Milli Hill and female physiology

[BoredOfCbeebies]

Please give some support to Milli on Facebook, on her Positive Birth Movement page. She's written a very sensible article about how we should use the word female when describing the physiology of those who give birth, and there's a bit of a pile on about how she's a terf, and turning into Katie Hopkins!
www.facebook.com/positivebirthmovement/

But it's a real thing!

obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.15438

All those with a uterus to spare, form an orderly Q.

Anti abortion literature invariably has a pic of a foetus floating in... Nothing. The woman is not there, separate, not a part of the picture.

Surrogacy the woman who grows and gives birth to the baby is... A temporary housing. If ivf with donor egg the apparently accepted view is that the baby has no connection to her. A very male view, when DNA provision is the decider of 'whose it is'. Something men in general have been obsessed with for yonks and the root of most of our oppression globally.

Imagine growing up and saying to your friends that your mother a woman did not give birth to you but a TW did (as TW look like men so the visual give away is omnipresent). You would still be 50% genetically linked to a mother somewhere too. It sounds so confusing for the DC.

Do TW want to be called transmothers, or birth parents, or more likely mothers eradicate the word mother as adult female?

That Twitter thread I mean it's just a random right but I've seen that sort of stuff around.

Just bung the bag into a transwoman job done!

The idea with surrogacy for gay men and medical care for trans people that the fact that a male body cannot carry a baby is an equality issue. If some women have had uterus implant why not trans people who don't have a uterus? Same issue. If women who in some areas can get IVF after a certain time period on NHS then why is help to conceive not available in a situation where a baby is desired but no uterus is to hand?

It's like men requesting sex (prostitution) paid for via the NHS because they see it as their right. Men are the main sex with prioritised needs.

Women know your place, hand your womb over so men can do it properly.

Sorry posting in chunks!

What is missing- as with the start of formula and on to selling it. Is any question that the women might be doing anything else with all this.

Science could make food for babies superior to breast milk. Obviously! Women just do it without thinking and it's just milk. Not going to be anything complicated about it.

And so with this.

Surrogacy donor egg. The fact she grows the baby using her own blood, tissue. Minerals from teeth, bone. That all it really knows as a constant is her heartbeat. Her voice is the main one heard. Meaningless. And to remove the baby at birth is aok.
(Despite the fact that in all other situations it's instinctive to know that a baby needs it's mother and to take it is viscerally felt as very wrong.)

So where we're at and over and over nonsense science is written all over the place.

Is back to ancient Greece - baby is made of male contribution. Woman grows it in her grobag and that's it. The grobag grows the baby.

So put a grobag wherever or make a bag and baby will grow!

Ignore that her whole body is involved in a massively complex process which involves a range of changes that impact on the mother. The hormones. Milk is responsive to situation is the nourishment provided by placenta? Not much is known really in the end.
Removing baby at birth, any psychological ramifications? Again. Just a bag. Not on the radar.

Put the bag in anyone? Job done. As there's nothing the human housing it does. No need to worry about anything else.

And in the end, why?

Humans are highly successful. The current process the same as all other mammals seems to work.

The ability to make babies without women has always been of interest. It's infuriating. Only women can do it. That can't be right! They are inferior. Relying on them for this is very frustrating.

And so on it goes.

Why growing babies for transwomen anyway?
There are males about who would love to grow a baby. DH for one who would have had more but my experiences meant nope not again.

And I thought that reproductive biology had nothing to do with man/ woman.
So why the interest in this?

I mean it's all nonsense and yet again nonsense that trivialises female reproductive biology.

Bloody hell that paper.

Conclusion
Despite a number of anatomical, hormonal, fertility, andobstetric considerations that require consideration, there isno overwhelming clinical argument against performingUTx as part of GRS. However, the increased radicalityassociated with the retrieval operation, including a longervaginal cuff and more extensive ligamentous dissection,potentially necessitates the use of deceased donors. Alterna-tively, F2M transgender men may offer an alternativedonor pool should they accept the increased risk comparedwith standard hysterectomy. Prior to undertaking UTx intransgender women, further research should be undertakenincluding cadaveric retrieval and implantations to assessthe feasibility of the anatomical considerations discussedherein. Furthermore, it is recommended that animal studiesare revisited to identify potential unknown risks and deter-mine whether genetic males can successfully conceive andmaintain pregnancy.The reproductive aspirations of M2F transgender womendeserve equal consideration to those assigned female atbirth and, subject to feasibility being shown in the sug-gested areas of research, it may be legally and ethicallyimpermissible not to consider utx in this population.'

Authors

Uterine transplantation in transgender womenBP Jones,a,bNJ Williams,cS Saso,a,bM-Y Thum,b,dI Quiroga,eJ Yazbek,a,bS Wilkinson,cS Ghaem-Maghami,a,bP Thomas,fJR Smitha,baWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UKbDepartment of Surgeryand Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UKcDepartment of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UKdLister Fertility Clinic, The Lister Hospital, London, UKeThe Oxford Transplant Centre, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford UniversityHospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UKfBrighton Gender Clinic, Nuffield Health Hospital, Brighton, UKCorrespondence: Mr BP Jones, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.Email: [email protected] 12 August 2018.

Meanwhile...

Endometriosis?

Boring probs.

@Enough4me

Imagine growing up and saying to your friends that your mother a woman did not give birth to you but a TW did (as TW look like men so the visual give away is omnipresent). You would still be 50% genetically linked to a mother somewhere too. It sounds so confusing for the DC.

Do TW want to be called transmothers, or birth parents, or more likely mothers eradicate the word mother as adult female?

It's not going to happen any time soon.

For me the main things are

Where is the consideration for the health etc of the baby? The paper talks about maybe surgery, loads of drugs etc. No mention of effect on foetus only transplant recipient.

Why? The reasons in the paper are very weak and boil down to because some want it. Expensive risky etc etc when the old method works perfectly well. Why all these risks to achieve male people being able to do the most obvious thing that women can do and men can't. It's an ongoing fixation for millennia. Just. Stop it. Seriously.

The utter disregard since forever that growing a baby might just possibly be more involved than some tomatoes in a grobag. Total misogyny. You'd hope they'd have learnt something from the whole formula thing. Nope. Course not.

“ We literally only just started having conversations about those needs and experiences.

We were not done talking.”

Powerful.

We were not done talking!