is what's good enough for the cervix haver is good enough for the ejaculator?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6685681/Leading-British-surgeon-calls-transgender-women-life-changing-womb-transplants.html

I'm fairly sure that, if the donation of a woman's eggs and uterus (with their consent) becomes common place that 'essential' operations using donated organs will be prioritised over gender reassignment ones.

Exactly PBo83. What gets me is the anti-trans brigade likes to excuse their bigotry by claiming feminism. And yet they are dismissing this kind of surgery which could help thousands of biological women (whose rights are apparently so important to them) because every so often it might be used on a transwoman.

And let's stop with the nonsense about "experimenting on babies", unless you are also anti-choice (it's the same kind of emotive language that they use). They implant embryos, same as with IVF, not full term foetuses.

This could also help intersex people- though since that doesn't fit with the "MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN FFS!!!" mentality I can see why it's not been mentioned.

And let's stop with the nonsense about "experimenting on babies", unless you are also anti-choice (it's the same kind of emotive language that they use). They implant embryos, same as with IVF, not full term foetuses.

I took that point to be more about uncertainty as to how a biologically male body could sustain a pregnancy to term, given the amount of anti-rejection drugs that would be needed along with artificial hormones - that's a lot of drugs to expose a foetus to over the course of nine months and any long-term effects on the children born to transwomen might not be known for years, so it's a valid point.

This isnt going to be happening anytime soon. As far as I am aware it is still in the trial stages with women!

Women that have uterus transplants have to take anti rejection medication and some of them women have gone on to have successful pregnancies already, so anti rejection medications must be safe for pregnant women.

These women aren't allowed a natural birth though it has to be a Cesarean section as they don't get the normal contraction pain and the uterus wouldn't be strong enough to withstand the full extent of labour and childbirth like it would in the original woman's body.

There probably is no reason why they couldn't place the uterus in a male now, they wouldn't have to worry about the narrow hips for childbirth as it would be a c section.

So if they could for example safely pump a man's body full of a ridiculous amount of hormone therapy that would be safe to sustain, his body and the babies body growing inside of him. With the potential for all crazy and life threatening/ dangerous pregnancy side affects many women can suffer from then I'm sure it will happen.

But before any of that can go a head this major surgery has to be proven safe and successful with alot of animals.

That means male animals sustaining a successful pregnancy.

We are a long way off this even happening yet, with human trails still going on with women at the moment.

No one can force you to give up organs you don't want to. And even if you are an organ donor your next of kin can still refuse for them to harvest your organs. This isn't going to be the new next in thing.

Women can't even get sterilised if they don't want more kids, so the NHS won't be paying for this at the stupid price it would cost!

Organ donation is for life saving not for men that want to experience pregnancy.

If this kicks off it won't be in the UK it will be some expensive private precedure abroad, you would have to be rich or crowfunding to afford it!

And let's stop with the nonsense about "experimenting on babies", unless you are also anti-choice (it's the same kind of emotive language that they use). They implant embryos, same as with IVF, not full term foetuses.

Yes of course, but it is an implicitly higher risk pregnancy because the uterus could be rejected at any time during the pregnancy. However pregnancies fail all the time for all sorts of reasons so I’m supposing that ethically it is not a huge difference from any women embarking on any high risk pregnancy.

The difference between transplanting a uterus into a women and implanting one into a man is that despite the women having issues with her uterus, her body is otherwise calibrated for pregnancy and so all the medical team will need to do is tackle tissue rejection issues, the pregnancy will take care of itself. In a man, the whole pregnancy needs to be artificially produced and there is no way of knowing what effect the drugs needed to do that would have on a feotus without experimenting on a feotus.