5 ms·

I wonder how far it is until transwomen could have a functional female reproductive system? This would seem to be one step closer.

mikrl 3y ago
It is the final frontier for a lot of the transphobic rhetoric out there. If an XY person can give birth, it makes obsolete any jibe or argument based on genetics or ‘biology’
- klyrs 3y ago
  The existence of intersex people has not put a stop to the insistence that gender is sex is binary because "biology." They just insist that any counterexample to their ideology is subhuman.
  - mantas 3y ago
    We insist humans have 20 fingers. Even though there’re both natural and human-made ways that number may not be true for few individuals.
- ryan-c 3y ago
  I wonder how long it'll be before we can just switch the chromosomes in vivo.
- mantas 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mutant_glofish 3y ago
> I wonder how far it is until transwomen could have a functional female reproductive system? Actually, we are probably very far from that. And obviously, just because something is in the realm of possibility doesn't imply that we should do it. May I recommend a short book by C. S. Lewis (the author of The Chronicles of Narnia)? It's called "The Abolition of Man", with the intended meaning of "Man" being just the mankind/humanity in general. A central argument of the book is that a level of technological progress which enables arbitrary conditioning of human beings doesn't necessarily lead to some kind of liberation. More likely, it will empower the conditioners and destroy the constraints that fundamentally define our humanity. If you like liberty and humanity, that would be a grim prospect. Technologies which would genuinely enable turning a man to a woman (in the biological sense) would also enable a lot of undesirable things (even if you think turning a man to a woman is itself something desirable).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hiddencost 3y ago
I had the same thought.
divelom 3y ago
[flagged]
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Helping transwomen have a body closer to what they desire and to be able to be pregnant is not just a vanity project, and to say there would be zero benefit is rather callous. The benefit is huge, and the risk can be managed until it is reduced entirely.
  - divelom 3y ago
    Experimenting on babies-to-be by having them gestate inside a female reproductive system that has been grafted into a male body bears such a huge lifetime risk to their health, plus the risk to the recipient of these organs, that it would be unethical for any researchers to even attempt this. That some men may desire the experience of pregnancy and childbirth for whatever reason doesn't mean there's any actual medical benefit. It's not exactly life-saving surgery.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      It's not unethical at all. If we can make ovaries which are indistinguishable from cisfemale ovaries, and do the same for a womb, then there is no issue.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - divelom 3y ago
        The whole female body is adapted for pregnancy, it's not simply a function of the womb and ovaries. For example, the pelvis is a different shape from males, and hormones released in pregnancy loosen the joints to allow the baby to grow and the pelvis to shift to accommodate the growing baby. There are many more anatomical and physiological specialisations like this that only apply to the female body. This suggestion that there will be no issues if ovaries and a womb are fitted inside a male body is entirely unproven. The only way to prove it is to do the experiment and attempt to bring a baby to term, but this is a huge unknown and the ethical issues here are immense. How many of these tiny, developing humans will die during this experimentation phase, or be permanently disabled for life? How much of their suffering is acceptable to fulfil this questionable agenda of enabling males to gestate a human? Why should the desires of these men override the human rights of infants to not be experimented upon?

mikrl 3y ago

It is the final frontier for a lot of the transphobic rhetoric out there. If an XY person can give birth, it makes obsolete any jibe or argument based on genetics or ‘biology’

klyrs 3y ago
The existence of intersex people has not put a stop to the insistence that gender is sex is binary because "biology." They just insist that any counterexample to their ideology is subhuman.
- mantas 3y ago
  We insist humans have 20 fingers. Even though there’re both natural and human-made ways that number may not be true for few individuals.
ryan-c 3y ago
I wonder how long it'll be before we can just switch the chromosomes in vivo.
mantas 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mutant_glofish 3y ago

> I wonder how far it is until transwomen could have a functional female reproductive system? Actually, we are probably very far from that. And obviously, just because something is in the realm of possibility doesn't imply that we should do it. May I recommend a short book by C. S. Lewis (the author of The Chronicles of Narnia)? It's called "The Abolition of Man", with the intended meaning of "Man" being just the mankind/humanity in general. A central argument of the book is that a level of technological progress which enables arbitrary conditioning of human beings doesn't necessarily lead to some kind of liberation. More likely, it will empower the conditioners and destroy the constraints that fundamentally define our humanity. If you like liberty and humanity, that would be a grim prospect. Technologies which would genuinely enable turning a man to a woman (in the biological sense) would also enable a lot of undesirable things (even if you think turning a man to a woman is itself something desirable).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hiddencost 3y ago

I had the same thought.

divelom 3y ago

[flagged]

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Helping transwomen have a body closer to what they desire and to be able to be pregnant is not just a vanity project, and to say there would be zero benefit is rather callous. The benefit is huge, and the risk can be managed until it is reduced entirely.
- divelom 3y ago
  Experimenting on babies-to-be by having them gestate inside a female reproductive system that has been grafted into a male body bears such a huge lifetime risk to their health, plus the risk to the recipient of these organs, that it would be unethical for any researchers to even attempt this. That some men may desire the experience of pregnancy and childbirth for whatever reason doesn't mean there's any actual medical benefit. It's not exactly life-saving surgery.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    It's not unethical at all. If we can make ovaries which are indistinguishable from cisfemale ovaries, and do the same for a womb, then there is no issue.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - divelom 3y ago
      The whole female body is adapted for pregnancy, it's not simply a function of the womb and ovaries. For example, the pelvis is a different shape from males, and hormones released in pregnancy loosen the joints to allow the baby to grow and the pelvis to shift to accommodate the growing baby. There are many more anatomical and physiological specialisations like this that only apply to the female body. This suggestion that there will be no issues if ovaries and a womb are fitted inside a male body is entirely unproven. The only way to prove it is to do the experiment and attempt to bring a baby to term, but this is a huge unknown and the ethical issues here are immense. How many of these tiny, developing humans will die during this experimentation phase, or be permanently disabled for life? How much of their suffering is acceptable to fulfil this questionable agenda of enabling males to gestate a human? Why should the desires of these men override the human rights of infants to not be experimented upon?