Imperial College London study into womb transplant for transwomen

[bettybeans]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned - I can't find it if it has - but wtf.
I have so many questions about and problems with this I don't even know where to begin.

On the plus side, if men with retrofit wombs becomes a thing, the demand for commercial surrogacy should drop accordingly.

Good news for women in the third world (bad news for western transmen whose radical, early hysterectomies will become the expected norm. Might see an and to puberty blockers though?)

Image: classic example of ‘give an inch, they’ll take a mile’.

I'd say there are a number of motivations and a number of desired outcomes resisterpersister. One thing I've learned on here is that whether it's transgender, gender dysphoria, AGP, or TRAs, each of them is not just one thing.

I'd say there are a number of motivations and a number of desired outcomes...

I agree but I think they all stem from the same mind virus.

Transgenderism, transhumanism all stem from a superiority mind set. Man above nature, above “God”, above death, above reality.

The desire to hack reality and take control of it is why we are facing our imminent extinction. It is impossible to become the outside creator of a reality that you are intertwined with but it isn’t going to stop them trying.

Womb transplants into males will never be a thing (and they know it) because the intricate mechanisms of the female body will always be beyond our ken, but the pathological desire to gain control of what the female represents (chaos and creativity) is relentless and in lieu of control, they will take destruction. Of our bodies and language and rights.

This is only about the Overton window. It’s a psychological assault on our understanding of reality.

Not read entire thread yet, so sorry if this point has been made already, but surely at the moment the Equality Act 2010 could only be involved for GRC holders? Their legal comparator is women. Non-GRC holders are legally men, to be compared against other men.

Until self-ID comes in.

Nauticant nails it.

I'll write what I wrote before. This business of uterine transplants into men appears to be about science but it is not. It's about getting the idea out there that men can give birth too, but not just yet, there are a few technical details to be sorted out first. So while we're waiting for the inevitable, let's get on with the social sciences side of things and accept that since men can give birth too (not yet, but soon, soon, it's bound to happen), then there are no real differences between men and women in terms of things that are material and significant. The only differences are simply surface ones like the chosen forms of appearance.

It is about trying to change how people think by assuming a medical horror is a run-of-the-mill thing just round the corner. It's Overton Window stuff, not science.

I came across wombtransplantuk last year. My first instinct was: it's a front.
Spend a minimal amount of time pretending this is a service for women, then segue into the real reason, wombs for men.
Not because this will ever be more than a Frankenstein experiment. But because there is money to be made, and laws, policies to be changed.

Make people think it's possible. Change ethics rules. Erase the distinctions between the sexes further, on paper. Blur the lines that distinguish women's health, and women's rights. Change the priority order of the most deserving. Perpetuate the myth that science is getting closer to enabling real sex change.

Keep feeding the machine.

In case the opt out form hasn't been posted as I HRTWT

www.organdonation.nhs.uk/register-your-decision/refuse-to-donate/refuse-donation-form/

The NHS are changing how this is done in a good way - you will have to opt in for novel transplants, I.e organs that aren't already included. I've opted out and nominate DH as my decision maker which is a separate form.

Posting whilst chasing toddler round a soft play so hope it's clear xx

I still want to know at what point ‘novel’ becomes ‘not novel’, and how this would be communicated.

I came across wombtransplantuk last year. My first instinct was: it's a front.
A year ago I would have thought you're a tinfoil hatter. But considering how experimental womb transplantation still is, the speed at which this charity wants to move into implants for men is quite disturbing.

Make people think it's possible.
It's depressing how many people already think that womb implants for transwomen is somehow different from womb implants for men!

An article from 2013:
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ivf-for-womb-transplant-woman-gives-hope-to-british-women-8434480.html

"Richard Smith, a consultant gynaecological surgeon, said the British team hopes to conduct the first operation in the UK before the end of 2014."

"Earlier this year, his team achieved a successful pregnancy in a rabbit with a transplanted uterus, though the animal went on to miscarry.
He said that before the medics can approach local ethics committees they need to produce data concerning a pregnancy in a woman who has already undergone the procedure and results from animal models.
While the science-side of the project is coming on in leaps and bounds, the monetary aspect is not coming along so well.
The charity, Uterine Transplantation UK, needs to raise funds to complete the preparatory work, conduct the transplants and pay for the other associated costs such as immunosuppressant therapy for the women while the uteruses are in their bodies.
Medics hope the transplants could help women have a child - or even two - before the donated womb is then removed. This means the recipient would only have to take immunosuppressant drugs, which make their bodies accept the transplant, for a limited period.
So far, the charity has raised £30,000 but a further £470,000 is needed, Mr Smith said."

This is really sad for the young people caught up in the trans narrative, happily throwing their fertility away thinking they'll just get a womb on demand later. Surely that's unethical, it's like the opposite of informed consent.

Also, organs aren't matched to recipients to avoid discrimination. They are matched by who will have the most successful outcome and whose need is highest. There would have to be a surplus of wombs to skip past all the XX women whose bodies and genetics are a better fit, before getting to the male bodies wanting one. Is dysphoria a reason to have something you can't even see implanted? Something that carries so many risks?

Another reason why this bizarre proposal is continually wheeled out is that it takes almost no effort to put forward, just say "it's bound to happen" and refer to the same links, and it drives the opposition, us gender critical types, into a frenzy. Especially since it works like catnip to very strange males with worrying fetishes and their stomach-turning enthusiasm compounds the offence.

Put in very little effort, get the opposition running around like people possessed trying to argue against something fictional, and being generally upset, what's not to like?

Sorry if it's been mentioned before but the proposal is that once a womb is transplanted, the embryo is implanted. About 6 months after a c section birth the womb is then removed so there is no need for ongoing immunosuppressant therapy.
That almost makes it worse - sounds so disposable

Applause for Nauticant, Barracker and Kittens. Brilliant analyses.

Charming comment from Reddit, where "it's good to see that they are actively including trans women? Instead of just peddling it to cis women."

Damn those scientists who are "just" trying to help women who could actually give birth to a healthy baby, instead of pandering to male narcissistic fantasies. "Just".

As for the post where they say that this science is really aimed at transwomen, who can then solve population crises in the next 20 years

They're just all so delusional and sexist. I'm not sure I even feel sorry for the ones who buy it all without question anymore. How dumb do you have to be?

Agree nauticant

Appalling lack of ethics; zero consideration for the potential child and the female donor; terrible optics for world renowned science institution that is Imperial College.... But putting all that aside, the majority of transwomen keep their male reproductive organs. The people who genuinely want to go ahead with this are going to be very very few. Like so much else, their issues are being appropriated for political gain. It's worth remembering the majority of people who will be stomping all over twitter about this are quite happy using the genitals they were born with in the traditional sense.

This reminds me of that "trans mum breastfeeds a baby" story that came out a while back - a transwoman who took a shedload of drugs and ended up being able to squeeze out a bit of milk for a baby. The welfare of the baby wasn't the priority, but the validation of the parent - the baby's nutrition was irrelevant.

Whereas the decision to breastfeed or not, amongst the mothers I know, is done with the best interests of the child in mind. (Eg one woman I know was on medication which would have transferred in her milk, and she bottlefed despite desperately wanting to breastfeed.)

This isn't for the benefit of any prospective child. This is control and validation.

I suppose it's all about framing themselves in that "I am a woman, I just wasn't born with the correct bits" light.

No wonder women with DSD are so pissed off with them.

"I'm starting to think, this isn't about transwomen at all. They're just convenient & willing guinea pigs.
This is about biotechnology and taking steps towards transhumanism"

I agree that it's current and prospective developments in science and technology that have led to an environment where these concepts are possible to discuss.

The idea of "identifying" as a trans woman without medical intervention only existed once the surgical techniques FOR medical intervention reached current levels of sophistication. It could not have existed before.

This was from a paper quoted on the Reddit thread:

This restores reproductive anatomy and allows physiological excretion of discharge and menstruation, but also allows direct visualisation of the cervix and access to take biopsies, which is the only reliable way to detect rejection following UTx. In the M2F transgender model, it would therefore only be possible following gender reassignment surgery (GRS), which traditionally includes orchidectomy, penectomy, clitoroplasty, and labiaplasty, with the subsequent creation of a neovagina.

This is never going to happen (she says. I'm nervous even writing that!) Only the biggest charlatan would implant a womb into a man when there's then no way of then testing the patient for rejection. People on Reddit had an idea that if you have a neovagina, you can have this surgery but a neovagina isn't, a vagina. Doctors have difficulty keeping that pouch infection free and avoiding it healing up, which is why people dilate them. The idea that it could be connected to an implanted cervix/womb (just to be tested for rejection, not talking about childbirth) and be healthy for weeks to months is laughable. You'd end up with a terrible infection surely? A neovagina isn't self-cleaning.

Plus pregnancy isn't just about being an incubator. You need more than a womb to carry a baby. You need a female body. This isn't going to happen and it's bizarre it's being sold as if it is. I mean, they're welcome to waste their money trying to fund surveys but it's ridiculous.

The abbreviation of “uterine transplant” to “UTx” is interesting. I don’t think it’s common to use abbreviations like that in the medical literature. I’ve never seen “kidney transplant” written as “KTx”, for example.

I think it’s deliberate. If you don’t use the words, people don’t have to visualise what you’re talking about so much. It dehumanises the process. It just looks... futuristic and exciting.

But where would it go? It's not like putting a womb in the gap where a womb should be it's like sticking one in your chest cavity?

Will the skeleton know to move? Will it have the capacity? How would they give birth - would a fake vagina not rip?

An update on the survey: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux

Will the skeleton know to move? Will it have the capacity? How would they give birth - would a fake vagina not rip?

David Lewis has posted all the details, thanks to the research team.

To anyone wondering where they might in future be harvesting dead women’s reproductive organs, wombs etc needed for all this- in England at least it seems like they are making it a lot easier.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3573720-Consultation-on-new-organ-donation-rules

Earlier this year, his team achieved a successful pregnancy in a rabbit with a transplanted uterus, though the animal went on to miscarry

This is revolting. Nobody, male or female needs a uterine transplant. The treatment of laboratory animals is bad enough even when the aim is good but the torture of animals to satisfy the selfish , narcissistic whim, whether of a male or a female, to get a womb transplant is just evil.