If born male you biologically stay male until you die? Yes?

[daisiesonmydress]

Just that really. That's my understanding. No matter how you dress or what surgery you have?

And you can legally say this too?

[quote EmpressCixi]@ErrolTheDragon
I think you are wildly overestimating the probability - personally I doubt it's even a possibility.

That’s your opinion. But keep in mind, 75yrs ago we did not even know DNA existed.[/quote]

Some things are possible, others aren't. We can fly to the moon and create iPhones but we can't figure out how to straighten hair without burning it and getting split ends, or cure hay fever.

I would settle for a way to zap idiots.

Vasculature!

I get it now. Thanks Alfonso That had me floored.

Pelvic circulatory system = vasculature - possibly.

And I would really like EmpressCixi to answer,

At what point will society think it acceptable to grow a human in a bag?

This is effectively what you are predicting? Despite the few doctors willing to experiment with transplanting uteruses into males, the reality is... without all the other necessary contributory systems linked up and working with some control centre that has been reprogrammed, you are saying that society will allow a human to be grown in a 'meat bag' within a male who feels entitled to it. Because that uterus, even though it may have come from a female donor, is just that.

A bag in which drugs will be injected to 'grow a foetus'.

And you think we are anywhere near even a tiny fraction of people thinking that this is acceptable?

And while you are at it, a male cannot 'get pregnant' as they will not have working ovaries. Or are you predicting that ovaries with eggs will be viably transplanted, again along with the entire supporting network of organs and processes.

No. They may have an embryo implanted. They could now have an embryo implanted in any part of their body. Still would not be them 'getting pregnant' and still would not be ethical.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

DNA was discovered in 1869 by Swiss researcher Friedrich Miescher

You really do need to do some research before you spout such nonsense.

Nope 1953 by Watson and Crick. As you well know.

What ever the date, it does mean that any of the disputed 'facts' in your posts are correct.

Meisscher was the first to isolate nucleic acid.

Crick and Watson discovered the helix structure. Rosalind Frankin was also an important member of the team but died of breast cancer before she could be awarded a Nobel Prize for her part in the discovery.

Empress Cixi's posts continue to be ignorant.

Watson and Crick didn't discover DNA. They mapped the double helix shape of it, as I do indeed well know

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

And what the fuck is a 'pelvic circulatory system'.

You can't just make up physiological systems to sound clever. Some of us are bloody physiologists, biomechanists.

What? It is the circulatory system of the pelvic region. As in blood, arteries, veins.

I might have a read back, but I suspect it is true that not a single, solitary scientific 'fact' put forward by Empress is correct.

Not a one!

www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/discovery-of-dna-structure-and-function-watson-397/

Spoiler this paper agrees with HoardingSamphireSaurus as do many other sources.

What? It is the circulatory system of the pelvic region. As in blood, arteries, veins

Then you did mean vasculature. There is no system discrete to the pelvic region.

Nope 1953 by Watson and Crick. As you well know.

Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. They already knew DNA existed.

Famously, Rosalind Franklin actually first discovered the helical structure of DNA in 1951. This was then published in 1953 by Crick and Watson who confirmed what she had already found.

It is plain wrong to say that Crick and Watson discovered DNA in 1953. They confirmed and published work on its double helix structure.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I don’t think anyone should lose their job over this, but let’s face facts, people do. Especially older women.

Ageist claptrap too! Did you just assume something?

No I did not assume, RTFT. OP referred to herself as an “older woman” and my point is yes, that ageism is rife in the workplace and disproportionately affects women.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

What? It is the circulatory system of the pelvic region. As in blood, arteries, veins

Then you did mean vasculature. There is no system discrete to the pelvic region.

I didn’t call it a discrete system...

Ooh! A fact. Well done.

Even if we could implant uteri into males, and got over the ethical problems inherent in subjecting the foetus to such disastrous experimentation, the questions remains- why would we?

Exactly the same as with the question of what benefit might accrue from transforming male DNA into female- why would we? Cui bono?

There are so many moral and ethical dilemmas here that I am not confident we can ever overcome because there’s simply no net benefit to humanity in trying to so do.

Gaarrgh cross posted.

Fact - OP said she is an older woman.

But system has a specific meaning and, as with all the rest of your science, you were wrong, in this case you misused the word.

You meant vasculature.

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

Nope 1953 by Watson and Crick. As you well know.

Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. They already knew DNA existed.

Yes, they knew nucleic acid existed. But DNA is one specific type of nucleic acid. Which was discovered in 1953. I’m going by peer reviewed publication date which is standard.

And I am playing chess with a pigeon, aren't I?

Pshaw!

Oh give it up @EmpressCixi. It's ok to admit when you are incorrect, in fact it's a strength.

@Sophoclesthefox

Even if we could implant uteri into males, and got over the ethical problems inherent in subjecting the foetus to such disastrous experimentation, the questions remains- why would we?

Exactly the same as with the question of what benefit might accrue from transforming male DNA into female- why would we? Cui bono?

There are so many moral and ethical dilemmas here that I am not confident we can ever overcome because there’s simply no net benefit to humanity in trying to so do.

We can, and the ethical discussions are out there justifying it under EU and U.K. law with the conclusion it would be unethical and discriminatory to deny MtF a UTx or any infertility treatment also offered to natal women. In fact, the conclusion stated that UTx should include for MtF vaginal implants with the donor pool being cadavers or FtM donors precisely as one of several options to solve the new-vagina Ph and flora problems.

I still think we are only a few years away from MtF being able to get pregnant and carry a baby to term. It is theoretically possible. It is only a matter of time and scientific advances. They might need a ECS due to pelvic morphology, but so what. It been long established that “getting pregnant” doesn’t exclude IVF nor does “giving birth” exclude non vaginal births.

And as for the argument that it’s not the same, well so what? At some point function and form will matter more than the origin of it being natal or through GCS and other healthcare.

I rather think many of you are simply not up to date with the more recent developments.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I might have a read back, but I suspect it is true that not a single, solitary scientific 'fact' put forward by Empress is correct.

Not a one!

Well... hoarding.

They did say

they have voice box surgery to create higher pitched female voice

This is true. However, the success rate is yet to be relayed to us.

I would also feel safe to say, a voice change does NOT make a male into a female in any way.

They also said that

successfully given transwomen the right cocktail of hormones such that they can produce breast milk and breast feed.

And we know that this is partially true. That they can produce milk of sorts from the breast. Is it enough like breast milk to reflect the real thing.... no. And can an infant thrive on liquid produced in this fashion... not yet proven in any study I have seen.

I think that that might be the limit to 'truth' in the relevant posts.