Whilst everyone is reflecting on the trans angle, I think you should all have a good think about this for other reasons.
The issue I can see relates to who will be 'givers' and who shall be 'recievers'.
Firstly the 'recievers' angle.
Lets reflect on whether this would ever be available on the NHS? Given that IVF isn't in many areas, it seems a highly unlikely proposal.
Thus the only women who might benefit from this, would have to be well off.
In addition to this, they are, by the same logic, likely to be older and therefore also more likely to have other health problems relating to pregnancy, than a woman in her early twenties.
And if they are having a transplant they will be recieving drugs to prevent organ rejection.
To say you would be looking at it being a high risk option would be something of an understatement.
What happens if you have a man who insists his wife has a transplant so he can have a child?
Is this in the best interests of the mother / child?
Second of all is this idea of being 'givers'
Whose organs are going to be used? Reflecting on who dies younger (and also the dangerous of presumed concern and how this might have a detrimental effect for the vulnerable).
Honestly the whole thing makes me shudder. There is a world of difference between having a life saving transplant or one which is relatively speaking low risk but has a considerable benefit to quality of life to this. It begs the ethical question of whether it strays into the camp of whether it counts as 'doing harm' by HCPs.
I voted remain before but if we have another ref do wonder if getting rid of many EU laws and the ECJ will benefit females against this sort of stuff. The ECJ has made it all worse by saying people who think they are women should have the same rights as women.
I think you are getting your European Courts mixed up.