• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men with Working Uterus Transplants within Five Years?

Riveroaks said:
In France, "imbecile" is what a woman calls a man whenever they cannot agree on a price.
Click to expand...

Voila!

Here in America it's just a fancy way of saying some people are beneath you.

I probably shouldn't have used it considering this forums DBAJ rules, but i'm incredibly frustrated with the American culture of in order to make mself feel superior I must tear other people down.

But we are really going from the topic of the original post. Let's get back to that out of respect for the original poster, shall we?

oh, and just because you mentioned Fronce, oui oui.
 
AGENT J said:
As for a need for laws to be created in the manner you suggest? no need nor would it ever pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

No need, really?

As I've already explained, an individual has every right to do whatever they wish with themselves and their own property....as long as they do not harm others or the property of others by doing so.

You have a right to change your body if the option is available. However, I have a RIGHT TO KNOW this before entering into a relationship with you. This is especially true if your "uterus" originally belonged to someone else, meaning "our" children would actually be the product of MY sperm and whoever provided the genetic material in the egg cell (which would not be YOU).

Why? Because otherwise you have deceived me into a sham marriage and false parenthood. I would only have gotten involved thinking you were a "true" female, that we could have children, and that such children would share OUR characteristics. Then I find we have produced a baby which looks like it was switched at birth? I should have the legal right to an annulment of the marriage and repudiation of the child, absolving me of ALL financial and parental obligations.

Why you would not think this would "fly constitutionally" is beyond me. While the First Amendment gives one the right to express themselves freely, everyone is still legally accountable for that expression.
 
Last edited:
Alyssa T. said:
No, a person can only be one at a time, a he or a she. There is some ivy school that came up with a gender neutral pronoun, but I don't remember what it is. It starts with a "z" I think. In Mandarin he/she/it is all spoken the same, "ta." The characters are different, and have the man, woman, or animal tail radicals to indicate he/she/it in written form. In spoken language, the context determines which it is, but the word is spoken the same way.
Click to expand...

He does not become a she...he becomes a eunuch with add-ons and pretty clothes.
 
Captain Adverse said:
1.) No need, really?
2.)As I've already explained, an individual has every right to do whatever they wish with themselves and their own property....as long as they do not harm others or the property of others by doing so.
3.) You have a right to change your body if the option is available.
4.) However, I have a RIGHT TO KNOW this before entering into a relationship with you.
5.) This is especially true if your "uterus" originally belonged to someone else, meaning "our" children would actually be the product of MY sperm and whoever provided the genetic material in the egg cell (which would not be YOU).
6.) Why? Because otherwise you have deceived me into a sham marriage and false parenthood.
7.) I would only have gotten involved thinking you were a "true" female
8.), that we could have children, and that such children would share OUR characteristics. Then I find we have produced a baby which looks like it was switched at birth?
9.) I should have the legal right to an annulment of the marriage and repudiation of the child, absolving me of ALL financial and parental obligations.

Why you would not think this would "fly constitutionally" is beyond me. While the First Amendment gives one the right to express themselves freely, everyone is still legally accountable for that expression.
Click to expand...

1.) yes no need for a "law"
2.) agreed
3.) agreed
4.) no you do not, there is no such right at all LMAO
5.) again this has not impact and there is no right. Disagree, name the right there is none
6.) it wouldnt be a sham marriage at all by law, it would be 100% legal but you would be free to get a divorce
7.) Thats your choice but its not a right. Many people would only get involved if thier mates had good credit, perfect health, no history of drug use, never cheated in ther past, only had sex with one or a couple people, were always a certain religion etc etc etc but again NOT a right
8.) this to is just somethign you "want" but its not a right and many children do not share obvious characteristics of thier parents right now. again not a right.
9.) again this is your OPINION and a divorce or annulment can already be done without additional laws.
10.) Its not what I think its just a fact. As you stated in your OP about the law you think that should be in place you have no right to force anybody to disclose thier past to you or thier medical history . . none . . zero . . ziltch:shrug: If thats beyond you that for you to work on.

Like I said divorces and annulments can already be achieved for many reason, not law is needed on this issue and one in the manner you stated would not pass constitutional muster.

I understand your "concern" and your personal subjective issues with the matter but they do not translate into rights.
 
Captain Adverse said:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html


IMO this is going too far. Now I know that this is something that a transgendered male-to-female would wish for, and I sympathize. I have no problem with an individual making such a choice for themselves.

However, as a male I prefer the companionship of a biologically "original" female. I don't want to be "fooled" by a transgendered male-to-female who is so dedicated to their life-choice that they would lie about their origins in order to be accepted by a heterosexual male.

So if this type of operation becomes a norm, I think that some sort of law requiring a transgendered individual declare their history before involving a potential life-partner in such a relationship. I think that is only reasonable because a transplanted uterus contains eggs from a female unknown to the male partner, and the children are clearly NOT going to look anything like the transgendered "mother."

If it were me I would be shocked and angry.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think its sad that some advances in (potentially) women's healthcare turn up and then immediately some people imagine how to apply it to males. ?? Something is seriously wrong with that MO.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No need, really?

As I've already explained, an individual has every right to do whatever they wish with themselves and their own property....as long as they do not harm others or the property of others by doing so.

You have a right to change your body if the option is available. However, I have a RIGHT TO KNOW this before entering into a relationship with you. This is especially true if your "uterus" originally belonged to someone else, meaning "our" children would actually be the product of MY sperm and whoever provided the genetic material in the egg cell (which would not be YOU).

Why? Because otherwise you have deceived me into a sham marriage and false parenthood. I would only have gotten involved thinking you were a "true" female, that we could have children, and that such children would share OUR characteristics. Then I find we have produced a baby which looks like it was switched at birth? I should have the legal right to an annulment of the marriage and repudiation of the child, absolving me of ALL financial and parental obligations.

Why you would not think this would "fly constitutionally" is beyond me. While the First Amendment gives one the right to express themselves freely, everyone is still legally accountable for that expression.
Click to expand...

Try telling that to people who live in HOAs.
 
Captain Adverse said:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html


IMO this is going too far. Now I know that this is something that a transgendered male-to-female would wish for, and I sympathize. I have no problem with an individual making such a choice for themselves.

However, as a male I prefer the companionship of a biologically "original" female. I don't want to be "fooled" by a transgendered male-to-female who is so dedicated to their life-choice that they would lie about their origins in order to be accepted by a heterosexual male.

So if this type of operation becomes a norm, I think that some sort of law requiring a transgendered individual declare their history before involving a potential life-partner in such a relationship. I think that is only reasonable because a transplanted uterus contains eggs from a female unknown to the male partner, and the children are clearly NOT going to look anything like the transgendered "mother."

If it were me I would be shocked and angry.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Soooo... We could conceivably have artificial uteri that exist outside of the body within a few decades as well, right?

That could have some rather interesting implications for the abortion debate.

Edit:

For the record, yeah. That's creepy.

A transgender M-t-F couldn't produce eggs, obviously. As such, they couldn't possibly produce a child that was biologically their own with a male partner in the conventional way.

They'd basically just be serving as an incubator for someone else's child.
 
Last edited:
Are these surgeries so advanced that a sexual partner would not know the difference? Not notice that there had been surgical restructuring?

I mean, how well are some people getting to know the people they have sex with? If men and women just have casual sex now, they must pay the legal and biological consequences, each having different options.

If you are seriously considering a long-term relationship...exactly how well do you know this person? How much emotion are you investing in someone before actually 'getting to know them"?
 
ludin said:
and the person they get the tissue from. that has to be donated or something.
I am not sure there are to many women that are going to donate uterus tissue for them procedure.

well they can't have a compete female experience. why? because they are not female.
Click to expand...

Organ donation? Same as their others organs if they sign up.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm not transgender, thus I don't care.
Click to expand...

Wow. A ****load of heterosexual people have been saying the exact opposite on behalf of gays these past couple of decades.....with visible results.
 
Lursa said:
Organ donation? Same as their others organs if they sign up.
Click to expand...

they can't grow a uterus out of nothing. they have to have live tissue sample to cultivate.
this isn't a problem for women wanting the procedure because they simply take it from that women.
grow the uterus and then transplant it back in. 0 rejection possible since it is their own cells.

last time I checked men don't have a uterus so they would have to get a donor.
which means anti-rejection drugs and a whole slew of other medical problems.

even so they still won't be a women.
 
ludin said:
they can't grow a uterus out of nothing. they have to have live tissue sample to cultivate.
this isn't a problem for women wanting the procedure because they simply take it from that women.
grow the uterus and then transplant it back in. 0 rejection possible since it is their own cells.

last time I checked men don't have a uterus so they would have to get a donor.
which means anti-rejection drugs and a whole slew of other medical problems.

even so they still won't be a women.
Click to expand...

I didnt say 'grow tissue.' People donate their organs after the die all the time. Women can certainly choose to donate their uteruses.

And you dont know much about the procedures for trans folks...they undergo tons of hormone, anti-rejection drugs, surgery, etc already.
 
Lursa said:
I didnt say 'grow tissue.' People donate their organs after the die all the time. Women can certainly choose to donate their uteruses.

And you dont know much about the procedures for trans folks...they undergo tons of hormone, anti-rejection drugs, surgery, etc already.
Click to expand...

They certainly can, but would there be some form of age limitation to uterus transplants? One of the reasons birth defects become more probable at later years is that a woman is born with all the eggs they'll ever have in their life. The body doesn't generate eggs. So those eggs are subjected to the environment and over time there can be decay/damage that occur.

So if one were going to have a working uterus, it would likely be because of reproduction, right? If reproduction wasn't necessary, then you could approximate the uterus for sexual activity, but there would be no necessity on it to "function". Hence, the younger the better, yeah? Obviously post-menopause is out, but what should the upper limit be then?
 
Ikari said:
They certainly can, but would there be some form of age limitation to uterus transplants? One of the reasons birth defects become more probable at later years is that a woman is born with all the eggs they'll ever have in their life. The body doesn't generate eggs. So those eggs are subjected to the environment and over time there can be decay/damage that occur.

So if one were going to have a working uterus, it would likely be because of reproduction, right? If reproduction wasn't necessary, then you could approximate the uterus for sexual activity, but there would be no necessity on it to "function". Hence, the younger the better, yeah? Obviously post-menopause is out, but what should the upper limit be then?
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone said they'd be reproductively functional. And they have to assess all organs as appropriate for transplant.

But it's probably possible that a fertilized egg or embryo could be implanted in a transplanted uterus and 'house' it thru growth.

Havent they done this already? There are men (not trans) that have had surgical alterations to gestate. I didnt pay alot of attention to the details personally.
 
Lursa said:
Wow. A ****load of heterosexual people have been saying the exact opposite on behalf of gays these past couple of decades.....with visible results.
Click to expand...
When you are not up front with the people you sleep with, that is nobody's problem but your own.

If a trans person is assaulted by someone whom they slept with with because the person that slept with them was unaware of their gender status, I agree that is wrong and should be prosecuted. But the dishonest person made the problem.

Trans woman aren't the same as women. They never will be to some folks. Thus honesty is the best policy.
 
CLAX1911 said:
When you are not up front with the people you sleep with, that is nobody's problem but your own.

If a trans person is assaulted by someone whom they slept with with because the person that slept with them was unaware of their gender status, I agree that is wrong and should be prosecuted. But the dishonest person made the problem.

Trans woman aren't the same as women. They never will be to some folks. Thus honesty is the best policy.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with that but that's not what I quoted or responded to.
 
OHO! AHA!

JIHAD on BOOKS!

SAVE THOSE INNOCENT TREES!

Trees have souls too you know.

And without trees we can't have oxygen.

Won't you think of the children?!!!?!?!?!!!?!


Sorry, just clowning around.
 
Trans* people are not out to trick you. Get over yourself.
 
Captain Adverse said:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html


IMO this is going too far. Now I know that this is something that a transgendered male-to-female would wish for, and I sympathize. I have no problem with an individual making such a choice for themselves.

However, as a male I prefer the companionship of a biologically "original" female. I don't want to be "fooled" by a transgendered male-to-female who is so dedicated to their life-choice that they would lie about their origins in order to be accepted by a heterosexual male.

So if this type of operation becomes a norm, I think that some sort of law requiring a transgendered individual declare their history before involving a potential life-partner in such a relationship. I think that is only reasonable because a transplanted uterus contains eggs from a female unknown to the male partner, and the children are clearly NOT going to look anything like the transgendered "mother."

If it were me I would be shocked and angry.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, whooptie do. What you'd prefer has nothing to do with whether people should have certain medical options.

You cannot mandate trans people be legally obligated to metaphorically put a star on their uniform to protect you from squicky feelings. Their medical history is their business. Other people's bigotry is not their problem -- and indeed, their safety is a serious concern.

We all take risks being close to people. There's every chance a bio woman could just cheat on you with a similar-enough looking guy, and usually you'll have no idea -- 10 to 20% of children are not the blood child of the man who believes they are. Life and love involve risk. Get used to it.

However, I really wish humanity would stop spending all its time inventing more ways to reproduce in a world where we are rapidly outstripping the world's ability to support us, and where millions of children sit abandoned in orphanages.

There's cancers to cure. There's blighted ecosystems to fix. There's children to feed. All these crazy Frankstein experiments, from IVF to how many places we can shove a womb, seem so misguided to me. IVF even carries the risk of hugely increased deformity rates for the child, and deadly cancers for the woman. Yet for some reason people would rather put their child at risk than adopt. Messing with reproduction is a delicate business, and I don't imagine this would be any safer. And I completely don't understand humanity's ignorant obsession with it.

But whether or not a trans person should be allowed to have a surgery, or whether they should be tagged like cattle, is nowhere near the top 100 of potential concerns.
 
Last edited:
This is so messed up on so many levels. I'm with the OP. I want a born woman and I would rather not be tricked by what is factually a man to the point where I find myself having a child with one. There has to come a point where medical professionals realize that their actions are going to affect more than the patient and having men present themselves as women to straight men is ethically wrong to take part in and even more ethically wrong to extend that to the point where they are literally having children. Straight men want women, and that means BORN women, and they would rather not stick their dick in an inverted dick and have children with another man. I'm sorry, but transgendered men that are gay(and yes I reject the claim they are straight) are not women and we have to stop treating them as such. Instead we should treat them like men and work through their issues without mutilating their bodies that could and often does lead to straight men being tricked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom