So this tweet was going around Twitter yesterday as someone had reposted it:
View attachment 889216
In the comments section of the account that reposted it (a GC account) people were asking if it was possible and someone shared this link
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Now a lot of the scientific parts go over me but what I found quite worrying was in these two paragraphs. That uterine transplants are possible but require dead women to donate, that animal studies will need to be carried out to see if this will work and that the reproductive ‘aspirations’ of M2F may make it become legally and ethically unfeasible to deny them this. At the start they state that gender dysphoria affects between 0.5 and 1.4% of adult males.
View attachment 889223View attachment 889224Please let me know if I’ve read these parts wrong but it all feels very Frankenstein to me? I think many people realise that animal testing is a necessary evil for medical advancement but chopping up and mutilating the animals so men can change their biology is really worrying. Plus the need for female donors - are we going to have to put down that we don’t want our reproductive organs used which I can see a lot of women doing. I don’t wish my organs to co sign this freak show. But that will mean women will miss out (quelle surprise!) on organ donation that could potentially help them. As for the comment that this is something we might have to eventually accept due to ethical and legal reasons - why, when it only effects 0.5 and 1.4% of adult males?
(I don’t know if the 0.5 and 1.4% of adult males is worldwide or American based or from another country. I think the paper is as recent as 2019 but again not 100% sure)
It feels extremely odd to me as well.
Just think of the amount of money that this is all going to cost. That could be spent elsewhere on medical treatments. And the experimentation on animals, I can just about accept some animal experimentation for medical purposes, but not for vanity or beauty projects.
I think its also tricky to have babies created artifically. * I know this is a massively complicated issue, as I am not against IVF per se, but I do worry about those parents who are extremely protective of their 'precious. much wanted baby. The kind of child, who can never do anything wrong, and is spoilt rotten! In my head, Babies should be a natural part of life, not a deliberate and expensive choice, like a car!
I did start to investigate online where the hormones for hrt comes from. But it is surprising quiet! As this has to be a hormone used for trans treatments! Animal protection issues were a factor in me refusing to use hrt!
Originally hrt came from factory farmed pregnant mares, who were deliberately kept pregnant, and the male foals were destroyed as surplus to requirements. But I cant find anything recent about how hrt hormones are currently made, which is odd in itself!
I just love the idea of a woke vegan....using medical treatments that are cruel to animals!! And completely un vegan!
did you see a labour MP is having a baby through surrogacy at 50?! seems very unfair on a child that their parents will die when they are quite young (obviously anyone can die at any time but..)
It is both sweet and complicated!
Im in my 50s, have 2 grown up children and have worked with early years children!
From my childrens point of view, I think its tricky if women MPs are having children at 50. as it ignores the fact that a majority of women only have a short window of fertility. I cant see how politician are going to be serious about young women especially, needing affordable homes and childcare from their 20s onwards.
If you expect young couples to be getting their own homes in their late 30s,, because there is no way they can afford it until then, and then not starting to try for a baby until after this, this can make having children naturally a lot harder!