JK Rowling article

[DrDreReturns]

Interesting read. I know it's from a Conservative site but it seems only the right are gender critical at the moment.

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2022/03/profile-j-k-rowling-striving-to-stop-starmer-nailing-his-colours-to-the-fence-on-trans.html

I've had enough for today, so I won't respond further for now

And you think we enjoy reading about your support of human and animal vivisection?

Pity that the current and future non-human animal subjects aren't able to say they've had enough.

She didn't say that she or any other woman would get a womb or get pregnant for the purpose of having an abortion.

To me, the smile is there indicating that within our lifetimes, trans women becoming pregnant will be commonplace/easy enough that it happens without a desire to keep it.

You really do seem to lack to ability to draw conclusions from sentences.

How do you think a transitioned male will get pregnant? They will have to have IVF with donor eggs and maybe even donor sperm. Or do you imagine that a transitioned male will have PIV sex and a pregnancy will magically occur?

Are you serious? Do you seriously not understand anything about pregnancy at all? You are clearly not someone who has been pregnant or been a highly involved part of a couple going through pregnancy. You simply have no fucking idea!

So, a transitioned male will go through a donor conception and implantation to then 'change their mind about keeping it' and that will be 'easy' and 'commonplace'?

Please do keep on posting. Because you are really giving readers a very good grounding in the fallacies that are perpetuated by trans activists.

And it is a heart. Not a smile.

Getting back to JKR, excellent article in this evening's ES by Nimco Ali.

I find it also very enlightening to see that Fuchs can use google for themselves.

Yet... could not find anything on google about transitioned males declaring that they want to get pregnant to have an abortion or something along that theme.

And you twisted some the clear words ^Just realized: someone alive today will become the first trans woman to get an abortion.

Imagine coming onto a feminist board and promoting views that encompass male supremacism, rape apology, eugenics, experimentation on babies and being expected to be taken seriously.

The trans people I know are horrified that there are people who hold some of the most regressive, reactionary, anti democratic views around yet purport to speak for them.

Where is an implant womb actually placed in a man? Is it next to their neovagina?

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2019.1599764

These are plastic surgeons discussing the viability of implanting a uterus in a male.

No effort has been made here to discuss the implications and ethics of creating a pregnancy in an implanted uterus where the person has no supporting processing ability for that body to actually sustain a life.

Again, Fuchs is looking at this purely from the entirely selfish male point of view with absolutely no consideration of the ethics of experimenting on a human embryo.

So, this 'article' is not telling us anything we don't know.

A uterus transplant in a female requires significant suppression of the immune system. We know this. We have read the research. It also is usually removed after pregnancy.

I repeat for those who simply cannot quite grasp it, a female has already got the established support system if they can maintain a viable pregnancy.

The be blunt: There is more to being pregnant than having a foetus in a sack inside you.

It is what these plastic surgeons are NOT saying in this article.

How kind is it to let transitioned males believe that carrying a child is possible and ethical?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Being pro-experimentation on animals whatever the experiment is, including human animals, is "less bigoted"?

No. It. Isn't.

I wonder if you have even considered that early experiments are being conducted on mice, and will then be performed on our closest relations amongst the apes.

Yeah, it's really so kind to cheer on as scientists remove the uterus from a female chimpanzee and put it in a male chimpanzee. Do you have posters of smoking beagles on your walls, too?

Absolutely revolting thought. And should Elaine come back I have always opposed this type of medical intervention.

I think the 'transwomen could have babies too you know' is just more misogyny - the idea that a female body is literally just an incubator, that there is a uterus in there and the baby grows in it, all disconnected from the female body. It also shows how ignorant men are about pregnancy and what it involves.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2021.1915635

Again.

This article is incredibly superficial and never once mentions the 'ethics' of how any team will get to pregnancy.

It is bonkers that they think that if they can get a male primate to gestate a foetus that an ethics board would agree to start a trial for human foetuses.

I will repeat again, if this is allowed, then I suspect that any medical advice regarding medication and even food will need to be thrown completely out of the window for pregnant women. Because if a male is carrying a foetus and that foetus is subject to that kind of drug regime, why is that ethical and women are being told to not eat their favourite foods and take certain medication because it could cause risks to the foetus.

And tell us Fuchs just which ethics board is going to be brave enough to approve a human embryo trial when the risks are not known at all for the child. Seriously.

You are here lecturing us about our attitudes, YOU clearly think a child is an accessory that someone can order up on demand. Because a male wants one, a child is put at enormous risk to produce one.

It is all just so bloody grim isn't it? This pushing of extreme surgery etc. Lopping perfectly healthy tissue off kids, neo 'vaginas' made of various bits of skin / intestines, the testing around uterus implants.... its like a Mary Shelley novel.

It is bonkers that they think that if they can get a male primate to gestate a foetus that an ethics board would agree to start a trial for human foetuses.

And for what it is worth, I am also very much again using any animal for this experiment too.

Not only that, but how do they access that animal's mental capabilities, and processing ability adequately to know that a human will be born without any cognitive issues.

Just because a MALE wants one.

why is that ethical and women are being told to not eat their favourite foods and take certain medication because it could cause risks to the foetus.

Duh. Simple priority ranking.

Man > Foetus > Woman

Ahh. Thanks for explaining.

By the way. Currently the only animal experiment that was successfully in a male being pregnant required a equally pregnant female rate to be sewn to them so the female’s blood fed what is needed to develop the foetus in the male rat.

So all I can think is a person lecturing us on ‘feminism’, and sex categories, on trans rights has a complete blind spot to the prominent trans activists who say things that are pure hatred of women and children and a blind spot for ethics.

Not only for human experiments but for animal experimentation too. Where unnecessary experiments where male chimps and rats are being experimented on for ‘male’ pregnancies.

You really couldn’t pick it could you.

Males - foetuses - animals - women in that order…. From a ‘feminist’.

A-ha! Right.

Yep. And that "experiment" came after those "papers" Elaine is so ecstatic about.

I used to keep rats. They are friendly, playful, intelligent and inquisitive creatures. I had one that liked me to hold bits of string for him to chase, exactly like a very small kitten.

Imagine what it was like for these rats to be sewn together.

extract

They did not spell out the implications for humans but it comes after studies exploring the possibility of transplanting a uterus into transgender women.

The team joined a male and female rat together by attaching their skin and sharing their blood, then transplanting a uterus into the male and implanting embryos into both male and female rats.

The embryos were allowed to develop to term, that is 21.5 days, with ten successful pups out of 27 'normal' embryos in the male delivered by Caesarean section.

(Continues)

They had 46 'pairs' of rats and a total of562 embryos were transferred to female halves and 280 to the males.

A total of 169 (30%) of embryos had developed normally in the native uteruses of females, whereas only 27 (9%) had developed normally in the grafted uteruses of males.

At term just ten pups survived after being delivered from the male uterus but they had no long term health issues.

And why did the female rat have to be ‘sewn’ on?

Because at least these researchers understand that a female is more than a uterus. That a female’s endocrine system and brain has the programming needed for developing a foetus.

Only a person who has no concept of pregnancy and the interactions between mother and foetus could even think that there was a magic switch to turn all this on in a males body. Or someone who is totally soaked in ideological thinking.

Plastic surgeons are pushing these operations for money. Not for the benefit of human kind.

Plastic surgeons are pushing these operations for money. Not for the benefit of human kind

I think it's quite possible some surgeons will consider this type of operation because they've lost all humanity a keen interest in seeing what is possible.

Most sensible and sane human beings know that just because something might be possible, it isn't necessarily something we should do (see various other ethically moribund experiments).

Personally, I'd be ashamed if I raised a son or daughter willing to sew rats together, never mind primates.

Cheesy Pete’s! This thread feel like it needs to be introduced by Rod Serling.

Well, considering the two rats must also have been sedated so they couldn’t move to rip it all apart, it does seem even more cruel when you think about the mechanics of this.

And that female rats body was doing the work of two pregnancies at the same time plus for the male rat.

It seems bizarre that plastic surgeons and all these researchers posturing about this, fail to even suggest how they are going to have the pregnant male’s bodily functions naturally support that growing foetus.

The entire focus is on getting that uterus implanted.

I suggested on that other thread that this really is akin to the ‘lamb in a bag’ experiment. Just this is human in a bag instead. Because a uterus without all the other processes being done by the body needs to have some way of getting the correct mix of hormones, nutrition, minerals, and other things that foetus needs. Plus all the things that a female body does via the brain and other systems to support the female to stay healthy during this time.

I keep coming back to the complete lack of knowledge posters such as fuchs has about pregnancy (and I recall remarkably similar posts in the past …..). And even after women post about how their bodies are not just uteruses, the extreme lack of curiosity on where they, the poster, has got it wrong.

It is very telling that these particular posters cling to these medical researchers who never ever address these issues. That of the reality of pregnancy.

If an embryo currently cannot be used for experimentation beyond 14 days at the moment. I doubt in Fuchs’ lifetime it will be lifted to anywhere near enough to get any approval at all to begin trials.

It just is not happening, despite all the talk and all the papers positing it as an option. Despite Fuchs attempt to paint us pointing out the lack of ethics of experimenting on a foetus in the way they propose as being ‘prolife’, while telling us we are lying about transitioned males fetishising abortion (and thankfully they are only ‘some’ and certainly not the majority let alone ‘all’)….

It is just not going to get past an ethics board. Because despite all that Fuchs seems to wish for, even embryos have a right not to be ‘experimented on’ for male pregnancies.

Despite Fuchs attempt to paint us pointing out the lack of ethics of experimenting on a foetus in the way they propose as being ‘prolife’

Incredible isn't it, somebody so blase about experimentation on live animals, humans and a foetus as if they are no more than objects to be abused and then tossed aside.

In total, 92 adult rats were put through this.

Either they kept those rats under sedation for at least the length of the entire pregnancy (3 weeks), or those little creatures were allowed to become conscious at some point. When they would have discovered they couldn't get away from each other without pain. Imagine their panic and distress. Rats are sociable little creatures, but they're not so sociable that they can endure that.

And what happened to the unmentioned third set of rats? The second set of female rats whose uteruses were removed to implant into the male rats? Killed?

In fact, what happened to the adult rats who were sewn together at the end of this? Were they separated again, or euthanized?

I see that that so called male/trans woman rat pregnancy was nothing of the sort. The pregnancy depended entirely on the poor attached female rat.

What a nasty experiment.

And the female rats had to be impregnated alongside the male rats.

The human equivalent of this isn't simply sewing a male transitioner to a woman for nine months, so that the male can fulfil an ambition to be pregnant, horrific as that is. It requires that another baby be conceived and carried concurrently, purely as a means to an end, in order to facilitate the gestation of the baby in the male's body.

As Helleofabore said, that would mean the woman's body would be placed under enormous strain. A naturally occurring twin pregnancy is classified as a high risk pregnancy, and this grotesque scenario is well beyond anything of the sort.