Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

So DD's organ donor card just arrived...

255 replies

Battleax · 10/02/2018 14:22

...and she waved it at me, so I said "Right you're supposed to have a chat about your wishes with your family." She, continuing to waggle it, says "This is me telling you about my wishes". So I said "Okay, but have you thought about your womb and the trans thing?"

Turns out she doesn't want a man using her womb after her death.

So that's fine, but it made me think; should we all be stipulating this in writing to the organ donor organisation?

OP posts:
Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:33

Wanting to carry a child is hardly vanity is it.
It is if you don't have a body designed for it.

Are you apposed to transwomen adopting too?

Of course not. Why would I be?

OP posts:
mustbemad17 · 10/02/2018 16:34

Giving a man a uterus isn't life saving

Neither is it life saving if it's given to a woman

Enidthecat · 10/02/2018 16:34

It's not vanity whoever you are.

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:34

Couldn't agree more LoveMusic33

OP posts:
Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:35

Reproductive organs are not currently retrieved in the UK and I would imagine that the vast majority of people would decline if they were.

You think so? Is there some work related insight that makes you think that? Ignore if that's intrusive.

OP posts:
Petalflowers · 10/02/2018 16:37

Can’t get mine, had a hysterectomy!

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:37

Petal Grin

OP posts:
duckingfisaster · 10/02/2018 16:38

*If people start saying "my womb can't go to a transgender man" will we next be saying "my eyes can't go to a black woman" or "my liver can't go to a gay man" or "my heart can't go to a poor woman"?

But that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying "I won't donate my reproductive organs at all"*

BUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR OP!!!

You said you bought it up with your daughter because of the ‘womb going to a man’ thing. First of all SO unlikely. Secondly, pure and nasty bigotry- as the op said replace your awful ignorance & prejudice with racism or homophobia & see if you still feel so self-righteous!

I’ve never met anyone IRL who displays the kind of sick transphobia displayed on MN. Saddening & for all those kids having doubts about themselves. Much the same as 50 years ago gay kids experienced hatred (and the assumption that gay men were paedophiles, the mantle of which sadly seems to have passed onto trans people for some reason), 100 years ago black kids experienced hatred and ignorance & just as my Grandparents used to see ‘no blacks, no Irish no dogs’ on the doors of pubs. I really hope this ludicrous and frankly embarrassing bigotry will also pass into shameful history.

AssassinatedBeauty · 10/02/2018 16:38

Well, the issues I have are that this is not something that would be done to save a life or to massively improve quality of life. It's done with the intention of providing the ability to carry a pregnancy. That's not the only possible route to becoming a parent for a trans-identified male, and it would bring significant and obvious risk to the recipient of the uterus. To perfect the process and test that it is possible to carry a pregnancy would essentially mean experimenting on growing foetuses which is not currently legal as far as I'm aware and I don't think that should change.

It's not at all similar to abortion rights for women, imo.

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:40

and it would bring significant and obvious risk to the recipient of the uterus.

That's true too.

OP posts:
duckingfisaster · 10/02/2018 16:40

Also:

Wanting to carry a child is hardly vanity is it.
It is if you don't have a body designed for it

On that basis women born without functioning wombs don’t have ‘bodies that were destined for it’?

mustbemad17 · 10/02/2018 16:40

Assassinated but there are other ways for a woman to become a parent too. So surely there should just be a blanket 'no womb transplants' rather than people trying to pick reasons that actually apply also to women

Enidthecat · 10/02/2018 16:41

Ivf was once an experiment.

mustbemad17 · 10/02/2018 16:42

Most of our medical practices now were once experiments surely?

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:42

Much the same as 50 years ago gay kids experienced hatred (and the assumption that gay men were paedophiles, the mantle of which sadly seems to have passed onto trans people for some reason),

There's no comparison there whatsoever. Gay rights activists in decades past weren't demanding that people sleep with them against their orientation. Or demanding risky surgeries. Or elbowing their way into spaces reserved for other disadvantaged groups.

It's just not a valid comparison to current events.

OP posts:
Somersetter · 10/02/2018 16:43

I didn't tick the "all other body parts" box because I wouldn't want to donate my ovaries (if that's ever possible) because I wouldn't want someone else to bear my biological children.

I don't personally agree with a womb being transplanted into a man. But a woman's life could be massively transformed by a donated womb if that were possible. Difficult.

PurpleDaisies · 10/02/2018 16:45

Bear in mind that if England moves to a 'presumed consent' organ donation system, as is proposed, it won't be a case of "I choose not to donate my uterus" it will be a case of, your womb is ours and you never stipulated otherwise.

This isn’t what the thread is about, but it’s really important to clarify that that’s not how a presumed consent system works at all, and scaremongering like that isn’t helpful.

The next of kin still need to agree to organ donation, it’s just that you start from the position that the person didn’t say they didn’t want to be a donor so we assume they wang to be unless the next if Lin say otherwise. At no point do the organs “belong to the state”.

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:45

On that basis women born without functioning wombs don’t have ‘bodies that were destined for it’?

I said DESIGNED.

Women without wombs have all the rest of the necessary "plumbing"; somewhere to put a transplanted womb; Things to attach it to; A birth canal; An endocrine system to support a pregnancy.

Because women born without a womb, or who lose their wombs DO, in fact, have bodies designed for the purpose. They've just lost one piece of the machinery.

OP posts:
Enidthecat · 10/02/2018 16:46

Shame that you don't want to help people like that battleax

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:48

People like what? Women without wombs? I very much do. That's why I'm hoping the policy will be clarified at some point if enough women query it.

Theoretical for my generation, but it might matter for the next.

OP posts:
AssassinatedBeauty · 10/02/2018 16:48

@mustbemad17 I'm not sure what I think about the ethics of current uterus transplants tbh. There is a lot less risk, because the uterus is in a female body, with the correct hormones and connected to female anatomy. A lot less interference would be needed to initiate and maintain a pregnancy, so the risk to any foetus is much much less as well.

Enidthecat · 10/02/2018 16:49

Well you don't do you because you wont donate your womb. Can't want to help that much.

Original poster
Battleax · 10/02/2018 16:49

I think we have to object to force a clarification. I'll finish drafting my email when I'm done here.

OP posts:
foodiefil · 10/02/2018 16:50

If you're dead, why would you give a toss where your womb went to? God forbid it made someone who was in the wrong body happy. Transphobia or what?!!

GreyGardens88 · 10/02/2018 16:51

You're mad you