Anyone fancy co-parenting with LOJ?

[AdHominemNonSequitur]

Owen Jones wants a baby, and would like a lesbian couple to impregnate. Any takers on mumsnet? He could be quite a catch for someone looking for a sperm donor and a co-parent to raise a well balanced child.
He got a bit of flack, so is doubling down on the the "anti-trans cult" and calling everyone homophobic.

Can't he ask Suzanne Moore to help out? I'll just get me coat then.....

Oh dear. We are onto males receiving womb transplants AGAIN.

Posters who believe it possible to carry a foetus as a male have obviously never been there throughout a pregnancy with an intimate partner or/and have been sold hope by people who have not told these males the entire story.

And no matter how regular posters on this board try to explain, it is ignored.

Please. Take it from Mumsnet posters who either have been pregnant and some posters may even be doctors, nurses and midwives with huge knowledge.

A uterus is not the only thing needed to carry a foetus. Unless you can also reprogram MOST of your body, and not just with hormones, you cannot do this. From your body’s programming taking calcium from your teeth as needed, to an intricate feedback loop to provide different things at different times to the developing infant and your own body, it is NOT just the uterus!

A female body is designed to do it, so a transplant will work. It has all the other programming too. I believe there is still many issues.

However, the chemical cocktail already taken by a transwoman, and the unreliability of suppression of testosterone, cannot be healthy for a developing infant either. There are so many chemicals, even foods, females must be careful of, why on earth do any males think this would be for the good of another human being???

And what about the ethics for experimenting on unborn children? Are posters who post this stuff prepared to also take on the responsibility for allowing unborn children to be experiment ‘material’.

Any person who advocates for males to carry foetuses must accept their role in history for experimenting with unborn children. There will be no where to hide.

Of course, I do have to admit that if testes have been removed, there is no testosterone to suppress. Still doesn’t mean the other chemicals being taken are healthy for a baby.

Spot on

If any branch of medical science is going to devote itself to understanding and artificially replicating anything the human body does, can it be replicating breastmilk/improving cows milk-based formula formulation to more closely copy human milk?

That would be fantastic. Both for women who don't want to breast feed and for women who want to, but can't due to circumstances beyond their control.

suppression of testosterone

I was wondering about this. When I started losing my hair (initially started as female pattern hair loss/Androgenetic alopecia) I was looking into possible treatments and Spironolactone came up. A testosterone blocker. It's believed that FPHL is caused by the hair follicles being very sensitive to the tiny, normal amount of androgens women produce.

I assume transwomen take testosterone suppressants? (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was stressed so much that you absolutely should not get pregnant when on Spironolactone, because it causes birth defects in baby boys. I think their penis doesn't develop properly, amongst other risks. You have to come off the medication for months before trying to conceive. Same with Minoxidil, a foam you rub on your scalp to stimulate hair growth. Birth defects have been reported the same as with Spiro, because it's an anti-androgen.

So, if transwomen take testosterone suppressants, how could they become pregnant safely? And they wouldn't be able to come off them during a pregnancy, because surely the testosterone they'd start producing naturally would be extremely dangerous for the baby, and clash with all the other artificial female hormones needed to sustain the pregnancy?

The idea that to grow a baby you just need a womb is an extremely misogynist view shared by anti abortion types.

It's woman as vessel. You'll note that anti abortion pics always show the foetus floating in space. The woman is invisible, not relevant. Oh why not just give it up for adoption they say. As if carrying a baby to term, childbirth are nothing.

What happened with formula was an example of this. Oh breast milk is just something women do. All mammals do it. Science can do better, obviously.

But they keep finding new stuff about how it works, what's in it etc

The arrogance of it.

This idea oh just get a human womb and put it anywhere fine. The idea that women's bodies interact with, nourish, react to the foetus is just. Not of interest.

The interest in improving things for pregnant and birthing women is, where? Not much in evidence.

The interest in growing babies without women has been interesting forever. For men especially. The one thing they really need us for.

I also note that the experiments around artificial wombs involve animals.

There's no way that a womb transplant into a male would be tried on humans first.

So that's a lot of animal experimentation which is not really necessary, given that it's not solving a medical issue. IE males not being able to grow babies is not an abnormality etc.

Just thought, what happened to the trans human crew or whatever they were called. The cyborg people.

And what about the ethics for experimenting on unborn children? Are posters who post this stuff prepared to also take on the responsibility for allowing unborn children to be experiment ‘material’.

I was wondering about that too. All that risk, just for... what?

For men to unlock the reproductive power that they have resented us and needed us for, forever.

@NiceGerbil

For men to unlock the reproductive power that they have resented us and needed us for, forever.

God, yes... Reducing us to basically just walking, breathing spare parts.

I assume transwomen take testosterone suppressants? (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was stressed so much that you absolutely should not get pregnant when on Spironolactone, because it causes birth defects in baby boys. I think their penis doesn't develop properly, amongst other risks. You have to come off the medication for months before trying to conceive. Same with Minoxidil, a foam you rub on your scalp to stimulate hair growth. Birth defects have been reported the same as with Spiro, because it's an anti-androgen.

Yes. I remember this. It was posted on another thread fairly recently. I think it was also something about male breastfeeding too when Spiro was involved that caused issues.

I will see if I can find it.

I suppose it's seen at the moment in the surrogacy arguments. The fact that only women can grow babies is a bit of a problem. It reduces the freedom of some people to have babies.

To be able to get babies without the interference, necessity of a woman would be really good.

In fact the whole mother business can be a PITA, with their opinions on lots of things around children being given too much weight.

If babies could be grown in jars, a la brave New world, what would happen in society?

@yourhairiswinterfire

suppression of testosterone

I was wondering about this. When I started losing my hair (initially started as female pattern hair loss/Androgenetic alopecia) I was looking into possible treatments and Spironolactone came up. A testosterone blocker. It's believed that FPHL is caused by the hair follicles being very sensitive to the tiny, normal amount of androgens women produce.

I assume transwomen take testosterone suppressants? (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It was stressed so much that you absolutely should not get pregnant when on Spironolactone, because it causes birth defects in baby boys. I think their penis doesn't develop properly, amongst other risks. You have to come off the medication for months before trying to conceive. Same with Minoxidil, a foam you rub on your scalp to stimulate hair growth. Birth defects have been reported the same as with Spiro, because it's an anti-androgen.

So, if transwomen take testosterone suppressants, how could they become pregnant safely? And they wouldn't be able to come off them during a pregnancy, because surely the testosterone they'd start producing naturally would be extremely dangerous for the baby, and clash with all the other artificial female hormones needed to sustain the pregnancy?

It appears they may. The link below specifically mentions Spironolactone, and also Cyproterone Acetate. The latter is one of the constituents of Dianette, which is quite often prescribed to women with PCOS for acne and hirsutism. It also contains ethinylestradiol and acts (though no longer prescribed as) a contraceptive; it comes with similar warnings re pregnancy and feminisation of male foetuses.

www.verywellhealth.com/testosterone-blockers-for-transgender-women-4582221

'
Yes. I remember this. It was posted on another thread fairly recently. I think it was also something about male breastfeeding too when Spiro was involved that caused issues.'

But WHY? Why this ongoing desire to replicate (usually badly) what an enormous % of women on the planet are capable of (and do) at some point in their lives?

The answer is- because some men want to. It's not fixing a problem. It's fraught with ethical issues. And look at what happened with formula. The assumption that it was easy to copy. The arrogance.

Meanwhile over the world pregnancy and childbirth which cause a host of issues for women- mental health, physical health. Are seen as, well women do it every day that's what they're for. It has risks that's the nature of it. (more or less).

Thanks for the link Errol.

So it seems Spiro is the actual blocker used by some transwomen!

It makes no sense that women on this medication are told, very strictly, not to become pregnant. And to wait months after coming off it before trying to conceive.

How would that work with transwomen? The same rules should apply. They either stay on it and risk harming a baby. Or come off it and their body producing testosterone harms the baby.

I can't get my head around it!

I dont think that overly suppressed androgens would be an issue in a Transwoman. Even on suppressors they have significantly higher T. A woman's testosterone levels fluctuate, but even with PCOS, it maxes out at 5 nmols. I recall a goal of 5-10 nmols for sport participation so at to double an abnormally high female level. If too little testosterone feminises a foetus, for damn sure to much natural testosterone would masculinise a foetus, but this is all pie in the sky anyway isn't it?

I think this thread has been totally derailed hasn't it?

And away from the tweet about 'hunting broody lesbians'.

Any update from LOJ suggesting he may have realised what an utterly inappropriate tweet that was? Or more whining at having been challenged for it?

I’m feeling a teeny bit guilty for enjoying all this. Ok, I’m lying, not feeling guilty one bit.

Whenever I hear mention of lil OJ, I remember a comment by a very smart and funny MNer, saying “he still thinks he’s the cleverest boy in 6th form”.

The responses are polarised.

It's how everything now is, it seems.

I do read the things linked etc and keep thinking, have I missed something? What are others seeing that I am not? Why do some people I think are sensible have different thoughts to me.

There must be some of that the other way but I think that the internet especially Twitter really suppress that.

The thing I'm finding really interesting at the moment is the constant co-opting of the language/ ideas/ arguments of other movements/ issues with seemingly without a second thought

And the way they just get dropped and moved onto the next one.

On the thread in question there's some stuff about the criticism being exclusionary to infertile women. But I thought the words had to be, people with (functional?) uteruses, women and trans men, menstruators etc.

But then he says hunting for broody lesbians (thus indicating that lesbians are female, same sex attracted, and also overlooking that some lesbians are infertile) and suddenly all the women going ??? are using the wrong language and somehow excluding infertile women...???

There's no logical consistency.

It's just, whatever THEY say must be evil and so let's find any old argument to say why, even if it directly contradicts what we said last week.

Impossible to argue really.

The number of gay men and lesbians saying it was dehumanising was good to see.

The response from many was 'it's a joke'... Okaayyyy.

It also contains ethinylestradiol and acts (though no longer prescribed as) a contraceptive; it comes with similar warnings re pregnancy and feminisation of male foetuses.

Now waiting for the ‘paper’ from our usual suspect that this is the future and will be the über-transmedicine to replace puberty blockers. They will employ Layla Moran to see into the soul of the embryo so no mistakes are made. 🤓

How much research is being done on how to get females to ejaculate semen in a way that could impregnate a female?

Out of interest...

And what irritates me. Having just looked at his Twitter.

Is his unashamed rewriting of what he said

What he said was awful. Hypothetical and totally horrible about lesbians.

Those who follow him say yes those who objected are transpobic homophobic bastards.

They can see what he said! How does it work then?

I am continually trying to understand other views. Constantly thinking. Have they got a point? Why are they saying this? What is the driver? Am I wrong?

Gay men were notable on the responses to the original thing he said. Saying this is bang out of order.

How do people not notice this and think, hold on. Why is he saying that? What have I missed.

But they don't. It's weird tbh. Confirmation bias writ large.

I have to thank MN again for hosting this open conversation.

I strongly dislike how OJ seems to equate mtf transitioners with infertile women. Many men transition later in life, after they have been married and have children. How is this in anyway comparable to the heartbreak of a woman who desperately wants her own children but can't? I've been to the conception boards on Mumsnet. I've had friends and family members go through IVF. A male body that cannot gestate and bear a child is normal. Unless there is an issue with sperm production, it is not infertile!

Similarly, an ftm transitioner who may have had a hysterectomy and is unable to impregnate a female partner is not an infertile male.

I do not mean to be flippant and I hope this post does not get deleted, but the ludicrousness of this occurred to me yesterday. Cats are not infertile penguins because they are unable to birth penguins. Crocodiles are not infertile lions because they can't hatch lions. Elephants are not infertile hamsters etc.

Yet saying a male-bodied person is like 'other infertile women' is not treated with the same level of incredulity that I think it deserves.

I want to make clear that I have every sympathy for someone who is struggling with their gender dysphoria. I especially feel for those people who transitioned young and who gave up their fertility via puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. However, I strongly dislike how some trans activists seem to appropriate the struggles of infertile women for their own ends.