LGBT News Uterine Transplants May Allow Men To Give Birth Within 5 Years

I don't know what an of that means, but you sound really smart so I won't question it.

 

1. Always question everything.

2. Basically at this stage of the science this is really about helping biological women (either those born without a womb, whose wombs have been damaged or have had to be removed) have that part of their body back, and potentially have children.

Really, for this to ever work for transwomen or biological men first you would probably first need the ability to change DNA from male to female which a. I presume would be incredibly risky (when you think about all the syndromes and birth defects caused by minute changes in DNA - Klinefelter's and Down Syndrome for instance), and would likely take decades, plus b. that would make bio men female anyway so unless they are trans that would be problematic!

Maybe though in the future they will have better hormone drugs that could make this easier. Who knows.

 

Okay, I shall then question your assumption that "female DNA" is needed. I understand your reasoning behind it, but since that was not mentioned in the article, and rather the article seemed to me to highlight a more mechanical and hopeful view on the matter, I think it's way too early to not see this as an opportunity for trans women. On the other hand, your case with cis men is more sound, IMO - that they'd likely have to take hormones, etc., which they wouldn't want to. But perhaps science will find a way around that as well, who knows.

 

I generally just disagree with messing around with reproductive organs to try to make pregnancy possible when it shouldn't be possible. But I guess congrats to those who really wanted this to become possible.

 

Don't take this as a personal attack, but this post can really spread misinformation.

1. What counts as major surgery? What counts as incredibly risky? Those are heavily opinionated words.
2. The hormones and rejection medications are likely true. However, Cesarean sections exist for a reason and that doesn't have to happen.

There's no such risk posed for an organ transplant between two people with different chromosomes. The main considerations on whether not two people are eligible for an organ transplants are: 1. their blood type 2. their organ sizes 3. their general health. I do wonder about the chance of rejection of the new organ, as that is a risk for any organ transplant. The whole "DNA" thing does nothing. Even in the body of someone with two X chromosomes, only one is active most of the time. The differences between how DFAB and DMAB people's bodies work are not as significant as most people think. If you have a source for the increased risk of rejection of organ transplants between two people with different chromosomes, give me a source, I'd be more than happy to read it.

While trans women (and cis women that don't have them) could receive womb transplants, I wonder if cis men would actually want that. As a trans guy myself the idea of pregnancy is heavily dysphoria inducing. I have a feeling that not as many cis men would want that as some people are thinking.

---------- Post added 23rd Nov 2015 at 02:30 PM ----------

I have done extensive research over information about organ transplants, many things that post said are simply not true.

---------- Post added 23rd Nov 2015 at 02:36 PM ----------

and finally, "trans" and "women" are two different words.

---------- Post added 23rd Nov 2015 at 02:37 PM ----------

Same goes for trans men

 

I don't think that is fair at all, see below.

They are certainly not opinionated words, they are words actually used by health professionals and in hospitals every day. In healthcare you have minor and major surgery, those are the classifications.

Major surgery is typically defined as large scale surgery, usually involving deep incisions or involvement of organs in any of the body's cavities. I honestly don't understand how by any definition a womb transplant would not be major surgery. ALL transplants are major surgery (unless you counted small scale skin grafts).

ALL surgery is risky (even extremely minor surgeries like cyst removal can carry risks of scarring or infection).

On the Cesarean front I was questioning how the healing would work post-cesarean, whether the body would automatically heal the damaged tissue or whether this would encourage rejection. There would be a hell of a lot of variables involved if we got to that stage for transwomen or men (you would have strong anti-rejection drugs, hormone therapy, antibiotics probably). It might be a tricky one.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584014

Of course there are other factors impacting likelihood of transplant success, but I don't think the chromosomal differences can be entirely discounted.

And that is of course looking at "unisex" organs. With the very sex specific organs (testes, ovaries, uterus etc) this is uncharted territory, we do not have the information and studies to tell us how this will go. But our DNA does essentially help our body to operate, without having an "instruction manual" for the opposite sex organs I'm guessing it will be difficult to get them to function fully.

Agreed, I was merely humoring the earlier poster. It is highly unlikely many men would sign up for (again "major") surgery, plus hormones and other surgeries which would likely leave them highly dysphoric.

I can understand that semantic argument but:
a. I think it is an innapropriate challenge given the nature of the discussion, I believe you have only marked this out as you disagree with my overall theme - I think that is a little unfair. If it was a person being highly transphobic or inflammatory - sure, but its really not the time and the place.
b. transwoman is technically still an understood term. Looking it up I sort of know where you are coming from, but it is semantics we are talking about here, language is not universal. Whether a person says transpacewoman, transhyphenwoman or transwoman does not necessarily change their intention with the word. And it is that intention that is more important. And in my local speech (and my own background and lingual culture), with words of this kind are often expressed so interchageably that any difference in spelling is lost entirely. I may go to the super market, the super-market or the supermarket - the meaning would not be altered.
c. on that last point I prefer hyphenated or conjoined words - I think the linkage is better and they are better understood by the reader (they improve comprehension) - given that I do not see a profound difference between transwoman and trans-woman - there are still the two elements in there. This is not (as I believe you may be inferring) an attack or excessive labelling on "women who are trans", but when we are having a discussion on how something would affect women who are trans differently than biowomen it makes sense to be using a term along those lines.

EDIT: Now I do understand this may have been sensitive. But again I do think intention is important. There are enough people being genuinely offensive out there, if you purposively go seeking offence where clearly none was intended - of course you will find it.

 

Could you clarify? Because to me that sounds like the same kind of conservative argument like "I disagree with sodomy because God created a penis and a vagina to match each other".

 

I don't want children and never will have this done but that sure is cool though.

 

Unlike sodomy which is common in nature, stuff that messes around with reproductive organs to create a pregnancy that wouldn't have been been possible without modern medicine seems to me just kind of unethical. It's not ensuring that life survives, it's ensuring that life is created. The slippery slope that this kind of technology would create would lead to a GATTACA-like world.

 

"Unethical". I really don't see it. What's the harm? Who's hurt by it? Is it something inherently bad somehow? In that case, how? Is it an affront to nature or something? I don't see the problem with trans women, many of whom literally despair over being unable to become pregnant and be mothers that way, being able for the first time in history to actually have their wish granted with the help of technology. You know transgenderism is also natural and has been observed in monkeys, for example?
I just google'd what this "GATTACA" thing is. So this would be a dystopia somehow? I see. A new hashtag is necessary to complement #therealgayagenda - #therealtransagenda. Yeah. Trans women being able to become pregnant would lead to a dystopia. Definitely. What the actual hell?

 

I'm against this since it's not natural and goes against what nature has intended the male body to do.

 

This...this sounds great.

Plattyrex: Honestly, I think you'd have to grow your own uterus for the child to be biologically yours. From what I understand, they're transplanting uteri, which, I would assume, to contain the egg cells of the donors, not the donees. Of course, my knowledge about female biology is very, very shallow, so somebody please feel free to correct me about this if I'm wrong.

 

I don't think anyone here has expressed concerns specifically about trans women's use of this. If they had, that would be questionable, but most of the ethical concerns so far have been about medical risk and necessity.

All surgery is prone to risk, and this is not a minor concern that can be casually dismissed. When surgery can be in any way avoided, that is what doctors advise. Surgery opens a person up to an extraordinary number of medical complications, from infection (which can be fatal) to permanent physical damage that provides long-term medical problems to a person, such as nerve damage and vascular problems. These are concerning enough for the replacement of a defective uterus with a functional one, let alone for the introduction of a uterus where none previously existed and/or where physiology renders the transplant difficult.

In terms of necessity, there's just the question of whether the risks of surgery are worth the emotional comfort of having a uterus, which, despite its obviously useful functions, is not a vital organ.

So, while I have strong doubts about the safety of this, if it can be performed with minimal risk to the receiver of the uterus, it will still entirely depend on the viability of that uterus. If it doesn't safely and successfully allow for pregnancy, then the surgery will have been wasted, which is actually a very big deal in terms of the health of the patient and the use of medical resources. It had better be very safe and viable, which is just not something I can envisage in the immediate future.

I'm not particularly swayed by "messing with nature" arguments most of the time, either, but the ethical problems with this in medical terms are abundant. The research should continue, but I don't think we should think of this as a triumph for trans women quite yet, nor should we regard reserving it for cis women as transphobia if there do turn out to be too many medical risks to justify the transplant of an entirely new organ into a body where it might not be functional.

 

Yay science! This could potentially be a breakthrough in a few years for transwomen who wish to have kids, or theoretically anyone who is born without a uterus who wishes to bear kids.

 

What has nature actually "intended"? Nature isn't a human being- it's the process of Evolution, Genetics, and all sorts of different components that make up the living and non-living things in this world. I don't see what's wrong with this, as long as all the people trying this out are willing and know the risks currently involved in this new and unexplored region of Scientific discoveries/inventions.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this happens...

In the 1980s, some idea for how men could carry a baby was run in at least one popular science magazine. I recall one guy in my chemistry class telling a girl about it, and she didn't believe him. Then, I told her that I'd read the same or a similar argument, at which point she was appalled or disgusted by the idea...

Back to the present...

One question does hit me: in an era when we have too many people on earth, and potentially plenty of children to adopt, is it really a good idea increasing the number of people who can get pregnant? (And I'd aim this question at other technologies as well, such as surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization.)

 

You don't seem to understand my point. I don't like the idea of gays turning their sperm into eggs to have 2 male parents. I don't like the idea of in vitro fertilization. I don't like to idea of genetically designing babies to pick out good genes. This is not only trans people.

Also, keep in mind that I'm not the kind to go as far as to ban it simply because I personally don't agree with it.

I do indeed worry about the type of world we'd go into if we keep messing with how people are born. This is one of those cases where I just simply believe it's best not to mess with the natural process of how babies are made.

---------- Post added 24th Nov 2015 at 05:42 PM ----------

It probably is very hard to go on yearning for a child of their own flesh and blood. If they go through with it and are happy, then good for them. I still am apprehensive about what these types of procedures messing with human procreation would result in.

 

That's just reactionary. "Nature", in function, is simply a system of quantities of chemicals obeying physical laws, etc. Agriculture, like, you know, growing a potato, is also not "natural" in the sense that it's a really new thing. Nature didn't intend homo sapiens to extract the massive quantities of energy they've done in that sense.

No one is hurt by this, really (assuming it's done right and the technology is well developed, etc.). So why not just see this as an opportunity for thousands of people to be very glad?