Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 06 2017, @02:24PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 (2)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:47PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:47PM (#593112)

    How is a regulat joe/jane schmoe supposed to weigh in on an issue like this? This is way beyond obscure technical issue, and even so-called experts wouldn't have decent grasps of all the related issues.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday November 06 2017, @03:59PM (#593121) Journal

      Regular joes ("plebs") are never intended to weigh in on any topic. Their opinions are intended to be guided by propaganda and controlled to get the outcomes most desired by the elites.

      As for the experts, here's a nice word for the day: transdiciplinary [vt.edu].

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:53PM (#593195)

      It's click bait.

      The whole idea is absurd.

        - 1. Cut open stomach.
        - 2. Put in baby birthing bag.
        - 3. Go through months and months of intensive treatment to try to desperately prevent bag from dying.
        - 4. Cut open stomach.
        - 5. Remove baby birthing bag.
        - 6. Claim you had baby.

      Or we could:

        - 1. Put baby birthing bag in prenatal growth center.
        - 2. Come back 9 months later. Pick up baby.

      If anybody - man or infertile woman - thought the former was more desirable, that should immediately preclude them from ever being the caretaker of a child. On the other hand I'm of the controversial opinion that a man who wants to cut his dick off should be treated in a similar fashion to a man who wants to cut his arm off. The latter indeed being a genuine mental disorder - apotemnophilia [wikipedia.org]. There, fortunately people are actively searching for a cure. It's quite the shame that political correctness will stall any progress of treatment for gender dysphoria by decades. Even if you believe people ought be allowed to indulge such fantasies, that should not preclude the pursuit of a treatment. You would then at least allow people three options: Status Quo - Snippy - Treatment. As is the option of Status Quo/Snippy as the only options is less than desirable.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:03PM (#593620)

    There is already an answer for people who don't want to adopt, but have a child with their genes: hire a surrogate.
    Do in vitro to create an embryo and implant it in the surrogate's womb. I shouldn't have to spell it out, but the surrogate is a woman, as in a *real* woman.
    This is a solved problem for God's sake except for crazy people who want the rest of society to buy into their fantasy. It's mental illness.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:35PM (#593706)

      GASP!! You said "real woman"!! Someone will be triggered!

1 (2)