To think that pregnancy care SHOULD be focused on helping women to have healthy babies?

[CatusFlatus]

This article in a medical journal advocates the taking of testosterone by trans-identified females during pregnancy, despite the proven and potential risks to the unborn child.

The claim that ‘gendered’ pregnancy care is too focused on helping women to have healthy babies and that it is acceptable for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy, despite the proven and potential risks to the foetus because of, for example, concerns the transman has about being mis-gendered or their desire to be regarded as a pregnant man.

They claim that the desire for ‘normal foetal outcomes’ is problematic because it is born of a wish to protect babies “From becoming anything other than ‘normal’” and reflects the “Historical and ongoing social practices for creating ‘ideal’ and normative bodies.”

This is insane.

exactly - when we have had thalidomide in the house, we had to confirm that there were no fertile women living there, and my sister, who was fertile, was advised not to stay - I was ok because I had had a hysterectomy

Depends on the dosage. The study you posted didn’t have genital deformities until the highest doses. We have no idea how that rat dose translates to a human dose.

It’s not more favourably because again, testosterone is currently a category B medication.

It’s not like thalidomide which is category X.

I honestly did not care if my DC were NT or ND. I don’t think being ND makes me a freak or unhealthy,

I think I’m explaining this badly. I am not saying it is prescribed. I am saying if a pregnant woman with cancer required it, there are options e.g. alternative medication. There aren’t really any options with testosterone (if a trans person did take it pre pregnancy) - it’s either yes or no, there’s no alternative. So, in a nutshell, thalidomide and testosterone are not as comparable.

So, in a nutshell, thalidomide and testosterone are not as comparable.

Well no, but because Testosterone is not being used to treat illness. It can be stopped without any risks to the mother. So it's entirely about privileging the mother's feelings about themselves over the baby's health.

Taking drugs known to cause a defect is more like eugenics than not taking the drugs. This isn't trying to prevent ND births- it is actively causing them.

They have the choice not to get pregnant if they know they have to stop taking testosterone which they take as they choose to present as a trans man.

Right, who’s going to tell the transmen that when they’re pregnant they look female, whether or not they have facial hair?

When and why did people become ok with medical experiments in an unborn fetus? Are they trying to change the law to make that legal?

Of course it's treating women who identify as trans more favourably.

There is a risk to the unborn child for what is simply a cosmetic benefit to the mother.

Calling the unborn a child a foetus to justify this is vile.

There are no other instances where this happens.

You can tie yourself in knots to justify this but it is immoral and wrong.

if a woman wants to have a baby she should suspend trying to look like a man.

Sorry I posted too soon. Should have said 'she should suspend trying to look like a man for the duration of the pregnancy for the sake of the child.

I judge any woman who puts their baby at risk like this, and any medic who sanctions such abuse.

It does make you wonder if these women are simply pawns in a bigger agenda here.

I'm thinking about their constantly pushing the idea of artificial wombs, which are also currently illegal due to the same human rights legislation.

But they are not known to the level needed of scientific proof to cause any defects? Trying to prevent the hypothetical possibility of ND births is paranoid eugenics because being ND is not a defect.

I’d say right about the time it became acceptable for a mother to kill her unborn foetus that it also became acceptable for a mother to choose to take any substances that are not proven to be harmful and some that are proven harmful.

There is a risk to the unborn child for what is simply a cosmetic benefit to the mother.

There is a “potential unknown risk” that is not a definite and known risk., it means there may be no risk. So you cannot say that there is definitely a risk. Furthermore, testosterone is not just cosmetic for those with gender dysphoria.

So you only get the idea they are being treated more favourably if you exaggerate the existence of risk and downplay the need for their medication.

Calling the unborn a child a foetus to justify this is vile.
It is a foetus. It’s not a child. I take it you are pro-life too with your views.

You can tie yourself in knots to justify this but it is immoral and wrong.
Well that’s a matter of opinion. I logically choose not to accept a risk as existing until it has been proven to exist. You emotionally choose to see risk even when it’s not been proven to exist.

if a woman wants to have a baby she should suspend trying to look like a man. she should also stop drinking and smoking and eating soft cheeses and so on and so on but again we let women choose and these items are far more dangerous and risky to a foetus than any hypothetical unproven risk from testosterone.

Detransitioners (female) report that when they stop taking testosterone they still have deep voices and facial hair for the rest of their lives. I don't understand why any woman saying she wants to live as a man would become pregnant, but given this does happen, why would they need to go on taking testosterone in pregnancy given the above?

@ChopperC110P

Your logic is flawed. Undertaking an action which may have a negative effect (and for all you know it is extremely negative) is still a net negative, as opposed to the neutral position of not undertaking it.
Put another way, if what you're doing might harm your unborn child, then it is immoral to not spin the wheel as few times as possible.

Also, said neutral position (i.e. NOT taking potentially harmful hormones) being akin to eugenics is ridiculous.

You can tie yourself in knots to justify this but it is immoral and wrong.
Well that’s a matter of opinion. I logically choose not to accept a risk as existing until it has been proven to exist. You emotionally choose to see risk even when it’s not been proven to exist.

That's the TRA argument about everything though, isn't it? Do it until you can show it's dangerous, rather than don't do it until you can show it's safe. Like males in women's rugby, or women's changing rooms - 'let us do what we want until you can prove it's dangerous'. Then when women are harmed, it's 'well that's a one off/not very many harms/harm to people I don't care about, so it's still okay'. Followed by 'well it's still what I want so ignore the harms to people who aren't me'.

'I'm okay with risking the wellbeing of my child to have something I wish for' isn't generally seen as a sign of great parenting.

According to half the people on here a pregnant woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, including killing the baby the day before it's born. I don't know how they can also object if the mother wants to take testosterone.

Two different things - terminating a pregnancy is one thing that should be performed with care to ensure safety for the mother and to make sure the foetus does not feel anything. But if there is going to be a living human infant at the end of it, they should not be subjected to in utero experimentation for the furtherment of eugenics/to find causes and 'cures' for neurodiversity and 'enhancing' physical/mental attributes under a cloak of #bekind.

They absolutely are not, it is totally contraindicated in pregnancy and in the very rare cases where a woman who could become pregnant has to take it (pretty much unheard of as the cancer it is used to treat generally affects older age groups) the woman must agree to a pregnancy prevention plan

Calling the unborn a child a foetus to justify this is vile.
It is a foetus. It’s not a child. I take it you are pro-life too with your views.

I am pro - choice any time for any reason. But this is very different as you well known. This child is intended to be born. And in this instance the mother is being selfish by taking a risk on her child's health for her own gender feelings.

That's selfish.

Then we agree. We don’t know what is safe.

you think that means “fuck around and find out” and I think it means “absolute ban”

you are warbling on about semantics, this isn’t a high school debate, this is the next generation and your argument is focussed on the wants of the mother (appropriate use of legally accurate term, see the McConnell judgement) and not on risks to the baby.

are you a female person with a gender difference who has been/is/wants to be pregnant?