Transgender women dream of being pregnant - very soon could be reality

oookay....so if they want to be cows as well then sewing udders on them makes them a cow....??

 

Bad? Not the point. The reason for wanting the implants done is to create normalcy, as opposed to having to go through other options, like adoption or relying on a surrogate. In this case, the MTF must rely on a donor but also cannot reproduce without in vitro, and cannot independently produce a viable zygote themselves, but must rely on a donor egg and even then, it is not a forgone conclusion that a baby could be carried to term between the need for artificial hormone requirements as well as the anti rejection drugs. All this to produce a "natural" experience for the MTF who yearns for the experience, but cannot actually have it. But, because medical technique creates a non natural simulation of it, is that close enough to "natural"? I doubt it. More, because the used to be "his" body is not designed to deliver said "natural experience" (cough) child, it requires yet more unnecessary surgery to deliver it, if it even happens. The number of human interventions here is staggering. The risks to everyone, including an unborn child, is astronomical. This isn't "natural", its medical masturbation. All at the behest of someone who yearns for natural, but cannot ever attain it, so "close enough" will have to do? That's about as selfish and immoral as any set of circumstances I can imagine.

 

You are right, I asked for your opinion. But it is reasonable to ask for a basis for your opinion, I think.

As for links as to the ill effects of being born to a man with a transplanted womb, there are of course none. But we can extrapolate what would happen from the ill effects of surrogacy described here:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...ly-suffer-depression-carried-real-mother.html

Children born to a surrogate mother have more emotional difficulties than those carried by their biological mother, according to new research.

But children have less problems coping with the idea that they were conceived using a donor egg and sperm and are not related to their parents.

The study suggests that children find it more difficult to handle the idea that they were carried by another woman than that they are not biologically related to their parents.

 

Normalcy is a completely subjective experience, and something being normal does not necessarily make it good or bad.

So? The only part of this that I agree with as being an issue is the potential drug and hormone exposure the fetus will experience, if it impacts the health or wellbeing of the child then that is a viable reason to bar the process.

Natural can never be recreated through medical procedure as it means occurring in nature. This will never be a natural experience. It is — by its very definition — unnatural.

The science is still in its infancy. It will improve. Seeing that we are beginning to safely birth animals from artificial wombs outside of the mother I could see this following the same approach.

Do you wear clothes?
Drive a car?
Fly on airplanes?
Eat food that is processed and shipped across the world?

None of that is natural.

I disagree this is anymore selfish than infertility treatments. Bringing a child into the world with the intention of creating a family and caring for that child the remainder of your life is one of the least selfish things a person can do.

You use many buzzwords; unnatural, immoral, selfish, medical masturbation, creating normalcy in post, many of which are completely subjective, And thus we arrive at the true issue, you believe this is immoral which is typically a religious set of determinations — Which is totally and completely irrelevant to anyone outside of your religious sphere of influence.

None of this is a reason to bar this practice outside of my second quote in my opinion.

 

My opinion is formed by personal experience as well as empirical data — wanted children born into loving and stable homes typically do better than children that are not. Not always, but typically.

We likely could extrapolate that data from the study. While it is a very small sample size of 149 children and is based on a subjective assessment from the parents it is an interesting study. The longer report here also shows that the children are similar at age 10 but showed the increases at age 14 indicating this could be environmental factors (i.e. bullying)

The study was published in June of 2013 meaning the children should be in their early 20’s — have the results stayed consistent from 14 on or did they level out once the child exited secondary schools? I looked but couldn’t find it.

 

I would think that he knows his own preferences better than you do.

 

Why do you disagree with fertility treatments, and how do you figure surrogacy is akin to slavery?

 

It is also the age where children learn where babies come from.

 

I am actually a bit ambivalent about in vitro fertilization.

Surrogacy is akin to slavery as it is trafficking in human beings.

 

Which is why I asked if the more recent study was available as the children would be in their early 20’s — the part of my post that you deleted...

 

”Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.”

How does a mutually approved agreement — often with major compensation to the biological mother — reconcile against the definition of human trafficking or slavery? On of the definitions of slavery is “owing another as a property, as the one controlling them purchases them or owns them from their birth.” — if you believe this definition applies to children then it applies to all children... Not just surrogacy.

 

Childhood traumas last a lifetime. Someone whose "mom" was a mutilated man with the womb of a dead women sewn in so he could successfully be carried to term inside that corpse's womb is going to be traumatized for life. The child of Frankenstein's monster is a close analogy.

 

And these surrogates are often impoverished third world women. Natural parents don't purchase their babies.

 

So no, no followup to the study.
I understand why you deleted it from my post...

As for your assertion of “The child of Frankenstein's monster”, I will just have to simply disagree.

 

I don’t know what nation you live in but in the United States surrogacy is almost always done under legal principals and contractural agreements. Not from “impoverished third world women” as most families wanting a surrogate mother want one of the same racial background.

I am not sure what natural has to do with anything — you are writing this on an electronic device (unnatural) that is then coded and transmitted around the globe (unnatural) while wearing clothes and sitting on furniture (unnatural) and will likely consume processed foods from another nation (unnatural) or take a trip in an automobile (unnatural) that uses oil that has been removed from the oil and refined (unnatural)...

It is tiring to see the word “natural” being used to indicate whether or not something is acceptable while ignoring all of the unnatural elements that we all participate in on a daily basis. Emotionally charged buzz words and phrases deflate your argument.

 

It was mere inadvertence. But you won't believe that. Shrug.

Disagree about what? That a child won't be traumatized by having a "mother" who is the product of surgical mutilations and supplied with parts from a corpse and material from sperm and egg donors? Children are always embarrassed by their parents, but having one that is a laboratory creation must be devastating.

 

In this case natural just means that their was no commercial transaction involved, at least in the most common case where neither parent is a prostitute. This is not the case for surrogacy.

 

Yet still no acknowledgement of the question.

Artificial wombs will eventually become more mainstream as the science progresses so “cadaver wombs” will be less of an issue. These advancements will not just be used on trans people.

I haven’t read any studies on trans parents but the same was said about same sex couples becoming parents — how horrible it would be for them — then the studies started coming out that as long as the child wasn’t bullied they had similar outcomes to heterosexual families when adjusting for the income differences. Bullying seems to be the largest issue here — not the parents.

 

I acknowledge your question.

So you can recognize the problem with cadaver wombs. AFAIK artificial wombs are large stand alone machines. I don't think you can expect to see implantable ones anytime soon. I suppose it might be marginally less traumatizing to have a mom who is a cyborg than one stitched together from dead parts, but I'm not sure.

I am also not sure that being traumatized by bullies because your mother is a freak is any more acceptable than being traumatized directly. It is the narcissism of the "mother" which is the efficient cause.

 

Would you care if your mother had a pig valve in her heart that allowed her to live and give birth to you?
What about a human one?

Bullying is never acceptable. Your use of the word ‘freak’ to identify people that have gone surgery to correct mental ailments shows that you may disagree with this statement however.

 

First, let me say, I don’t believe being Trans is a product of mental illness. Mental illness may emerge as a product of conflict between how the individual identifies themselves and the life long discrimination encountered as they struggle with trying to conform with societal expectations while attempting to express their inner identity.
I had two older cousins that were born having both male and female genitalia I was informed when I was in my 50’s. Whether because of my uncle and aunt’s religiosity or the medical practices at the time in Northern Ireland, a medical choice was not made to force a gender assignment at birth. They were raised such, that their parents allowed each to develop their own gender identity; one ended being raised as a male the other female. I, nor anyone I knew, questioned the gender of either as they were raised; as far as I knew, only my Ma was privy to the fact. One presented as female and the other male all the time I knew them. At birth, both were given gender neutral names...never occurred to me why until finding out the facts from my ma later in life, when that and other unconscious observations were made to have a bit more sense after being exposed to them.
While I lost contact with the one that presented as female long ago after coming to the US, the other settled in New Orleans, becoming a doctor at Tulane and residing on Bourbon St. above a pub. While I was doing Graduate studies, it turned the oversight of my field work was being conducted by two professors at Tulane. That required me to Travel a few times a year to Tulane, and when in New Orleans, I would stay with my cousin. When, staying there, over a couple years, I found my all of my cousin’s relationships and many of his friends seemed either gay or trans (some performing in La Cage aux Folles stage acts in the Quarter). I assumed my cousin was gay and I didn’t care; his persuasion wasn’t mine but I had and still have a live and let live philosophy.
It turned my brother had a rare genetic condition which until then had always proved fatal at a young age. My brother was selected to become one of the very first human trials for a blood marrow transplant, a very risky thing in those days. While the bone marrow transplant was actually performed at Loyola in Chicago, one of the top national theoretical experts in the US at the time turned to be my cousin, who became the consulting expert for my brother’s transplant.out of the four or five patients undergoing a blood marrow transplant concurrently with him, if I recall, only one other survived the procedure. His life was saved, he still lives and has three children. My cousin, unfortunately died of Aids a few years later. I only bring this up because I reject the notion of identifying as Trans a product of mental illness. There is yet a great deal we don’t know about the developmental neurology of the mind.
That said, with a uterus transplant the risk is very high regarding organ rejection, though better mitigated by drugs than were available during my brother’s time. I almost wonder if a brain transplant might be some future path for some.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...osurgeon-sergio-canavero-claims-a6822361.html
Science fiction and prejudice of Trans aside, I wonder on the ethics of the hidden risks to a child’s physical development and later the psychological ramifications to the exposure to society, many of whom will subject the child being a curiosity and potential discrimination. It is one think to knowingly making an informed life risking choice to one’s self, but for that of a child?
When, I hear such proposals, I can’t help thinking about orphans and considering adoption as a consideration for a Trans couple wishing to raise children.
Ah well, it’s a debate worth having.

 

That's a lot of effort to pretend you're something you're not.

Good luck with that.

 

I'm always confused on this

is a trans woman a guy who thinks he's a girl or is it a girl who thinks she's a guy?

IMO, if you are a legal adult and can afford to pay for the elective surgeries out of your own pocket, like lopping off ones' penis etc, then so be it. It's not something that taxpayers nor rate payers should share in the cost

 

Probably a little. But the pig valve is essential for her life. The procedures he requested to mutilate his body and give birth abnormally are not.

Shaming is an extremely widespread tactic of the left. I don't see why I can't use it too.

People who mutilate their bodies because of mental ailments are freaks. The children they propose to create by artifice are helpless victims of their mental ailments.

 

True obviously more research needs to be done on this. But I'm hopeful for the best. Personally I would love it if people with uteri could donate them to the cause. That would be fun.

...
1.Straight trans people exist. Asexual trans people exist. Gay trans people exist. Pansexual trans people exist. Sexual orientation isn't the same thing as Gender identity. Also hormones have so much fun with sexual identity.
2. Trans isn't binary. There are nonbinary identities too. That doesn't really explain anything
3. You're not talking about being gay. You're talking about subaltern sexual politics which is just a fancy way of saying BDSM. More specifically the dominant and submissive role. How do we know? This post reeks of Roman concepts of gay sex and how it's okay so long as one is penetrating and the other is receiving.
4. We already let people think they're subhuman through various pressures placed on individuals. That's literally the verdict of Brown v Board of Education.

Neither. A trans woman is a woman. A trans guy is a guy.

Wow, cool. I'm glad you have that idea. Kinda off topic because we're talking science not policy.