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

Oh, I wouldn't say "as easily"...

 

Many transgenders are going to demand the full experience, and I expect they'll surgically construct a birth canal.

The medical science isn't quite there yet, but they are making rapid advancements and doing lots of groundbreaking surgical research into the field of transgender health.
(taxpayer money, by the way, since the money comes from grants to medical research universities and public medical facilities)


However, you are right, the majority of these births are very likely going to be delivered Cesarean. Which is not an uncommon thing these days, with nearly 1 out of 3 births in the US taking place by C-section.

(a drastically high rate, in my opinion, but that is another discussion)

 

This sounds like you are assuming only gestational surrogacy, where the surrogate carries an offspring placed in her by IVF. As someone else noted, usually the goal is to have a child who looks like the parents. So if we are then talking traditional surrogacy with artificial insemination, the odds are the surrogate will not be of a skin color too far off of the parents.

True transgenderism is when the gender or internal identity is mismatched from the sex or physical body. Gender Dysphoria is the resultant disorder created by that mismatch. Transistioning is the treatment (there is debate on whether ot not it classifies as a "cure" or not) by which to mitigate or alleviate GD. The least intrusive method is always prefered. For some trans people, just simply presenting as their gender is all that is needed to alieveate their GD, no surgeries or hormones needed. For others, that addition or removal of breasts is the furthest they need to go. And then there is the rest who need SRS.

Surrogacy is usually a paid "job", for lack of a better term. Usually it is for both a given fee, and probably prenatal health care. in some cases, it might be a trade off, as some homosexual couple will do. A gay male couple might agree to inseminate a gay female couple, with the resultant child(ren) either being placed with each couple, or raised between them. A surrogate for a trans woman would be doing no more or less than she would be doing for a infertile cis woman.

 

Yes. In reality the orientation, the attraction, doesn't change. Mnd you that is not intended to include those who have been lying to themselves as to what they are attracted to, in order to try to conform to the body.

 

Both side are considered a fantasy by the opposing side. So yeah, as easily.

 

If taxpayer money is going to medical research for straight cis people as well, then there really isn't an issure for it going towards gay or trans people. It should just be a matter of whether or not taxpayer money goes to medical research.

 

If they went to all the trouble and expense of transplanting a uterus into a man's body, why would you think IVF would be any great deal?

I doubt anything about these pregnancies would be "natural".

 

Honestly, what type of logic is that?
'Money goes to straight (normal) people health research, ergo money should also go to experimenting with sex change operations' ??

 

You were talking about surrogates, not transwomen who recieved uterus transplants. There are basically two types of surrogacy. Traditional, in which the surrogate is the biological mother, and usually gets pregnant by artificial insemination, although occasionally by more physical methods. And then there is gestational, in which the surrogate gets pregnant by IVF and is not biologically related to the offspring at all. If the parents were white (as in the example), then it is rather doubtful that they would want to use a traditional surrogate who is a POC of any varity since the child could end up looking more like the surrogate than the father.

 

In other words, you either fund for all your citizens or none or them. How hard is that? We have rare diseases. Do we not fund research into them because they only happen to a small number of people?

 

Being 'a woman born in a man's body' is not a "rare disease".

 

That would fall under condition or maybe even disorder, but the principle remains the same.

 

Maquiscat, some of these debates, you win the immediate logic argument, but you lose sight of the original point. So your final logic does not really negate the original opposing viewpoint being argued.

 

Well, then you could also argue paedophilia, prostitution, and lack of any minimum wage or labor protections can also not be exploitation.

I think that would be a rather extremist Libertarian argument that certainly most on the Progressive side would not try to make.
Certainly most feminists would disagree with you.

Oh, predatory lending is one more to add to the list.

It is still possible for exploitation to exist even where there is consent, as could apply to a gestational surrogate in this discussion.

 

In such cases, I am responding to a point that has developed subsequent to the OP, or a point that later deals with the OP. The premise of whether or not we should be treating trans women as men or women is a point upon which the op is based or related to. Someone brought up surrogacy in regards to "creating life to satisfy a sick person's narcissism." (I can cite that if you really want me to.) So that now we have moved to look at that as related to what do we mean by such a statement. I initially pointed out that who pays for these things is a whole other matter from the proceedures themselves, yet it was you who brought up the issue of taxpayer money for research into these things.

I am responding to the posts made. Feel free to drop a line and pick up one closer to what you wanted to discuss. Also, feel free to point out what you think is too far off the track. Maybe I have a logic path that you didn't consider. Remember that one can disagree with a premise, but still acknowledge the logic to get from premise to conclusion.

 

Ill just say this. Male hips aren't meant to bare children. So, even if there is an artificial out... the hips won't accommodate it. How many malformed or deformed children must be delivered to demonstrate this to these folks? I would add that the modern C section is a revenue generator and entirely overused in the industry.

 

Opinion or can you objectively back that up?

 

Both. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/c-section-rate-high/600172/

 

i'm still lost and i'm serious. Please correct me if i have this wrong. Transgender woman is a guy who wants to be a girl. I believe that is what you are saying; yes?

 

What keeps me up at night is the discount Mountain Dew at Walmart because I have papers to write and I didn't plan it out well enough to write them when I had time. Now if you want to say it's nature, that's not the point. The point isn't whether or not it's the result of nature or nurture, but the result of something happening. What doesn't matter. It's just what is the case.

Neither. A trans woman is a woman. A trans man is a man.

When a man and a woman love each other very much, they are considered straight. That's not oxymoronic, it's just what it means.

 

Yes.

What you have to realize is there's a difference between what words mean, and what certain groups of people want them to mean.

The current consensus from the Progressive Social Left is that a trans woman is a woman.
(albeit she was originally born male)

However, if you claim she's not a woman, you get in trouble...

 

I would agree with him. But that's a topic for another time.

(Rates of C-section in the US are far higher than in many other developed countries, just as one obvious indicator)

 

When it come to defining trans woman or trans man, I am not going to get into the debatable semantics of whether it is a belief or actuallity. A trans man is a person who was born physically female, but transitioned into a male, by whatever mean I presented before (presenting on up through SRS). A trans woman is a person who was physically born male, but transitioned into a female. In both cases, they identify their gender as that which they transitioned into, just as you identify your gender, presumably, as that which you were born as. It is a key point, because when dealing with other things, such as cross dressers, they do NOT identify as the gender they are presenting.

 

Interesting read. I'll have to peruse it more in depth later. Now I am not at any point saying that there are not doctors who indeed do c-sections because they can charge more. The question is how prevelant is that reasoning, over other reasonings. I remember a while back reading about how c-sections had a metoric rise because initially doctors thought it would be much safer than vaginal birth. And that even though it was since diproved, knowledge inertia kept it going for quite a while, and maybe still does. I'll have to see if there are multiple studies mentioned in the article to establish trend.

 

In and of itself I wasn't dismissing either the rate nor the cost to patient. I was however, looking to see if we were dealing with a potential correlation/causation fallacy.