Implant ovaries, Fallopian tube and uterus for transgender woman

[babykittenful]

We haven't ceased to evolve because we are perfect.

We have ceased to evolved because people who should normally die survive because of our medical system. When misadapted people don't die and reproduce, the process of evolution is simply stalled. It doesn't mean that we are now Perfect.

[soulfairer]

Do you know how many bio women lack some of these parts? Of course this is medically necessary. And what starts with bio women could be followed by by trans women.

Not only this. Could new ovaries and uterus trigger generation of hormones? That's... No more HRT? Cramps and menses, okay, I'd cope with them if it was possible. Maybe then I can think of transitioning

[soulfairer]

This morning, I was listening radio that nowadays, every candidate of mother could choice what would be the gender of her baby.  The doctor could make what the candidate of mother's wanted.
Is this some kind new hope or something or maybe has related to be possible to implant ovaries, uterus by changing the DNA? 
Be a real female and become a mother ( like any bio woman else) is my big dreaming as TG woman, don't you feel the same ladies?

Probably he chooses the "right" karyotype when fertilizing. I don't think he manipulates the DNA after the fertilization, as it's then uncontrollable (then, there's the option of bombarding the fetus with estrogen or testosterone, maybe estrone and progesterone, but it would likely make the baby need to choose his/her path as many of us)

[soulfairer]

To those who wish to have some ovaries cultivated from their DNA... I don't think that stuff is in our script. Male DNA is not meant to create functional female organs. And if we modify the DNA to create it... well, it's no longer ours, so our body won't recognize it anyway. Human body is very complex, and so is pregnancy.

An issue I also haven't seen on the tread is how our brain will interfere with it. Basically, the management of our reproductive system is done by the hypothalamus (a part of our brain), which then releases hormones so that the pituitary gland produces the hormones that are going to stimulate the testicles or the ovaries to do their job. However, considering how males and females are meant to function under very different hormone levels, I'm pretty sure that the hypothalamus is wired to react to male hormone levels. What this means is that even if you manage to get a fully compatible and functioning ovary, you're brain will have no idea of how to make it work! And that part means that unless you want to have a new brain part transplanted, your body will never be able to handle by itself such a delicate process as pregnancy. If we were to make this happen, we would have to manually control the levels of every hormones to a point that there wouldn't be much about it that would be "natural".

Hi! That stuff is somewhere in our script. As there are documented cases of true gonadal intersex (people 46, XY with both ovaries and testes) and cases of perfect external female genitalia, it may be possible to create "a woman from a man". Entirely, probably without changing much of the DNA, if any. The Y chromosome has no vital genes. People who are born XX and form male bodies usually carry the SRY gene (related to "maleness").

[Jacelyn]

We have ceased to evolved because people who should normally die survive because of our medical system

The simple fact of survival does not equate perfect condition, quality of life and its duration have to be considered. We are not perfect yet, but the time will come when both quality of life and its duration can be mastered by the human will, at least at that time, we can say we have reached the end of our evolution, as there is nothing more needed to evolve in order to improve.

The point here is that evolution do come to an end, as there will reach a stage where the given species have no choice between survival and advancement (leaping over from stage of evolution). Without having evolved a mind in the first place, the option of advancement would not even exist, and distinction of the species is the only option of nature.

[milktea]

great discussion. the point i was trying to make is that evolution favours those who reproduces and ensure their children survive till they themselves reproduce. humans who fit this criteria are those who (1) have a big urge to want children; and (2) take care of their children. over time this want-children-and-care-for-them gene becomes dominant in the human gene pool.

so no matter how selfless and wonderful parenthood love is, the reason why human feel this way and behave this way (and society tries to make everyone this way) is just bio clockwork built into your genes.

but some of us (like me) lack this clockwork, so i don't derive joy from parenthood. and i don't want to promote my genes either...in fact i want my genes to be the only occurrence ever.

reminds me of the ever unresolved mystery -- why does evolution select against immortality?

[babykittenful]

The simple fact of survival does not equate perfect condition, quality of life and its duration have to be considered. We are not perfect yet, but the time will come when both quality of life and its duration can be mastered by the human will, at least at that time, we can say we have reached the end of our evolution, as there is nothing more needed to evolve in order to improve.

The point here is that evolution do come to an end, as there will reach a stage where the given species have no choice between survival and advancement (leaping over from stage of evolution). Without having evolved a mind in the first place, the option of advancement would not even exist, and distinction of the species is the only option of nature.

Perfection is a pretty relative things. What would be perfection for you? To have all of the 10 billions of human beings that we are to be perfectly happy and prosperous? Immortality? Lots of money for everyone?

Its totally illusory  to believe that such a thing as "perfection" can even be achieved when it's not even possible to know what it would actually imply. Civilization doesn't work toward "perfection", it works trough individuals who try to satisfy their own personal needs. I agree that many of them actually want to help out others, but there is no common goal that unite the whole humanity, and to presume that there would ever be, considering the amazing diversity of opinions that we can find in the world is nothing less then delusional.

There will always be suffering and misunderstandings. The only thing we can hope for is that at least, we won't lose the hope to make it better, because even just the hope is a ray of sunshine that all humanity needs. This is one reason (see below for others) why I think immortality would be a disaster for humanity. Because we need the young to bring fresh views and new hopes to the world. Without them, it withers in pervasive cynicism of old ideas. Just look at how young "revolutionizers" like Fidel Castro became old farts who dictate their "ideals" without realizing that the world is still evolving.

Evolution doesn't have a goal, it is just how the species adapt to what the world is trowing at them. Same goes with human civilization, it evolves simply by taking in what happens to the world and by trying to adapt. When it doesn't succeed in doing so, it collapses.

reminds me of the ever unresolved mystery -- why does evolution select against immortality?

Overpopulation. Cancer tumors are cells of our body who want their shot at immortality. We know what that leads to. Death is the only way to keep life possible. Without it, we cannot eat (we feed on living organisms), plants can't get their nutrients (which are mostly obtained from the organic matter of other living beings) and the energy cannot be renewed. Without death, we all die.

[Jacelyn]

Perfection is a pretty relative things. What would be perfection for you?

By perfection I refer to the biological body. Our greatest obstacles to well-being and happiness are diseases and aging, if these cures are found, then perfection of the biological body can be achieved. Our impetus for biological change (not by evolution's impetus) is for bodily perfection. Thus I said imperfection is impetus for change (or "evolution" as mental impetus is equally biological in the sense the the mind is evolved biologically).

Civilization doesn't work toward "perfection"

Civilization is equally subject to various interpretation, as long as there is evidence of crime, or motive of war, be it individual level or national level, we are not civilized. An ideal civilization does work toward "perfection" for its communities. We are not there yet, but it is an optimistic goal that we can do it, at least if we can start to think like that ourselves, that will goes a long way than if we are leading the wrong example ourselves.

I think immortality would be a disaster for humanity. Because we need the young to bring fresh views and new hopes to the world. Without them, it withers in pervasive cynicism of old ideas.

If we don't grow old, we will not show signs of mental decline to need someone to replace us.

The term "immortality" shouldn't be use when speaking of perfection of the human organism, it should be "agelessness" instead, as immortality is not possible with biological stuff we are made of.

Evolution doesn't have a goal, it is just how the species adapt to what the world is trowing at them. Same goes with human civilization, it evolves simply by taking in what happens to the world and by trying to adapt. When it doesn't succeed in doing so, it collapses.

Just as engineering is about manipulating environment to adapt to conceptual design, thus the difference to some is the ability to manipulating biological stuff rather than adapting to its nature process.

Overpopulation. Cancer tumors are cells of our body who want their shot at immortality. We know what that leads to. Death is the only way to keep life possible. Without it, we cannot eat (we feed on living organisms), plants can't get their nutrients (which are mostly obtained from the organic matter of other living beings) and the energy cannot be renewed. Without death, we all die.

Mechanism in each species varied greatly, species like carol reef basically does not age, this show there is much room for scientist to explore, to find the cure for aging. Evolution is not a mechanism nor a universal truth, it is a process which are dependent on causes and conditions, and each one of these can be pin-pointed with precision, manipulated and control.

[babykittenful]

Here by perfection I refer to the biological body only. Our greatest obstacles to well-being and happiness are diseases and aging, if these cures are found, then perfection of the biological body can be achieved. Our impetus for biological change (not by evolution's impetus) is for bodily perfection. Thus I said imperfection is impetus for change (or "evolution" as mental impetus is equally biological in the sense the the mind is evolved biologically).

Our greatest obstacles to well-being and happiness aren't diseases and aging, as you will find that the happiest person on this planet don't care about both of these. True happiness comes from the realization of what you actually have and is something which is very personal to every single person. There are loads of people who are young and healthy, but yet feel incredibly unhappy and depressive. How would you explain to those people that living their >-bleeped-<ty lives forever are guaranteed to make them "perfectly" happy and well?

Civilization is equally subject to various interpretation, as long as there is evidence of crime, or motive of war, be it individual level or national level, we are not civilized. An ideal civilization does work toward "perfection" for its communities. We are not there yet, but it is an optimistic goal that we can do it, at least if we can start to think like that ourselves, that will goes a long way than if we are leading the wrong example ourselves.

Unless you find a way to tune the brain of every single person on this planet so that they don't feel any greed or desire for power, you will always have people who will rise to bring war and fear. Don't get me wrong, I really believe that we have some power into making things better. We can chose to help each other and try to make life easier for everyone. But I also believe that there will always be people who will choose not to. There is no such thing as "ideal" world. Wherever you are, there are going to be people who will be unhappy about the system and will seek to change it. The world is in constant motion, it is not still. Ideas collide all the time and sometimes this raise war and sorrow. I don't want to see wars, but I know are part of what being humans means. The goal is not perfection, the goal is balance. The world isn't organized, it just is. An ideal civilization is a civilization that can adapt to whatever happens to allow it to survive, but inside the civilization, there will be individuals who will rise and fall.

The term "immortality" shouldn't be use when speaking of perfection of the human organism, it should be "agelessness" instead, as immortality is not possible with biological stuff we are made of.

You can have a young body and still be an old fart. Do you really think all those left people who turn to the right when they grow older do so because of dementia? Experience in life is as poisonous as a lack thereof. When you grow older, you get encrusted into old ideas and patterns. Unless there are some younger people to get new ideas on the shelve, the collective mind becomes progressively more and more conservative, leading to a lack of adaptability which can only prove fatal to a civilization when the world is changing.

Just as engineering is about manipulating environment to adapt to conceptual design, thus the difference to some is the ability to manipulating biological stuff rather than adapting to its nature process.

If you've ever met anyone who does engineering, you'll see that reality is always very far from what you'll see on paper. Try to think about the ideal bridge. Chances are hight that you will think about a bridge that, once built, will stay there indefinitely and that can be so strong it doesn't need any work done on it. Now, think of that bridge in terms of real life. Is there any material that can withstand everything? A stream can dig a hole trough a mountain if you give it enough time, and to my knowledge, there is no material that can withstand everything. But let's say we do find that material, will that bridge be the perfect bridge we want it to be? What if the river stops flowing under, what do you do then with an indestructible bridge? Or what if, after using it for decades, you realize that it was too small, or too big. When you built it, it really was perfectly suited to its job, but now that the world around it has changed, the bridge is no longer as "perfect" as it was.

The same goes with a civilization. Even if, somehow, you manage to create a civilization that can perfectly accommodate every single of its inhabitants, when the world around the civilization change, so will the civilization have to. And even if you create a biological being that is perfectly suited to its environment (and evolution has already created an incredible amount of highly specialized beings), those biological beings would still have to change if the environment was to, or else they'd simply vanish.  There is no such thing as perfect, there is just "stuff that works for now". And if the "work for now" is enough for you to call perfect, then life as it is now is just as perfect as it can be.

In theory it is possible to shift position, thus achieved the solution we sought. The key here is the knowledge of the existence of agelessness of some cells, which in theory give the possibility to achieve agelessness in human genes.

I gave that example of cancer to illustrate how death is a process that is absolutely essential to the well being of the organism as a whole. The same goes for the ecosystem we live in. If some organisms were to "cheat" death and start living forever, this would quickly lead to a change in the balance that could very well kill the ecosystem along with the "agelessness" organisms. Unless of course your perfect organism doesn't have any bodily need like breathing, keeping a constant body temperature, feeding, having access to medicines, base materials...

I agreed that our food source are biological based, and that the evolution of some plant/animal necessitate living and dying process. But being the top of the food chain, we are entitled to feed on them without ourselves [being necessary forced to] become subject to the chain of evolution (of living and dying).  It would be illogical that on one side we are master of food chain, on the other side, we are slave to chain of evolution (of living and dying). For the time being, we have no choice as we have not attain the stage of mastery over evolution (of living and dying), but it doesn't mean this is what we supposed to be.

Being on top of all of this means that we are utterly dependent on it. So the perfect beings that we are will still be vulnerable if the ecosystem that supports all of it were to collapse.

[Jacelyn]

There are loads of people who are young and healthy, but yet feel incredibly unhappy and depressive.

Agreed when speaking of happiness from the point of view of the less mentally cultured. The point is really not about the mental state of happiness, especially not from an unsound mental level. When speaking of happiness from the view of a sound mind (as I did here), one which does not have any issue which are not already within its grasp (with the help of present science), except the disease and aging issues, these if overcome would certainly leave a great mark on the history of human evolution, and for a healthy individual with a sound mental perspective, it will inspired hope (knowing the possibilities that is available to him / her when age is no longer a barrier, one's phase of life need no longer be in a rush, there is room for waiting, for contemplation, without being perceived as the cost of one's precious life) and contentment (an inner calm that arise due to knowing that he / she needs no worry that disease and aging should robe away her beauty and youth, and there can the assurance that effort in self-improvement would not go wasted, unlike when aging and death can take this accumulation to vain). These are very positive outcome and boost the living enthusiasm of society as a whole, as people will not be so self-destructive (which can be harmful to others), when one's biological body is of perfection (life is no longer fragile because of it), this in turn reinforce the mind not to degenerate itself with views that only serve existence for no more than a few decades. As a result, tendencies for suicide, and/ or suicide-based terror will likely be ceased.

The goal is not perfection, the goal is balance. The world isn't organized, it just is. An ideal civilization is a civilization that can adapt to whatever happens to allow it to survive, but inside the civilization, there will be individuals who will rise and fall.

Perfection starts with the individual, balance is the outcome of the masses. The point is there must be a shift toward perfection as against imperfection, the generation of goodness as against the degeneration of goodness. All these must start in individual level to reach collective mass of accumulation. Survival of the collective mass species start with individual knowledge of harmony based on causality, so that the species know the importance of action and its consequence, so as to be restrained in doing things that could harm other, which indirectly bring negative consequence to him / her. On the contrary, the species understand happiness to oneself is due to seeing other happiness, or by causing happiness in others, one received the same as a positive consequence.

The point is when there is perfection of the body (as against the body as a time-bomb of self-destruction), that fact communicates a message to the individual the need to cherish life, and that happiness is a positive thing to be sought, and that all the negative emotion such as hatred which are cause of harmful motive, are counter-productive to one's happiness.

When you grow older, you get encrusted into old ideas and patterns.

To one who is all the time driven by his own thought pattern yes. Not a fact to one who sees the face of mind, who actually stay outside of thought, and unconditioned by thought. Thus is all the time abiding in the state of intuition and creativity itself. Old age is no hindrance to such a one, and with a cure to an aging mind, all this (cure) is mere added luxury (a good thing to have but not a necessity in a mental sense).

And even if you create a biological being that is perfectly suited to its environment (and evolution has already created an incredible amount of highly specialized beings), those biological beings would still have to change if the environment was to, or else they'd simply vanish.  There is no such thing as perfect, there is just "stuff that works for now". And if the "work for now" is enough for you to call perfect, then life as it is now is just as perfect as it can be.

Yes, that's why I would not equate immortality to agelessness, the former is a status of indestructibility even against the decomposition of the elements (the atoms) due to situations such as impact with external elements, the destruction of the environment and so on , that is purely unachievable with a biological body composed of atoms.

Engineering is not about absolute perfection (except for gradual refinement to close to perfection) of the conceptual-design, it is about attaining functionality of the conceptual-design, in this case, refer to using the imperfect biological body as a basis to work to achieve its "ideal functionalities" in the sense of being resistance to aging.

[kate durcal]

I know of at least two companies in the USA, and 6 abroad who will be marketing in vitro grown organs ad tissues within the next 5 years. They grown the tissues or organs from somatic stems cells that have been genitally engineered with zinc-finger technology. Yes ladies, if you have the monies you will be able to have your own (vagina, uterus, falpian tubes, and ovaries) made from your own cells. Yaya!

As for evolution, the data shows are not only evolving but we are evolving faster than we anticipated.

Love,

Dr Kate

[Kaelleria]

I'm super skeptical about things like that Kate... Stuff takes a long, long time to get approved. I don't see a procedure like that being approved anytime soon considering those parts have never been grown before.

[kate durcal]

I'm super skeptical about things like that Kate... Stuff takes a long, long time to get approved. I don't see a procedure like that being approved anytime soon considering those parts have never been grown before.

Two in vitro grown vaginas have been implanted in cis-females; one in Egypt and the other in Italy. The cutting-edge of biomedical research is fast leaving the good ol USA. That is to my displacesure and angst; but we are beeing overtaken by the the christians inquisitors

[Kaelleria]

Any chance you can link me some of that information? I'd love to read up a bit more on it.

[Smith]

Hi girl's, although this is old thread, but I've just found a new article, this article can prove that, the technology to make our dream come true is exist now.
Stem-Cell is the solution for MtF will become 100% woman, I love this so much, and I couldn't imagine how much the price to make reality....hihihi 
But this is really make me happy, it means a hope, we can pregnant (great, I love this so much), no more hormone regimen, etc. 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_mtf_transsexual_get_pregnant

What do you think Girl's ?

[Steffi]

If all the womb/ovary problems were sorted and an MTF were to get pregnant then the size and structure of the pelvis would be a problem.  Womens bodies have room to carry the distended uterus and a large enough pelvic arch to give birth.

[A]

SOME of us would probably be okay. The others can give birth through Caesarian section, which isn't uncommon in other women.

As for just carrying the baby, hmm... Don't know, but I doubt that'll be such a big problem...

[0451]

The article you are referring to refers to the creation of a vaginal vestibule using existing vaginal mucosal tissue.  Many sufferers of MRKH syndrome still possess mucosal dimples where their vagina should normally be.  As such, a biopsy can be performed to retrieve said tissue, which then can be cultured and used to create a lining for a neovagina.

This is a long way from creating an entire vagina/vulva from scratch using stem cells.  The most promising new SRS method IMHO uses a similar technique using buccal mucosa (mouth cells), which are very similar to vaginal mucosa as opposed to existing vaginal mucosa in the MRKH case, but is similar.  This has only been done a few times with MRKH sufferers, and is not available from any surgeon for trans women.  The Bangkok Gender Clinic did experiment with using buccal transplants in MTF patients, but no longer are doing this I don't think.

[Smith]

here is really good information, quite detail:
http://www.secondtype.info/pregnant.htm

[~RoadToTrista~]

Hasn't a transwoman already given birth with a donor uterus? Just curious because this thread is old and at the begining it says it's never been done before.