from the "tomorrow"-give-or-take-nine-months dept.
Richard Paulson, President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, has said that transgender women could give birth as soon as "tomorrow" using donated wombs:
Those born with male assigned sex organs cannot conceive children biologically; however, this may soon change, at least according to one fertility expert. Transgender women—those who were assigned male at birth—could give birth as early as "tomorrow," Richard Paulson, an obstetrician-gynecologist and the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said, according to The Telegraph. Thanks to advances in transgender medicine, donated wombs may be able to help transgender women conceive on their own, Paulson said during the society's annual conference in San Antonio, Texas.
Since at least 1999, transgender men have successfully given birth to healthy children, The Washington Post [archive] reports. More recently, Trystan Reese, a transgender man and his partner Biff Chaplow, gave birth to a healthy child last August. Despite their successes, the process is much more complex for transgender women. Primarily because a man's pelvis is a different shape than a woman's, making the birth much more complicated. Still, Paulson insists that it's possible, but notes the birth must be conducted via cesarean section.
"There would be additional challenges, but I don't see any obvious problem that would preclude it," Paulson said. "I personally suspect there are going to be trans women who are going to want to have a uterus and will likely get the transplant."
Only eight children have been born worldwide to mothers (born female) who had a uterine transplant, with the first such birth occurring in 2014. As we have reported, the first attempted uterine transplant in the U.S. failed last year.
Here's a 2016 article on the topic at Scientific American, which notes that surrogacy (which can have its own problems) is illegal in some countries. The article raises the question of unnecessary risks to the patient, as well as unknown risks posed to the fetus by a "potentially unstable biological environment" modulated by hormone treatments.
Not mentioned: the prospect of creating an artificial embryo using the DNA of two biological men, which is expected to be possible imminently (predicted by researchers two years ago to be available in 2017). Since men have both an X and Y sex chromosome, they should be able to have either a son or a daughter using such a technique.
If an artificial womb is developed in the future and it has a lesser chance of causing complications than a traditional pregnancy, would it be unethical for a woman to conceive a child naturally? Fetal lambs have been grown for up to four weeks in an artificial womb, so we may get an answer in the coming decades.
Also at the Sacremento Bee.
Related Stories
Two Soylentils wrote in about the failure of the United States' first attempted uterus transplant:
Uterine Transplant Fails
The Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, Ohio, has embarked upon a programme of uterine transplantation, with surgeries planned on a total of ten patients. The first recipient, however, has suffered an unspecified "sudden complication" and the transplanted uterus, which was obtained from a cadaver, has been removed.
The first uterine transplant, which was unsuccessful, was performed in 1931. This was the first time the procedure had been attempted in the United States, where it is still considered experimental.
coverage:
- People
- Daily Mail
- The Dallas Morning News blog
- CNN
- Business Insider
- NBC News
- ABC News
- The Washington Post
- New York Times
- Reuters
[Continues.]
Various news outlets are reporting on work published in Nature Communications (open, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15112) (DX) on:
[...] a system that incorporates a pumpless oxygenator circuit connected to the fetus of a lamb via an umbilical cord interface that is maintained within a closed 'amniotic fluid' circuit that closely reproduces the environment of the womb. [...] fetal lambs that are developmentally equivalent to the extreme premature human infant can be physiologically supported in this extra-uterine device for up to 4 weeks.
Coverage:
Related stories:
Scientists Keep Human Embryos Alive Longer Outside of the Womb
Prematurely Born Lambs Kept Alive With Artificial External Placenta - Human Babies Could be Next
A woman in the U.S. has given birth in the last month after having successfully received a uterus transplant in September 2016. This follows an unsuccessful uterus transplant performed at the Cleveland Clinic in February 2016:
For the first time in the United States, a woman who had a uterus transplant has given birth.
The mother, who was born without a uterus, received the transplant from a living donor last year at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, and had a baby boy there last month, the hospital said on Friday.
At the family's request, their name, hometown and the date of the birth are being withheld to protect their privacy, according to Julie Smith, a spokeswoman for the hospital, which is part of Baylor Scott & White Health.
Since 2014, eight other babies have been born to women who had uterus transplants, all in Sweden, at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg.
[...] At Baylor, eight women have had transplants, including the new mother, in a clinical trial designed to include 10 patients. One recipient is pregnant, and two others — one of whom received her transplant from a deceased donor — are trying to conceive. Four other transplants failed after the surgery, and the organs had to be removed, said Dr. Giuliano Testa, principal investigator of the research project and surgical chief of abdominal transplantation.
"We had a very rough start, and then hit the right path," Dr. Testa said in a telephone interview. "Who paid for it in a certain way were the first three women. I feel very thankful for their contribution, more so than I can express."
Up to 50,000 women may be candidates for uterus transplants.
Also at Newsweek, Time, and Dallas News.
Related: President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Says Transgender Women Could Give Birth
Transgender woman is first to be able to breastfeed her baby
A 30-year-old transgender woman has become the first officially recorded to breastfeed her baby. An experimental three-and-a-half-month treatment regimen, which included hormones, a nausea drug and breast stimulation, enabled the woman to produce 227 grams of milk a day.
"This is a very big deal," says Joshua Safer of Boston Medical Center, who was not involved with the treatment. "Many transgender women are looking to have as many of the experiences of non-transgender women as they can, so I can see this will be extremely popular."
The transgender woman had been receiving feminising hormonal treatments for several years before she started the lactation treatment. These included spironolactone, which is thought to block the effects of testosterone, and progesterone and a type of oestrogen. This regimen enabled her to develop breasts that looked fully grown, according to a medical scale that assesses breast development based on appearance. She had not had any breast augmentation surgery.
When her partner was five-and-a-half-months pregnant, the woman sought medical treatment from Tamar Reisman and Zil Goldstein at Mount Sinai's Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York City. Her partner had no interest in breastfeeding, she explained, so she would like to take on that role instead.
The milk produced was supplemented by formula because a baby typically needs 500 grams of milk per day at 5 days old.
Related: President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Says Transgender Women Could Give Birth
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06 2017, @02:28PM (5 children)
If they move to artificial wombs, though, there won't be any placenta to eat [wikipedia.org].
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @02:41PM (1 child)
You can just grow that from scratch.
Organs Made to Order [smithsonianmag.com]
Scientists Produce The Most Realistic Lab-Grown Liver Tissue Yet [sciencealert.com]
Cargill, Bill Gates, Richard Branson Backed Memphis Meats Expects Meat From Cells in Stores by 2021 [soylentnews.org]
You could grow the placenta in the shape of a nice steak, and you could use the desired woman's DNA to get your favorite flavor of placenta.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:55PM
You can just grow that from snatch.
Fixed that for you.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday November 06 2017, @07:37PM (2 children)
If it existed, I'd mod this +1 Horrific.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Monday November 06 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)
Did you even read the lede?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday November 06 2017, @09:31PM
The mod. If the mod existed, I'd use it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @02:42PM (22 children)
Mice must be humans.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @02:59PM (21 children)
With extensive modification - but not necessarily genetic modification - men could gestate a child and give birth to it.
It also looks likely that machines (no gender, not a life form) will be able to gestate a child and give birth to it. Humans and other organisms are just biological machines, so no surprise there.
So while you have taken this opportunity to subtly snipe at transgendered people, the real conclusion is that women are about to be made obsolete. We will also be able to make eggs and fertilized embryos synthetically from a digital DNA sequence. And while donated female DNA will probably be involved in the initial years, that could be made superfluous by reference genomes and modifications done by a computer. You could theoretically write the "code" yourself base pair by base pair, but it would be much easier to select various pre-written and scientifically understood modifications.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
Isn't that wonderful? Now a pair of mysoginists can get together, and never have to involve the hated female in their procreation.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:41PM
Pairs or even "cults" on both sides [soylentnews.org] (many sides?).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday November 06 2017, @03:42PM (16 children)
It also looks likely that machines (no gender, not a life form) will be able to gestate a child and give birth to it. Humans and other organisms are just biological machines, so no surprise there.
Yes, and this is hopefully how things will be in the future: humans won't have kids at all, and instead, all new humans will be grown artificially in factories, run by the government. There was an excellent book about this written in the late 40s, called "Brave New World", showing how this society would be so much better than our own. If it doesn't sound better to you, ask yourself: how many divorced people do you know, and how many single parents do you know?
the real conclusion is that women are about to be made obsolete.
Hopefully, in the natural-childbirth-free future, most or all humans will simply be female. How many female mass murderers have you heard of? How much violent crime is committed by women, compared to men?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:52PM (4 children)
The government could monopolize the technology, or it could be used down at the individual and small group level. It all depends on how cheap it gets and how vigilant people are as we ride into this brave new future.
Synthetic biology is tough to regulate compared to say, nuclear proliferation.
It is entirely possible (or at least technically possible) that the world could move in an all-female direction. But it is debatable [soylentnews.org] whether or not eliminating violence is good for the group. Society currently frowns upon the violent tendencies that lead to bottled up rage and mass murder (predominantly among males). But if civilization regresses back to the Dark Ages, violent and strong males will become more valuable, be given plenty of outlets for their rage, and could outcompete females. Don't think it could happen? Civilization regression is one of the many explanations thrown around for the Fermi paradox.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:26PM
We're already seeing the beginnings of this, it's just that the so-called "progressives" (by which I mean SJW regressives) are too stupid to realise that the light and salvation at the end of their wonder tunnel is commonly called "patriarchy".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday November 06 2017, @05:34PM (2 children)
But if civilization regresses back to the Dark Ages, violent and strong males will become more valuable, be given plenty of outlets for their rage, and could outcompete females.
Maybe, it depends on how much regression there is. There's countless women in armed forces units worldwide (just ask the Kurds), so women have proven they're fully able to use violence when they need to, they just don't turn into insane mass-murderers (I can't think of a single incident of this, except for the recent child bride in Pakistan, but she wasn't attempting to murder dozens, just her forced husband, and she used poison; there's also an incident in TX where some woman killed her kids and shot at her husband before the police killed her. But there's no case I've ever heard of of a woman mass-murdering numerous strangers intentionally). And a man's generally superior strength is no match for a .223 round. So as long as people have guns in this dystopian future, men aren't going to have that much of an advantage, if any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:40PM
You
probably[independent.co.uk] definately [wikipedia.org] have!(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:38AM
Stories of killer nurses appear regularly. Quite a few of them are women.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday November 06 2017, @03:59PM (7 children)
Right cause female beings are biologically good? The reason why there are less female serial killers or mass murderers then male counterparts is quite probably that men are better at it. If there was no men there would be women to pick up the slack, not cause there is a quota of death that has to be fulfilled but more likely because the competition just went away. It's hard to compete with a gender that is just biologically superior in traits useful for physical violence such as muscles. If one looks at the plenty of female serial killers and murderers that are out there one finds that most of them don't use physical strength to kill and that they usually prey on people that they know such as children, other family members or people that are old and weak. So if anything women are just much more cruel then men.
One might as well argue that violence would shrink if there was no women around to trigger the men into action. No wives to beat, no women to rape, a lot less easy prey around to assault.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by number11 on Monday November 06 2017, @05:02PM (6 children)
Eh, these days most killings aren't done with muscles. A female can work an AR-15 just as well as a male, and a .380 pulled from a handbag will kill you just as dead as a .44 Magnum. So why are there fewer female killers (whether multiple or one-off)? Most likely because, like many other species, human females tend to be better socialized than males, and less aggressive. Aggression is well known to be one of the effects of testosterone.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Monday November 06 2017, @05:23PM (4 children)
Exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself.
That aggression served a useful purpose in the distant past, before we invented "civilization" and "law", but as a male, I hate to say it, but we're really obsolete, and don't have any significant advantages over females any more, just giant disadvantages (i.e., tendency to become violent). The incarceration rates are proof of this. The only big advantages I can still see to being male are 1) upper-body strength, which does come in handy for things like opening vacuum-sealed jars or dealing with stuck bolts (though impact wrenches can deal with many of these better than brute strength), or 2) generally taller height which is useful for getting things of the top shelf (but this is waning too; lots of young girls these days are 6 feet).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @06:34PM
Wrong. [wikipedia.org]
Are they now? ~40% of males in US prisons are black men who make up just ~7% of the general population. ~25% of incarcerated criminals have ASPD from ~5% of the general population. How are males innocent of any wrongdoing accountable for the behaviour of other males? How many gangland wars do you think are (in reality) fought over females? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:00PM
and 3) spiders, nothing like that 3am phone call, eh?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @07:03PM
The obvious rebuttal here is risk taking. When risk taking is heavily discounted [soylentnews.org], it can be hard to think of why the gender that specializes in risk taking could have value.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:08AM
Here's a statistic you won't hear very often.
Mens' prison sentences are 6 times longer than womens' on average, for the same crime.
That has a non-trivial effect on the gender distribution in prisons.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday November 06 2017, @07:57PM
You have a very American centric view, guns might be the great equalizer compared to physical strength but strength is always available and an AR-15 (or whatever form of firearm you prefer) is not. In countries without easy access to guns it's still more common for people to beat each other to death, or actually even more common is stabbing someone to death with some form of blade. Even in America you are several times more likely to be stabbed to death then shot by an AR-15. Stabbing doesn't require great physical strength either but it does help since it requires you to be somewhat closer then if you are going to shot someone, unless I guess you stab them when they are a sleep or in the back.
For female serial killers or mass murders I seem to recall the preferred method is poison or drugs so that doesn't require much strength at all. It could also be a matter of poisoning a male to equalize the physical disadvantage. But all that is really required is the will to kill, and females do have that to.
The issue in question was that in the post I commented there was a suggestion that the world would be better place if the male of species went away and I seriously doubt that is the case. Women kill, if there is nobody around that is stronger to hold them back whatever makes you believe they wouldn't utilize their abilities. Nothing would stand in their way. This has just touched on biological aspects and not even mention the topic of how or if society or culture turn men into killers. It's not about men killing more for one reason or another, men clearly are. The question could be why are not women doing it more or what is making men do it more often. But still I don't really buy into the idea of an all peaceful female future utopia.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 [fbi.gov]
Just looking quickly at the FBI stats for murder. There is still a lot of people getting beaten to death by hands. Lots of stabbings. The only real reason gun violence is so high in the murder rate is handguns. The AR-15, or rifle, killings are rare. For mass-murder it might be an obvious choice, cause if you gotta kill a fuckton of people you don't want to have to stand around and reload all the time. So it's really more about magazine size and a high rate of fire in that case then anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:58PM (1 child)
You don't hear about female mass murderers (or scientists, etc.) simply because women tend not to accomplish very much, either good or bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @11:00PM
maybe their secretly trolling the internets with inflammatory coments but u just don't know it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:34AM
Brave New World was published in 1932.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday November 06 2017, @06:37PM (1 child)
No, this doesn't "obsolete" women any more than machine power "obsoletes" male musculature. We still need male and female ingredients. :-) It should just further lower the risks and impacts of bearing children on any particular members of society. Rather than the negatives of "Brave New World", I'd hope for Lois McMaster Bujold's projection of the "uterine replicator" changing society for the better by avoiding almost all of the risk associated with pregnancy and childbirth, allowing women to continue working productively for the time they would have been pregnant, and even avoiding birth stress on the infant. It's surrogacy without involving/risking another human. Allowing the capability of different genetic mixes (two males, two females, whatever) and/or gene editing is a separate social/ethical/scientific issue.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @06:56PM
The combination of artificial womb and synthetic embryo technology would absolutely make women obsolete. Any amount of male and female children (including zero males or zero females if that's your policy) could be produced without the need for sex or pregnant women. Once you sequence a few women (or hundreds of thousands [genomicsengland.co.uk] to millions), you have all the data you need to endlessly create synthetic embryos with desired alleles. You could also just sequence men since they have both an X and a Y chromosome.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday November 06 2017, @02:50PM (56 children)
Just because something is possible, doesn't make it sensible. Uterus transplant, heavy drugs to avoid rejection, pregnancy with the foetus exposed to those drugs, and at serious risk in case of rejection. What could go wrong?
The parent who would do this is (imho) placing their personal ego above the welfare of the child.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:04PM (37 children)
People that choose to give birth are also placing their ego above the welfare of all the orphan children waiting to be adopted. Pregnancy and giving birth are also not without risk.
The question is where should the moral line be drawn and should it be drawn by the parent or society? Society has a stake in the health of future people, so should there be threshold at a certain risk level(~10% chance of debilitating illness/defect?)?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @03:39PM (31 children)
People who choose to adopt, rather than have their own children, are cuckolds. Draw your own moral lines, it's not up to me to rescue some other couple's genetic mess. IF my wife and I were to do so, it is out of the kindness of our hearts, not due to some moral obligation that you have assigned us.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:42PM
Oh snap, someone dropped the C-bomb!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:45PM
Thank you for saving me from having to respond to the above asshat. What a clown he is, must make him feel like quite the moral busy-body, preaching his morality onto us through the tubes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:10PM (28 children)
I made no moral judgement - I simply drew a parallel.
If someone is willing to undergo a transplant and pay for the opportunity to have their own genetic child, then you are in favor?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @04:19PM (27 children)
"People that choose to give birth are also placing their ego above the welfare of all the orphan children"
It certainly looks like a moral judgement to me.
I won't bullshit you about my own moral judgements. I view this whole charade as an exercise in faggotry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:45PM (26 children)
Only if you believe that it is morally unacceptable to place higher value on your ego (desire to pass on your genetics) over that of orphan children.
I made no such assertion and, in fact, do not believe it is immoral. I might consider it a greater moral good, similar to how you described a "kindness" of the heart, to provide for someone else's genetic offspring but certainly not a moral obligation.
In your terms, is it more moral to be a participant in cuckoldry or faggotry?
Is it acceptable for those who want to have biological children, but are unable to do so without medical intervention, to go through extraordinary measures to do so rather than adopting?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @05:11PM (25 children)
You need do nothing actively "wrong" to be cuckolded. Faggotry requires active participation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:37PM (8 children)
Do you have a moral argument for why faggotry is wrong?
I've never heard any compelling arguments. Unfortunately, intelligent people who believe it is wrong typically only do so because of religion and, thus, their arguments rely on the premise that their religion is true (which I don't accept).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:59AM (7 children)
Sure, pretend like the basic facts of biology are just religious arguments. People make mistakes all the time. Some guy's ass is the wrong hole to fuck. Faggotry is wrong like trying to plug a male connector into a male port is wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:33PM (6 children)
The morality of "the wrong hole to fuck" is not a basic fact of biology. Some reasons why the "unnatural" argument is not compelling are:
Homosexuality is observed in nature.
It would be a joke to assert that humans should follow some "natural" standard when participating in a modern human society bears so little resemblance to any "natural" setting.
Evolution is a process that has no will, intentions, or personality and, therefore, has no moral concerns and species with greater variability typically have a more rubust survival rate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:16PM (5 children)
"Homosexuality is observed in nature."
You justify your actions with the fact that the beasts of the field to it. So - it's alright for you to attack your parents, when they grow old and weak, and eat them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:19PM (4 children)
It seems it's only male homosexuality you take issue with. I'm guessing you'd have less trouble watching, for example, me and my girlfriend making love, not that we'd ever let you.
This reveals several things, one of which is your incredibly male-centric idea of sexuality, to the point that it's borderline solipsistic. If you have a wife or a girlfriend I pity her intensely. Another, IMO, is an obvious undercurrent of homosexual urges in your own case.
A third is an extremely shallow set of morals and almost complete lack of moral thought. Empathy is also found in nature, in "the beasts of the field." We are animals, at least in the flesh, whether you like it or not. Does that mean a thing is good or bad solely because it exists in nature or does not? No, of course not. What the AC above you was saying isn't "there are gay animals therefore it's fine, QED," they're saying "Don't act like this is something humans invented or some deliberate, thought-out perversion of human nature."
You are a particularly shallow thinker and getting worse by the day; the last 4-6 months in particular are making me suspect you're either suffering something in your personal life that's affecting your thought processes or may actually have early-onset dementia.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:14AM (3 children)
And, once again, 'Zumi tosses out her ages old presumption that I am interested in her.
When will you learn, girl? There are a lot of fish in the ocean. I'm not much interested in crustaceans. And, you're not an interesting crustacean. No, I'm not coming over to watch the mating habits of - whatever it is you call yourself.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:09AM (2 children)
Way to miss the point again. This deflection of yours fools no one; based on your responses thus far it is now patently obvious you're at least bisexual and have been fighting a lifelong battle with yourself over it. Else why would you be getting so completely autistic-screeching upset over it? Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually WILL have apoplexy if I keep poking you and am debating simply ignoring you so as not to have your blood (or whatever that cholesterol-laden alcoholic sludge is...) on my hands.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:48PM (1 child)
Some shit is definitely beneath any man's dignity to even mess with. You've heard those loaded questions, such as "Is mine the sweetest peter you've ever tasted?" We simply aren't going into my sex life, no matter how curious you are, no matter how many times you ask.
Listen to the lyrics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T3g_DruhMc [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:15PM
Runaway confirmed for self-loathing bi/homosexual. I mean, you were before, but this is basically a giant flashing neon sign saying "CLOSET CASE" in giant 144pt Comic Sans...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @05:41PM (15 children)
Anyone getting this worked up over the idea has some experience, riiiiight? I mean, no one in their right mind would adopt you, but maybe you're insecure about your lust for other men...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @06:21PM (14 children)
'Zumi, no need to go around with this again. You can't adopt me, and there is no point being bitter about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:15PM
The only reason for you to have the personality you do is a massive insecurity complex. Just admit you're at the least bisexual.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @08:26PM (12 children)
I could, I'd just need to fill out some state and federal forms about owning dangerous wildlife, and get one hell of a big terrarium :D Oh, and proper heat-lighting: do you like near or far infrared?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:18PM (11 children)
If you'll just take that infrared light out near Pluto, and hang it, it will be far enough to me. By the time you get back, I'll be safely in my grave.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:44PM (10 children)
By the time I get back you won't need the heat lamp, since it'll be plenty hot where you're going :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:57PM (9 children)
Thought you didn't believe in that shit any more.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:07PM (8 children)
You're not paying attention, are you? Hell is real. That is to say, there are as many Hells as there are people in them, and they last exactly as long and are exactly as horrible as they need to be. Most people in them have no idea what's happening to them and interpret it as something like whatever their dominant cultural paradigm's version of afterlife punishment says it is; what's really happening is a sort of karmic rebound.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:16AM (7 children)
So, kinda like Dante's Enferno? Cool. Have fun when you get there.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:05AM (6 children)
You can't even spell "Inferno" right, you dumb illiterate bastard. And it'll only be like that for you since you've been raised nominally Christian; I am probably not going to end up spending time in or below the "third sphere" based on my life thus far.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:57PM (5 children)
So, now she resorts to cursing . . . she's lost it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:12PM (4 children)
Unless you are in elementary school--and, let's face it, this is a distinct possibility given your mental capabilities--"bastard" isn't a curse. It's a perfectly cromulent word when describing, for example, large swords, low-value pearls, and petulant manchildren who can't hold their own on the internet because they're consumed by rage, self-loathing, and probably impotence as well :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:29PM (3 children)
Self loathing is the province of liberal white people. Try to get your descriptors right.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:51AM (2 children)
Keep tellin' yourself that, Runaway. It's obvious you wanna smoke more pole than an arsonist in a strip club.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
Let us remember which of us is "broken". You are fascinated with your fantasies of my anatomy, and you're fishing for some potential connection between us. Nope, we ain't hookin' up, under any circumstances. We aren't going to share tales of smoking poles, or whatever. The only thing that you and I have in common is, we like pussy. Run along, now, and apologize to your special other for hitting on me, repeatedly.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:33PM
I think I might have to actually start trolling you for real :) I didn't even read that post, just hit reply. If anyone can get a rise out of you this easily maybe it was meant to be. And man, are you easy to upset.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday November 06 2017, @03:41PM (4 children)
I understand that adoption is now somewhat of a rarity in the first world.
Question: assume that we are a traditionally average couple that can't have children of our own. We have a white picket fence with all the trimmings... what chance do we have of adopting a newborn child?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:28PM (3 children)
I couldn't find any stats on attempts verses successful adoption, but there were roughly 150,000 children adopted in the US last year while there are about 400,000 children in foster care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:22PM (2 children)
Disabled children, developmentally impaired children, ugly children, and discipline problems don't have a lot of takers. Not to mention, age works against all of them. The youngest, and prettiest, smartest, and most disciplined children get snatched up. No matter how desparate for children a couple might be, they don't want someone like Azumi, who has spent half of her life in Juvie hall.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:21PM (1 child)
I've never even been in a police station except to help point someone out of a lineup. Nice try, you bitter old man :D Keep it up! Feel the hate flow through you! With any luck you'll die of a painful stroke at age 45 on my account.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:10AM
Why don't you make us a nice little list of places you've never been. Everyone is really interested.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
It's already an act of ego to have a child. I will agree that it looks very risky, and should probably be considered a "waste" of donated uteri (if it is more likely to have complications than a woman getting it). But that could be a problem for "early adopters". Solving the problems involves carrying out the procedure and advancing medical science. Uteri could also be grown from scratch instead of donated or removed from cadavers.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Monday November 06 2017, @06:04PM
I would argue that you are reaching a bit, apparently to for the sake of justifying the said behavior. One could argue that sexual reproduction across the animal kingdom is an act of ego, but I don't think that is what is intended here by the word ego.
We start cutting parts of ourselves and gluing new ones, what is it that we are trying to perpetuate?
I may not be kind to ask and am willing to be corrected, but what is there to perpetuate if we are not contempt with what we are in the first place?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)
While you may have a point, what in the world does this have to do with snowflakes?
I thought this was a term created to describe those who get way too upset over things and/or don't take critisism well. Now it seems every time someone on the right doesn't like something a person does that person is a snowflake. It seems to me that would be a lot of hardship, pain, and money for a delicate snowflake to go through, even if the whole thing is ill-advised.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:40PM
Trannies are snowflakes by definition.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 06 2017, @03:12PM (12 children)
Well, let's make sure to apply this same logic to cisgendered women who do not have functioning wombs. Some doctors did a womb transplant once (too lazy to link, find it yourself), but never again! It's too risky! And actually, being somewhat serious, there really are too many people on this planet.
There again, my position has long been that according to the logic you folks and feminists use, cisgendered women should be forcefully transitioned to male and injected with testosterone if they do not give live birth to a child by, say, age 25. C-section doesn't count. Has to be a live birth, since that is how you determine whether somebody is really a woman.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:22PM
Reply to my comments, lol.
As noted in the summary, there have been successful uterine transplants and babies born as a result of those transplants. I think there was even a case where the baby was born and then the failing uterine tissue was removed afterwards (need to confirm). The failure of the transplant in the U.S. could be a result of "inexperience" or just reflective of the high complication rate the procedure has.
Global population estimates show population leveling off eventually. It has been argued however that 50+ year estimates are bullshit and that you should take any such estimates with a grain of salt after 25+ years. But predictions based on birth/death rates and other factors suggest that countries like Japan, South Korea, and China are going to see serious population declines in the future. China could decline to 800 million population for example. If they don't mess around with immigration, then those countries could see serious declines in national power and prestige that go along with the population loss. We like to fuss about there being too many people in the U.S. or the world, but at the end of the day a high population can be useful - particularly in war. So there you have it, three countries that should get on this technology right away. Maybe make a few super soldiers on the side.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:27PM
From the previous discussion on the transplant case, bradley13 said:
"Imho, this is an unethical medical procedure"
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=12589&cid=317054#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:42PM (6 children)
Only a snowflake insists on using "cisgendered" when referring to real men and women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:07PM (4 children)
Do you have a suggestion for a better technical term that doesn't invalidate the identity of some participants in the conversation? I suppose since you're a natural-born straight white male you are entitled to whatever opinion popped into your head first, but civil discourse relies on politeness and respect.
Invalidating others is rude. As Grandma used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:36PM
Why do we need a descriptor? Modifiers in English are used to distinguish things from the norm, thus the existence of the modifier "trans" from "transsexual".
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:00PM
I agree with GP. It's real, natural, or just men and women. You don't have to label it and thus make it a tautology. I'm sorry about your "feelings" but it is true and fact. Either it matters that these are the natural men and women OR NOTHING MATTERS. I fully understand that the goal of Cultural Marxism is the total destruction of everything that is found "problematic," but seriously fuck-off.
Trying to label the natural sexes with extraneous label is meant to somehow make them "equal" with whatever unnatural process someone else is undergoing to; but they are not nor will they ever be. Sorry for your feelings, but getting others to go along with your delusion will only work for so long, people who have decided for whatever reason to switch their gender identity deep down know that it will never magically change. There is and always will be a difference.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:33PM
1) Men
2) Women
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:28PM
As AC so eloquently put it - only the abnormal need special descriptors. Men and women don't need that silly "cisgendered", because we're all pretty much more or less "normal". When we need more precise descriptors, terms like blonde, short, skinny, dimwitted, and asshole work just fine. Cisgendered is meaningless.
Civil discourse, you say? Stop calling us names that we think are stupid, and maybe we'll call you "trannie" less often.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @08:29PM
I'm cisgender and i like the term. It's precisely because it helps to have a word for the normal (read: most common) case because that stops certain kinds of bigotry from getting off the ground. The word has origins in chemistry, so it's not like it was invented out of thin air. We have, for example, cis and trans dichloroethylene, both C2H2CL2, but differing in where the chlorine atoms go.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday November 06 2017, @03:51PM
While your second paragraph is needlessly inflammatory, I completely agree with the first one. Uterus transplants are also inappropriate for cisgendered women.
For that matter, I submit that there is a more general problem with people who spend years and zillions of dollars on ever-more-extreme fertility treatments. Becoming utterly obsessed with one's (in)ability to have children - after a certain point, it's all about the parents and no longer about the (potential) kids. If someone is that obsessed, they may just be mentally ill: Psychiatric Illness and Infertility: Cause or Effect? [womensmentalhealth.org]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Monday November 06 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)
Perhaps at some point you had a conversation you are discontent with, but it is no excuse to project the position of a few to everybody else in a group to suit your argument.
My position is that you can disagree with someone, but no one gets to force anything on anybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:30PM
Heh. I farted, and you can't escape it. You will be forced to smell it once it permeates through the 'net.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:00AM
> What could go wrong?
FOETAL ERROR: BABY IS ALIVE AND WELL.
FURTHER INFO: NOW HE HAS TO GROW UP WITH A PARENT WHO THINKS TRANSPLANTING AN UTERUS TO HAVE A BABY IS TOTALLY WORTH IT.
MITIGATION: CALL CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
MITIGATION (CONTINUED): ON SECOND THOUGHT, DON'T.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday November 06 2017, @03:06PM (12 children)
Twins wasn't just a crappy comedy it was new-science-fact? It's somewhat interesting how, some, women have been going on how they don't need a man anymore. They can have families (as in offspring) and everything and no need to have a man for that. Guess this will just fix that problem. Men won't need Women either. Men will eventually be able to have their own baby and carry it in their artificial womb. I do wonder what this will do for society ...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:15PM (4 children)
One prediction I'll make is that a few small clusters of men will form cult-like units where they live together and produce children through synthetic embryos + artificial wombs. They would be able to use each partner's DNA to create children that have two biological fathers, and could even produce a daughter if they wanted to.
Women could use the same techniques, but would not be able to produce a son by simply mixing digital DNA from two women.
We could argue that this benefits men much more than women because women are physically weaker, and therefore less competitive in a post-apocalyptic scenario (that is just one reason, you can come up with others). Women could compensate by using various genetic modifications (double muscling?) to increase strength, but if it throws hormones out of the whack to the extent that it results in androgyny or a masculine female (with possible health complications?), maybe that defeats the purpose. So these developments definitely seem to be of greater benefit to men.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday November 06 2017, @04:40PM (1 child)
In a post-apocalyptic scenario, none of these fertility techniques are going to be at all viable anyway. Almost all of western medicine relies on the increasingly elaborate global economic system to supply drugs and equipment. Post-apocalypse, it will be hard to get a hold of effective antibiotics, let alone transition hormones, pregnancy hormones, anti-rejection drugs, and consistently sterilized operating rooms and tools.
None of this matters outside of the context of our increasingly interdependent globalist society. So let's keep the discussion relevant.
Uterine implants, and especially the prospect of artificial wombs, are going to further the effects of what I would call the 20th century's single most socially impactful technology: safe, effective, universally available birth control. The effects of this technology have been to give many more women the opportunity to be a part of society, rather than automatically becoming mothers as soon as they become sexually active.
We still haven't reached the conclusion of this change that began over 50 years ago. Women still struggle to find a place in society that neither expects them to be mothers first nor expects them to be equal in every way to their male peers. Men still struggle with the loss of male-only spaces and the sea change in what ways of relating to women are effective.
Throw into this the possibility than anyone can give birth, or even having children without either parent having a profoundly different physical and emotional connection to the child. Traditional gender roles are based on the very different experience either gender has with producing children. If you take that away, what's left to separate us? How long will it take before the childbearing differences no longer inform our gendered social roles? And will we be able to respect the real differences that remain?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @04:56PM
I strenuously disagree. We are seeing biology and chemistry becoming ever-easier for the individual. A lone person can use genetic engineering technologies, and there is active research into "drug printing" and "chemical printing". Sterilization could be done with used or stolen lab equipment (autoclaves) or lower-tech methods. Move one level up from the individual to the hackerspace (or post-apocalyptic commune), and pooled resources means that much fancier equipment can be made available. Depending on the quality and date of the apocalypse, there will be many opportunities available for small groups.
I agree with the rest of your comment. I'd add that women have a newer option of freezing eggs [winfertility.com]. This could be made obsolete by synthetic eggs (it could be better for the individual woman since you could pay later when your net worth is higher instead of right now).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 06 2017, @05:10PM
I don't doubt that people will try to make unisex societies, but I doubt they will compete well against coed societies in the long-term. I'm more interested in what happens when the state gets to control reproduction entirely, manufacturing one generation of sterile citizens after the next. Truly eusocial behavior might be just around the corner, for better or worse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by number11 on Monday November 06 2017, @05:18PM
In a post-apocalyptic scenario, the species benefits by having a surplus of women, because rebuilding population is important. Females can only have one or two children per year, but we hardly need any males at all to keep that going. Note that in some parts of the world, pretty much everybody is related to the Genghis Khan. For diversity's sake, I'd hope there would be more than one male, but a few males who take reproduction seriously are all you need.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)
I do wonder what this will do for society
Lower infant mortality and fewer pregnancy complications.
Humans don't solely form romantic relationships for procreation.
Off topic: I believe you meant the movie Junior (Schwarzenegger gets pregnant), not Twins (Schwarzenegger's genetics are choosen from 10 fathers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_(1994_film) [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_(1988_film) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @04:31PM
And Danny DeVito was in both of them!
Too bad IMDB's compare tool seems to be broken [imdb.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @03:50PM (4 children)
I read a short story, many years ago, in which the author asked that very question. Sorry, don't remember the author's name - I think it was in one of those old pulp magazines.
Basically, men and women chose to live apart, and create their own societies. Both societies eventually grew so decadent that they couldn't be bothered to keep the machinery running. The eggs and sperms deteriorated over time, because it was all artifically created. When the supply of people in both societies began to run low, they sent emissaries to each other. With a lot of research, they figured out how us old-timers did it. Of course, no one has any practice or anything - they end up with two bumbling awkward know-nothings in a room trying to figure out how to get it on. Somehow, he hurts her, she screams and runs away, and everyone decides that mankind will just have to die off.
The story was much better when the author told it. Wish I could remember who it was .
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:56PM
This trope is used a lot in sci-fi. It doesn't make a lot of sense and will be made moot by synthetic DNA that can be edited down to the base pair, created from scratch, and then replicated using traditional methods like polymerase chain reaction (PCR). There's no deterioration beyond what we normally experience already, maybe less so if you consider that it is basically a form of eugenics (screening or editing out certain genetic disorders at a minimum).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @06:51PM (2 children)
Ha! Runaway1956, the runaway that no one wants to adopt, is once again claiming to be able to read? And of course, the details are sketchy. Citation needed, Runaway, or the reading didn't happen!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)
Why bother to post as AC, when you are so transparent? And, once again, I don't want to be associated with you. You only ever wanted to adopt me, hoping to get all of my money when I die.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday November 06 2017, @08:48PM
Okay, that AC did read like him. I still think you're probably seeing patterns in static sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:24PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=x98cE4QCrlk [youtube.com]