Transsexual Woman seeks first uterine transplant $250,000!

Post Reply New Topic

Nature's dictatorship over our reproductive destinies? What is that even suppose to mean? I think I made myself clear that I think it's immoral and unethical, you can read into that what you will. Human life shouldn't be experimented like this, it reminds of the Soviet experiment where they tried breed humans with chimpanzees. A real life Frankenstein. Where do you draw the line? What actual benefit does the world get from transplanting a womb into a man? I don't consider vanity an acceptable answer.

I'm trying to refer to our inability to overcome limitations placed on our genderal or biological roles by nature.

There is no reason why these limitations should always be there, or why they must not be challenged and ultimately removed.

As a technocrat mildly sympathetic to transhumanism, i do support the conquest over nature by man.

Which is all subjective. I'm not interested in what you believe to be immoral or unethical, or any agenda to impose it upon people who a) don't agree with you or b) would find such a surgical advancement a source of great joy.

Its completely unanalogous. If we allowed such arbitrary and frankly false suppositions to bother us, we would never have been able to perform things like artificial insemination or organ transplants. It is such stubborn ignorance that prevents things like stem cell research that could be the salvation for people suffering from illnesses like parkinson's disease.

The benefit would be for mtf transwomen that want the final component of their feminity denied to them by accident of birth. Its not the place of the cisgendered to scorn the hope to that right.

Moreover, if this surgery was to become commonplace it could also provide hope to sterile ciswomen that want to experience childbirth.

If she is paying for it,it's her business.Id be afraid of my body rejecting it or getting an infection.It seems so risky.

I think it is wrong regardless of the gender of the person it is done to, it's not right to experiment with life like this. There are places we shouldn't go and this is one, it serves no purpose but vanity. I find it disgusting that someone would go to such lengths when there so many unwanted unloved children in the world. You can't compare this to things like organ transplants or even stem cell research since those at least serve a real medical purpose. I could just as easily use some slippery slope argument as well, I'm sure you have a good enough imagination to see where it could go. Where do you draw the line? Not only is the risk to mother grave, you are creating a new life which needs to be protected. I know that doesn't make sense to the lot of you on this board who liken the unborn to a parasite.

You have a point there Magneto allthough I think the woman in question will have some regrets once she is in the process of giving birth.

Last edited by pokerface on 14 Jan 2014, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Women are going to start getting all nervous that men won't need them at all lol.
It's great this man can complete his journey to womanhood totally. It must be exhilarating to his mind and spirit.

"It has been well documented that hysterectomies may negatively impact sexual identity in women. It is therefore conceivable that a woman who lacks a uterus may request uterine transplant
to ‘‘feel’’ more like a woman, with no intention of carrying a pregnancy"
( http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... plantation )

Further, this transplant does not preclude adoption also. Your argument is that it is either/or .


The Montreal Criteria for the Ethical Feasibility of Uterine Transplantation

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsETLOKupBI[/youtube]

LoveNotHate,

Thanks for the link.

Someone who physically wants to become a woman probably wants to take it all the way which is understandable but why does this woman feel the need for a uterus transplantation if she has no concrete plans to procreate and give birth herself? I disagree with the notion that women feel less feminine if their uterus is removed so that argument is off the table as far as I am concerned. I haven't had a hysterectomy myself but I don't think I would feel less feminine if I did. A transplantion is an intense and complicated procedure that takes a lot of man hours, expertise and staff. Not to mention the fact that it is a risky surgery as well. As long as that is still the case it should be used as a life saving treatment or in some extreme cases as a procedure that improves the quality of life in a concrete way. Not for something as subjective as certain emotions, feelings and the like, however important they may seem. Just ty to look at it from a medical point view to get a better idea of what the implications are.

I think that the whishes of most transgenders are totally legitimate and very real. They have the right to receive the treatments and surgery they need to alter their appearance in a way that is acceptable for them. A uterus transplantion is pretty extreme though. Especially if the transgender in question hasn't got the wish to give birth herself.

Well, she *does* want to give birth. Considering she's single, that's the part that makes me think she's being selfish - it seems that she only wants a baby so that she can feel complete in her womanhood. Then again, many babies are born out of selfish desires, and do no the worse for it.

People always bring up adoption when talking about reproductive technology. I don't know why. Is it more selfish to have 4 kids naturally and not adopt, or to have 2 kids via reproductive technology?

Though, what I do not understand is the people who order babies using other peoples gametes and a surrogate. If you're going to outsource even the DNA, you might as well adopt, because you get the same result - a baby grown in someone else who isn't related to you, but who you can raise as your own. The only reason I can see for going down this route is to order up a 100 or so Übermensch babies from intelligent, good-looking, athletic Nordic egg and sperm donors, raised by good Aryan parents and given a world class private education, paid for by Nazi gold...

Gene manipulation isn't something that's likely to be necessary. There's really no such thing as male or female DNA. We all have the genetic instructions to develop as a male and as a female in the womb. Which program is used is usually determined by whether a person is XX or XY. However, this is not always the case; it is entirely possible to be XX and end up male, or be XY and end up female. What genes you have isn't what determines what gender you are; it's which program ended up running, and the resultant phenotype. It's much the same way that if you were to perform gene therapy to remove the genes used to grow arms, that doesn't change the fact that the person still has arms. The only way to change that is by chopping the person's arm off. And in converse, if you were to give a person who never grew arms new arms, it wouldn't make a difference that their genome doesn't contain instructions telling an embryo how to grow arms. And likewise with gender; all you have to do is change the physical phenotype, so that things are as if the other program had run.

On that front, a lot of things will be possible over the next 20 years with advances in 3D printing technology; over time we'll be able to create more and more different types of body parts from scratch, without needing a donor and without the risks of anti-rejection medication. Eventually, when we're able to recreate every part of the body, it'll be possible to do full body transplants, where the brain's put in an entirely new body built according to that person's precise specifications.

"She" is a MAN. End of debate.

A sex change is surgical, not genetic. She might get the plumbing reworked, but she will always genetically be a MAN.

Add in that she wants a very expensive ELECTIVE surgery and she DOES NOT have the money to pay for it, and we can presume she expects society to pick up the tab for what insurance won't pay for.

That's selfishness.

If she wants a kid, adopt. She wants the "birth" experience, and that's something she can never have unless she's filthy rich. The world doesn't owe her that.

The law presumably let her change her gender designation, so legally she is female. Once recognized as female, then she is entitled to the rights of a woman.

If insurance/ACA pays for cis-woman to have uterine transplants, then it should pay for trans-woman.

"Elective surgery or elective procedure is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery )

SHE is a WOMAN. Genetically, she is male. Anatomically, she's closer to female than male (presuming she is post-op), though it's something of a toss-up. Socially, she is a woman. Neurologically, she is much closer to the feminine end of the spectrum than the masculine end, most likely. What a uterine transplant would do is put her closer to the female side anatomically.

Perhaps, for clarity, we should divide the anatomical sex into primary and secondary sex characteristics? There is rarely overlap between the primary sex characteristics in an individual, and GMS (genital modification surgery; since everyone seems to be using different terms...) changes them (in a transwoman) from (usually) fully male to partially female - a uterine transplant would bring this even further, and if we could construct ovaries and fallopian tubes... Secondary sex characteristics are a lot more fluid, and it is quite common to have certain traits which are on the more feminine end whilst having male primary characteristics - a man with a slight frame, for example, or a woman with large hands, or a man without a noticeable adam's apple... Some of these are usually changed in transition, such as facial hair (electrolysis), breasts, fat distribution etc. Others we can't change yet (but see facial feminisation surgery).

So, to summarise - the only thing that can be said to be fully male in a transwoman is her genotype (by definition - if she's intersexed, she's not diagnosed as transgender). In other respects, she is more female than not. I suppose people just want to go with something that is unambiguous? It is, after all, easier than having to deal with the messiness of nature.

But just wait until we bring out the autodocs...

its these kinds of zero sum attitudes that lead to transwomen being beat up in McDonalds by bigoted rubbernecks for using the female toilets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glrh2JrtFOU


the genetic argument doesnt take into account the discontinuity between the body and the brain gender, the latter which there is increasing evidence is very real.