Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?

[PorcelinaV]

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/should-uterus-transplantation-transwomen-and-transmen-be-subsidized/2023-06

I suspect I'm too old for my womb to be useful. But can I change my donor card to make sure it doesn't get a second chance somewhere I don't want when I'm dead?

When I last looked, you could give a blanket consent or select consent options for a list of organs, including 'tissue'.

I have given my consent for donation of all the named organs, but specifically excluded 'tissue'. It may mean that somebody loses out on, I dunno, skin graft, or some research. But no tissue will be taken from my reproductive system, for donation or for research. Not ovarian tissue, not uterine tissue. My dh knows how I feel and is fully behind me on this.

(At the time I registered my consent he thought I was being melodramatic. The potential situation I was describing was so ridiculously implausible. He is now fully Team Terf.)

I suspect I'm too old for my womb to be useful.

AFAiK wombs often don't age in the same way ovaries do.

Interesting. So would they get an old womb and get eggs from someone else. Or maybe there are people who just want a womb for that full on womanly feeling.
I guess anything is possible once you've fell down the rabbit hold into FrankensteinLand.

I never thought I'd see an ethics committee stating that there aren't male bodies and female bodies. But some have. I refuse to acknowledge them.

Timely news article implying a big waiting list for those transplanted wombs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66514270

Apologies for engaging in/with derail everyone, but…

@Coyoacan @Nousernamesleftatall

No offense, but if you want someone to realise you’re addressing them, you need to indicate you’re doing so.

What the FDA actually say re: Ivermectin (ie don’t use it); & the Cochrane Review from 2022: it doesn’t work - not a shock, given it’s an anti-parasitic. When talking about the Supreme Court, do you mean the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin who ruled in May that Aurora Hospital could not be forced to treat Covid-19 with Ivermectin? Note the reiteration of the fact the FDA have not approved the drug for covid. What cannot be prevented is people procuring the drug either from a doctor willing to lie about the ICD10 code or via the veterinary route & taking it for covid-19.

You would have to be foolish indeed not to think there are issues with the pharmaceutical industry & indeed the FDA; but trying to stop people killing themselves with horse wormer really isn’t on the list.

I've seen that, that person is deluded, it's not as simple as have transplant then get pregnant in the conventional way, you have to use IVF.

Then there is the 'abortion', well the pessary isn't going in to a vagina is it? And a surgical abortion, again there isn't a vagina.

Wouldn’t they count your uterus as an organ? It is not just ‘tissue ‘ in the same way lungs are not pulmonary tissue. Tissue tends to be things that can be taken up to a few hours (depending eg bone) after you die and can be stored. You also don’t need to be ‘brain dead’ to donate because they are taken after you are ‘fully’ dead. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/tissue-donation/

They are covering this story on the BBC this morning. This is not a NHS thing. The surgery on the woman in Oxford is charity funded and the surgery was estimated at £25k, all the staff worked for free.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66514270

Refreshingly for the BBC, there are lots of reference to women in that article. Also TV discussed drawbacks of the surgery, that you need a very close tissue match (in this case the transplanted uterus came from a sister) and that the recipient has to take anti-rejection drugs. The woman has embryos in storage, the idea is to put them in the transplanted uterus and after a hopefully successful pregnancy, she will have to have another op to remove the uterus.

The very IDEA that such complex and difficult surgery be performed on a man is just ridiculous.

They are more than happy to perpetuate myths about how close we are to males having babies, breastfeeding etc

From Tulip and other detransitioners, we know how powerful mythologies and stories like this are in persuading young, vulnerable people to transition.

2018-19 who was the 'elder' in the interview with a young child who spoke about being able to give birth and said that it would probably be true for the child? (Sadly, I'm not Rowantrees, my bookmarking and memory let me down.)

That was a My Genderation video short, iirc (Fox and Owl’s media company).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxMcGRZCz24

About 3 mins in.

Rewatching this now I am struck by what a sweet and polite child Poppy is and how Josie is using Poppy as a prop in Josie’s retconned fantasy childhood.

Rewatching this now I am struck by what a sweet and polite child Poppy is and how Josie is using Poppy as a prop in Josie’s retconned fantasy childhood.

Thank you! And that's exactly what's happening. In the same way that Erica Anderson in the US used child patients as validation to prop up Anderson's fantasies of passing, that was my impression of Josie. (I can't find the quotation I have in mind but it stuck with me.)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4528613-LA-Times-reports-that-transgender-psychologist-is-raising-concerns

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10719497/Transgender-psychologist-helped-hundreds-teens-questions-sharp-rise-children-coming-out.html

No way!

Wouldn’t they count your uterus as an organ? It is not just ‘tissue ‘ in the same way lungs are not pulmonary tissue.

Yes, my uterus is an organ, but not one of the organs listed when I gave my consent. At the time it was something along the lines of Kidneys - yes/no, Liver - yes/no, Corneas - yes/no, Tissue - yes/no, etc. While 'Tissue' was explained, it was such an open explanation that I felt it could be very freely interpreted. Suggesting to me that it was a catch-all that could at some point be interpreted to refer to parts of the body not specifically listed. I have no desire for any of my tissue or organs to be used for the furtherance of anti-women ideology.

I should probably have another look at the consent. It was different to when I had first given consent as a student. Might have changed again since I last gave consent.

Even if a TW could have a uterine transplant, they wouldn't have the physiology in order to form a placenta surely ? Just because they had a uterus inserted wouldn't make the uterus actually functional

I think the placenta is a two way task between the fetus and the uterus, but we know from the limited animal experiments that no, the male physiology can't support a pregnancy, even when a uterus is implanted.

The Chinese rat experiment relied on a female rat being attached to the male rat's blood supply, and in addition, that female rat needed to be pregnant at the same time that the male rat's implanted uterus was carrying a pregnancy.

No male rats became pregnant when attached to a non-pregnant female rat.

I think you could make an argument that the male rat wasn't actually ever pregnant. Instead, that rat's body became an extension of the female rat and she supported pregnancies in two uteri.

I dunno I feel really quite uncomfortable with this, it's not the same as other transplants, which are done to save a persons life. This is about creating a life. There are also some interesting articles on immunosuppressive drugs and risks to the foetus and long term affects on the baby / child, it seems, as yet, there is insufficient data, to determine the safety of using these drugs. Which surely becomes an ethical dilemma, because the embryo/ foetus/ baby is being deliberately exposed to potentially toxic chemicals.

The surgery on the woman in Oxford is charity funded

The charity, "Womb Transplants U.K." is the one who carried out the "uterine transplants for trans women" study with Imperial College in 2019, who I mentioned in my earlier posts linking to a thread by someone who participated in the survey.

I had a thorough browse on their website yesterday and any references to "trans women" being eligible are not apparent. However the lead surgeon in Oxford was listed as investigator on the trans study, and this paper which followed it.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux

Apologies that paper was included in the survey participants' pack.

This is the paper written based on the survey itself:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33471119/

Results: A total of 182 transgender women completed the questionnaire; most women (109 [60%]) were aged 20 to 29 years. Most did not have children prior to transitioning (167 [92%]) and expressed a desire to have children in the future (171 [94%]). In addition, most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the ability to gestate and give birth to children (171 [94%]) and menstruate (161 [88%]) would enhance perceptions of their femininity. Similarly, high proportions strongly agreed or agreed that having a transplanted, functioning vagina would improve their sexual experience (163 [90%]), improve their quality of life (163 [90%]), and help them to feel like more of a woman (168 [92%]). Nearly all respondents (180 [99%]) believed that uterus transplant would lead to greater happiness in transgender women. More than three-quarters of the respondents (140 [77%]) strongly agreed or agreed that they would be more inclined to cryopreserve sperm if uterus transplant became a realistic option.

The charity, "Womb Transplants U.K." is the one who carried out the "uterine transplants for trans women" study with Imperial College in 2019, who I mentioned in my earlier posts linking to a thread by someone who participated in the survey.

I had a thorough browse on their website yesterday and any references to "trans women" being eligible are not apparent. However the lead surgeon in Oxford was listed as investigator on the trans study, and this paper which followed it.

It might be helpful if you'd post this information on the AIBU thread?

What cannot be prevented is people procuring the drug either from a doctor willing to lie about the ICD10 code or via the veterinary route & taking it for covid-19.

It's unfortunate if a doctor would need to lie about this?

They should just be able to prescribe off label if they think it may be helpful and the risks are acceptable.

They should probably get the patient to sign something that they understand that it's an off label medication and such and such regulatory or medical organisations think that the evidence is against using it.

Sure you may have issues if you expect your insurance to pay for it, compared to a private prescription.

@HeedlessAndUnbridledConcupiscence

Done. I don't have much time for the rest of the day so maybe other people could jump on the AIBU thread if they have time.

Long-time Mumsnetter but tend not to post much but hadn't seen any mention of this - in which a researcher/doctor mentions a completely non-existent law - Gender Equality Act anyone? - but also fails to understand that for a transwoman, unless armed with the legal fiction of a GRC, the comparator in proving discrimination is with a man ...

Apologies as don't know how to do archive links but assume the normal channels will work - link is from the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/23/womb-transplants-biological-men-pregnant-giving-birth/