It won't be long now before the first transwoman receives the same...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46438396 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46438396)
But for those who engage the TERFs in battle... pay particular attention to: "The recipient had Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, which affects about one in every 4,500 women and results in the vagina and uterus (womb) failing to form properly."
By James Gallagher
Health and science correspondent, BBC News
Quote from: Alice (nym) on December 08, 2018, 05:07:48 AM
It won't be long now before the first transwoman receives the same...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46438396 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46438396)
But for those who engage the TERFs in battle... pay particular attention to: "The recipient had Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, which affects about one in every 4,500 women and results in the vagina and uterus (womb) failing to form properly."
I think it is a pretty long ways away for most trans women. One cannot forget that most of our biology is still that of a male. We neither have the proper pelvic cavity and skeleton arrangement, and we also have not the blood vessels in place to supply a womb with the blood needed.
Most of us need all kinds of surgery to get the outside appearance of a female, but our inside is as male as our outside, and to change the inside is way more complicated than changing the outside.
One shall not forget that the woman mentioned in this article was a cis woman with some genetic problems!
Some intersex women (MtF) have been found to have a womb and ovaries that are very tiny and shrunk. Those women have a better chance to undergo such a transplant and possibly grow a baby in it.
I am intersex, I do't know if I have small internal female organs, but even if I had them, my pelvic are seems to be more male than female, and I would not know how a baby could grow inside of me, just because of sheer space needed!
I've wondered the same about my self. Things are smaller than they should be down stairs. Would be kinda cool if I did have really tiny female parts hidden inside.
I am waiting for ovaries to be a possibility. Our hormones would be more naturally regulated if own body made and controlled their production.
Lisa
Quote from: Aceofblackdiamonds on December 08, 2018, 08:17:49 PM
I've wondered the same about my self. Things are smaller than they should be down stairs. Would be kinda cool if I did have really tiny female parts hidden inside.
I am waiting for ovaries to be a possibility. Our hormones would be more naturally regulated if own body made and controlled their production.
Lisa
The chances that you have tiny girls stuff down inside you are there, for the case that you are an intersex person. Which means, the connecting "lines" should be in place, too. But is you need a transplant, you still would have to take anti rejection drugs for the rest of your life.
You would exchange one drug for another!
It's possible.
The way around the anti rejection medications would be for the parts to be designed from our own biological materials. Sadly I think this technology is years off.
It would be nice to be able to give birth to my own child. However, Without the correct vessels and nerves I don't think we could actually feel any of the pregnancy. That just bothers me in more ways than one. I want to feel all of it. Including the pains of giving birth. Too bad we can't have our pelvic areas made wider and the missing pieces added and linked up. How would the brain reprogram I wonder?
Lisa
Quote from: Aceofblackdiamonds on December 08, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
It's possible.
The way around the anti rejection medications would be for the parts to be designed from our own biological materials. Sadly I think this technology is years off.
It would be nice to be able to give birth to my own child. However, Without the correct vessels and nerves I don't think we could actually feel any of the pregnancy. That just bothers me in more ways than one. I want to feel all of it. Including the pains of giving birth. Too bad we can't have our pelvic areas made wider and the missing pieces added and linked up. How would the brain reprogram I wonder?
Lisa
I think the brain is the least of the problems, it can learn pretty fast, and is very flexible. Once it gets the inputs, it will learn fast what to do with them. The input lines would be there is you would have either of the tiny female organs embedded inside you. I see the biggest problem with the skeleton structure of the pelvic area in males.
It might work with kids who get estrogen and testosterone blockers before puberty hits. The kids might develop a ore feminin pelvic area. Some intersex persons may have enough room there, too. But I am for sure not one of them!
Alice, interesting atricle, but using this news item to combat the TERF viewpoint is a double edged sword.
Plenty of cis women never give birth and are still 100% woman. Why should it matter whether I give birth or not?
Even if in the future a trans woman gives birth, it will not make a TERF look any more favourably on the average trans woman like myself, who will never have such an experience.
I don't want to validate their narrow point of view that being a woman is about biology and specific experiences that result from that biology.
~Dee
I doubt that this will have any impact on the trans-exclusionary arguments that try to reduce being a woman to biological essentialism. Such definitions are doomed to fail.
My anatomy is typical of a woman post-hysterectomy with cervical closure. My blood chemistry is that of a post-menopausal woman on long term hormone replacement therapy.
Attempts to define a woman in terms of a walking uterus are actually rather degrading in my humble opinion. The whole biological essentialism thing is absurd.
I've heard enough of these arguments to know how incorrect and very hurtful they can be to women born with vaginal agenesis, uterine agenesis, other uterine disorders, genetic or epigenetic issues, prenatal chemical or drug exposure damage (DES and other hormone disrupters!), and related issues that result in chronic amenorrhea, sterility, and related issues.
A woman is still a woman in spite of these issues.
A woman unable to give birth is still a woman.
A woman who has had a complete hysterectomy with cervical closure is still a woman.
A woman unable to nurse an infant is still a woman.
What make one a woman is not the presence or absence of certain genetalia at birth, or the presence or absence of specific physical details.
Gender identity is set in the brain, before birth, very likely in the growth of a variety of neurological structures we know correlate strongly with the sense of gender identity in men or women. The trans-exclusionary definitions of a woman will continue until this is accepted.
Sorry if this bursts anyone's bubble:
Selection criteria for the UK research programme operations
Patients should be aged between 24 and 38 years old (or 40 if eggs were frozen before 38)
Patients must be eligible for NHS care.
No significant medical problems.
BMI <30kg/m2.
Able to live in the UK as a resident for as long the grafted uterus is in-situ post operatively.
Has a long-term partner.
Has own ovaries and eggs (i.e no donor eggs).
Fluent in the English language.
Women who cannot join the programme at the current time include those who:
Have previously had children.
Had previous major abdominal or pelvic surgery.
Had previous severe endometriosis.
Had cancer less than five years previously.
Had a history of psychiatric illness involving hospital admission.
Require donor eggs or sperm.
Have insufficient embryo quality or quantity, <10 satisfactory embryos.
Do not qualify for NHS care.
http://wombtransplantuk.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-uterine-transplantation
Ah don't get me wrong... I do NOT agree with the TERF arguments. But being able to say that you can have a uterus and a womb through transplant will make it much more difficult for them to argue their misinformed case.
I dont think that matters to the TERF argument does it, in much the same way as growing breasts and having SRS does not affect their argument. As I understand their general propositions (which, in fairness, do tend to shift with the wind and often be internally inconsistent and also inconsistent with central tenets of feminism) they say that:
1. One cannot be a woman unless one is born female. Being able to have a transplanted uterus will not affect that. the argument is that gender is immutable and therefore all manner of theoretical treatments would not affect that in their minds. Even if full chromosome change was possible it would not affect the argument as one would still be born male (I look at this solely from male to female in this case);
2. One cannot be a woman unless one has grown up and thus experienced socialisation as a female. There is some conflict here between second wave and fourth wave feminists in particular, but essentially most TERFs subscribe to a second wave feminism and consider that unless you have experiences all the issues and problems of growing up female (eg. unwanted male advances etc) you cannot truly understand what being a woman is all about.
The first is being challenged potentially by recent understandings in medicine which is that gender may be in the structural make up of the brain, rather than merely a condition of the mind. The second is challenged increasingly by child transitioners. Perhaps ironically as feminists, many TERFs rally against young transitioners by suggesting that many lesbians (and they do tend to focus here on female to male) are forced (either overtly and by reason of undue pressure) to transition, and they therefore seek to argue that the transgender movement is seeking to erase lesbianism, which resulted in the famous protests at London pride.
Far from ending the TERF argument this will surely cause their unpleasantness to increase. Look at it through the warped logic of the TERF mind, this would be seen as men, and the patriarchy, further impinging of women's place in society.
Its a lovely thought that they would be so easily turned, but it would take a lot more than that I fear.
My thoughts anyway
Em x
It seems as if some of the Transsexual Exclusionary Radical Feminists are very much thinking the same way as many in the mainstream - that your gender is always the same as your birth sex, period.
But maybe we will have more acceptance from most in society over time. At least, we can hope so. I do not know if this end result is in sight, but I do think the world needs more insight and acceptance of transsexualism.
Chrissy
Quote from: emma-f on December 24, 2018, 12:29:24 PM
1. One cannot be a woman unless one is born female. Being able to have a transplanted uterus will not affect that. the argument is that gender is immutable and therefore all manner of theoretical treatments would not affect that in their minds. Even if full chromosome change was possible it would not affect the argument as one would still be born male
Em x
I just had a friendly discussion with a TERF about this the other day. She was the opinion as stated above. After awhile I asked her, what I would be, born intersex, with the female part definitely dominating, but AMAB. She started to think, one almost could hear the wheels in her head spinning, and than she said, she would not know. All the TERF theories never considered intersex people who become women.
This means, not only do I not exist for the Trump administration (because they know only XX and XY persons), but I am also close to thin air for the TERF's, a non existing being. I always knew hat the aliens forgot me when thy flew ET home!
Quote from: Alice (nym) on December 24, 2018, 10:38:01 AM
Ah don't get me wrong... I do NOT agree with the TERF arguments. But being able to say that you can have a uterus and a womb through transplant will make it much more difficult for them to argue their misinformed case.
The possibility of uterus transplants in future will be good news to trans women who wish to give birth. I do not believe it will have any impact at all on trans-exclusionary feminists.
The essence of the TERF ideology is that there is nothing gendered about the brain. They believe that there are not male brains or female brains; rather, that all brains are the same.
We, of course, and modern gender biology in general, know otherwise. There are male brains and female brains. A trans woman is someone with a female brain and male genitals.
TERFs cannot accept this because it invalidates their ideology. Evidence means nothing to an ideologue. The difference between science and ideology is that science decides which conclusions to accept based on evidence. Ideology decides which evidence to accept based on conclusions. So, they can never accept evidence that invalidates their position.
Quote from: KathyLauren on December 24, 2018, 02:04:30 PM
The possibility of uterus transplants in future will be good news to trans women who wish to give birth. I do not believe it will have any impact at all on trans-exclusionary feminists.
The essence of the TERF ideology is that there is nothing gendered about the brain. They believe that there are not male brains or female brains; rather, that all brains are the same.
We, of course, and modern gender biology in general, know otherwise. There are male brains and female brains. A trans woman is someone with a female brain and male genitals.
TERFs cannot accept this because it invalidates their ideology. Evidence means nothing to an ideologue. The difference between science and ideology is that science decides which conclusions to accept based on evidence. Ideology decides which evidence to accept based on conclusions. So, they can never accept evidence that invalidates their position.
Yes, they seem to have confirmation bias.
Chrissy
Quote from: Dietlind on December 24, 2018, 02:01:53 PM
I just had a friendly discussion with a TERF about this the other day. She was the opinion as stated above. After awhile I asked her, what I would be, born intersex, with the female part definitely dominating, but AMAB. She started to think, one almost could hear the wheels in her head spinning, and than she said, she would not know. All the TERF theories never considered intersex people who become women.
This means, not only do I not exist for the Trump administration (because they know only XX and XY persons), but I am also close to thin air for the TERF's, a non existing being. I always knew hat the aliens forgot me when thy flew ET home!
Exactly - its a very odd ideology because it ignores all available evidence and any person who actually breaks what they consider the immutable binary nature of gender. If you really want to see the cogs turn - on the second issue, that of the important of female experience and female upbringing, together with the female/male brain issue, raise the issue of David Reimer. Although a tragic case the TERF ideology cannot explain it at all, and the mental gymnastics that they undergo is really a sight to behold!
Quote from: Alice (nym) on December 24, 2018, 10:38:01 AM
Ah don't get me wrong... I do NOT agree with the TERF arguments. But being able to say that you can have a uterus and a womb through transplant will make it much more difficult for them to argue their misinformed case.
Quite the opposite, I daresay the anti trans interpretation would be exercise of male privilege to deny the transplant to a cis woman.
I'm not saying either point is correct, just there's an easy counter argument to your suggestion.
I have never been in favor of TERF, too many injuries. I prefer natural grass. Sorry if I repeated what someone else said, but I didn't read the thread. :P
Regarding these trans-denying arguments that Emma cites and I often hear:
Quote from: emma-f on December 24, 2018, 12:29:24 PM
1. One cannot be a woman unless one is born female. Being able to have a transplanted uterus will not affect that. the argument is that gender is immutable and therefore all manner of theoretical treatments would not affect that in their minds. Even if full chromosome change was possible it would not affect the argument as one would still be born male (I look at this solely from male to female in this case);
This argument of biological essentialism should disturb any feminist. It is just the flip side of the patriarchal argument that women are fundamentally so different from men that exclusion from traditional male occupations or roles is justified on a biological basis. That is, if biology can be used to mandate womyn-born-women affinities and roles, then it also validates men-born-men roles.
This is built on the argument that gender does not exist other than as a depoliticized substitute for the concept of sexism, which flies in the face of scientific research showing a neurological basis for gender identity within each individual. (See
Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of "Gender", 2013, published as an open letter; see also Biological Origins of Gender Identity - A Survey (https://rftbk.github.io/files/trans/2014%20Saraswat%20et%20al:%20Biological%20Gender%20ID.pdf), 2014)
Quote
2. One cannot be a woman unless one has grown up and thus experienced socialisation as a female. There is some conflict here between second wave and fourth wave feminists in particular, but essentially most TERFs subscribe to a second wave feminism and consider that unless you have experiences all the issues and problems of growing up female (eg. unwanted male advances etc) you cannot truly understand what being a woman is all about.
This fails one the face of it. Does a woman raised in a wealthy Manhattan family with an education through postgraduate law school, for example, really have more socialization background in common with a girl raised in a rural village in Sierra Leone, without access to water, electricity, education and healthcare, than with a socially outcast person assigned male at birth but raised in a similar background to her own?
The experience of being raised female or male varies wildly across place, time, and family social position. The normative male experience may differ significantly from the normative female experience for a given place, time, and social position, certainly, but the individual experience may vary wildly.
There are, after all, males who have the experience of unwanted sexual advances, and even sexual assault. There are males who are socially outcast, and treated as 'other' by more stereotypical males. I would contend that there may be such significant overlap in social experience that some Assigned Male At Birth individuals may have had an overall socialization closer to the normative feminine experience than some Assigned Female At Birth individuals. That is, the experiences may look more like overlapping Gaussian curves than the two distinctive binary non overlapping experiences that gender critical feminism assumes.
Quote from: Michelle_P on December 25, 2018, 04:02:00 PM
Regarding these trans-denying arguments that Emma cites and I often hear:This argument of biological essentialism should disturb any feminist. It is just the flip side of the patriarchal argument that women are fundamentally so different from men that exclusion from traditional male occupations or roles is justified on a biological basis. That is, if biology can be used to mandate womyn-born-women affinities and roles, then it also validates men-born-men roles.
This is built on the argument that gender does not exist other than as a depoliticized substitute for the concept of sexism, which flies in the face of scientific research showing a neurological basis for gender identity within each individual. (See Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of "Gender", 2013, published as an open letter; see also Biological Origins of Gender Identity - A Survey (https://rftbk.github.io/files/trans/2014%20Saraswat%20et%20al:%20Biological%20Gender%20ID.pdf), 2014)
This fails one the face of it. Does a woman raised in a wealthy Manhattan family with an education through postgraduate law school, for example, really have more socialization background in common with a girl raised in a rural village in Sierra Leone, without access to water, electricity, education and healthcare, than with a socially outcast person assigned male at birth but raised in a similar background to her own?
The experience of being raised female or male varies wildly across place, time, and family social position. The normative male experience may differ significantly from the normative female experience for a given place, time, and social position, certainly, but the individual experience may vary wildly.
There are, after all, males who have the experience of unwanted sexual advances, and even sexual assault. There are males who are socially outcast, and treated as 'other' by more stereotypical males. I would contend that there may be such significant overlap in social experience that some Assigned Male At Birth individuals may have had an overall socialization closer to the normative feminine experience than some Assigned Female At Birth individuals. That is, the experiences may look more like overlapping Gaussian curves than the two distinctive binary non overlapping experiences that gender critical feminism assumes.
Exactly Michelle. The problem is with TERFs that no logic, or contrary evidence, appears to do anything but entrench their position, or at least move it sidewards. It is frankly disturbing how some very intelligent women pushing the TERF agenda, including women with a science background, ignore all of their teachings and training when it comes to this issue. It is something of a shame that Germaine Greer, who undoubtedly did great things as a second wave feminist, is undoing much of her great work by undermining many of her other arguments, such as biological essentialism, with her anti trans stance. It always seems odd to me that they suggest that they are both feminists and on the liberal left.
I was recently reading about some communities in the East, Mosuo in China I think was one of them, where there is, at the least, a gender-equal rather than patriarchal society, and it seems to me to be nonsensical that the females in that community could not be considered women as they had not grown up in a patriarchal society.
Thankfully, whilst TERFs are a loud voice, they are small in number, and greatly outnumbered by fourth wave feminists.