I've heard that you can make mad money by donating sperm.  Is that true?  I need money like crazy, but I live full-time as a woman and wouldn't give that up for the world.  How awkward would it be though being a woman trying to donate sperm?  What are those places like?  How would I even find one if I wanted to?

It won't be possible if your on hormones. Otherwise you can but you don't get much. It's certainly nothing compared to egg donations.

you can donate eggs?

for free? And you get money for it?

Quote from: Elijah on July 12, 2010, 02:37:52 PM
you can donate eggs?

for free? And you get money for it?

It depends on where you live in the US your allowed to sell your eggs and you can get ALOT of money for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/health/15cons.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1179374400&en=39b5461ce5272679&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

there are bull->-bleeped-<- laws against it in Canada and the UK where your only allowed to donate. Where your allowed to sell you can get as much as $4000-$8000 per cycle. It's painful and risky and you'd have to stop your T and take a cocktail of injections to trigger egg follicles to form.

It is bull->-bleeped-<- in countries where your not allowed "Oh we don't want women to be exploited." is the excuse for those laws Oh they care now about women begin exploited, But they don't give a crap when a woman has to bring up a kid on there own and work 3 jobs to support them, The call only arises when the market is increasing the demand and thus value of the eggs, It's clearly a very misogynistic law written by out of touch males.

If your Pre-T Elijah I would totally advise you to go for it.
If I had any Gametes I would totally take a holiday to the US and sell them.

that much money!?

and I am pre T i was gonna start soon, but my dr hasn't even been able to contact an endo... If im gonna wait a few more months for T, why not make tons of money while I'm at it

You have to take estrogen I think.

yea.. less worth it.. I was on birth control once... it made me feel terrible and mentally sick

(Un)luckily I'm not on hormones or any drugs at all yet and don't have any weird diseases or anything like that.  So I'm still wondering? lol

Quote from: Elijah on July 12, 2010, 02:51:07 PM
that much money!?

and I am pre T i was gonna start soon, but my dr hasn't even been able to contact an endo... If im gonna wait a few more months for T, why not make tons of money while I'm at it

No they don't as far as I'm aware they use GNRH and FSH injections.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/eggdonor/procedures.html

Quote from: Elijah on July 12, 2010, 02:51:07 PM
that much money!?

Back in the 80's there was some talk of experimenting to see if an MtF pregnancy could be accomplished using a pseudo womb surgically constructed from a small isolated section of intestine.

Back at the time I was a prospective candidate for the experiment (which paradoxically is what had the UK tabloid newspapers chasing me all around the houses and led indirectly to my meeting Alison). Back then I would have happily paid VAST amounts of money for some woman willing to donate an egg or two so that I could have tried it. Sadly it never happened, partly because of the lack of willing donors and partly because back then the legal climate was even more hostile to such research.

It should also be remembered, that these sperm and egg banks will tend to want fill details of you, your health, your backgrounds and so on.

People opting for this type of treatment tend be be fussy about who the biological parent is.

I also seem to recall, in the UK, that children born from these procedures, have a right to know who their biological parent is and even to contact them.

I may be wrong here.

Well ->-bleeped-<- isn't hereditary and if it was, it shouldn't matter whether their kids are TG.  That's the same as refusing sperm from gay donors.

Quote from: transnikki on July 13, 2010, 11:19:29 PM
Well ->-bleeped-<- isn't hereditary and if it was, it shouldn't matter whether their kids are TG.  That's the same as refusing sperm from gay donors.

No, it certainly isn't. I apologise if it appeared that I was suggesting it.

I was making the point that, companies who take in this sort of donated tissue will want to know your background. Serious illnesses, drug abuse, but also, any family history of genetic illness.

Quote from: transnikki on July 13, 2010, 11:19:29 PM
Well ->-bleeped-<- isn't hereditary

As far as anyone has yet managed to prove...

(apologies for a slight diversion here - but it is kind of relevant to the thread main topic as you will see)

Interestingly there are now studies in Australia which have linked it to a combination of certain minor gene faults on several different chromosomes in which case one would expect that it might be hereditable, even if not according to the simplest rules.

Thing is a condition determined by one gene or a group of genes on a single chromosome will show a simple one to one pattern of heredity. That is, you get the gene, you either get the condition or can pas it on.

Those conditions however that rely on multiple genes located on several different chromosomes will show a much more complex pattern, because if a child only gets part of the necessary combination the condition will nor activate, nor will any children or grand children be affected unless they unluckily inherit the missing components from another source.

The current thinking is that the condition might possibly be partly epigenetic anyway, which would explain why two identical twins could exist with the same genetic potential to become trans and yet only in one twin does the condition activate.

For years the low incidence of identical twins both of whom were trans was thought to rule out genetic causes.

All that changed with the birth of epigentics a few years ago, when it was realised that after your birth, environmental factors could artificially permanently activate and deactivate dormant genes, and indeed that some of these postnatal changes were indeed passed on to successive generations.

So in fact it is possible that there might be a small inherent risk. But like Transnikki I can't personally see that being trans is so terrible a thing to pass on. It the attitudes of society which can make it unpleasant. With luck as we become more visible that will change and so I wouldn't see being trans as a reason not to become a donor.

I can't see transgender as being heriditory simply because there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it.

We could propose that, many are transgender, and/or homosexual but avoid facing up to it for fear of social stigma. That, however, seems to be a large presumption.

I don't know anything about epigentics (yet), so I can't comment.

I did a paper in the early 70s looking at homosexuality. (I didn't include transgender at the time. That was what I was really thinking about but there was very little information on the subject and I just considerd myself as really weird. Perhaps, seeking to change to justify my homosexuality).

I discovered examples of homosexuality going back to the earliest points of history. I looked, as far as I could, at the nature of feral societies and conjectued the sort of lifestyle they probably lived. Nothing can be proven, of course, but working on the principal that a feral society would seek to the easiest way to survive in a hostile, wandering environment, I believe my conjecture was probably near reality.

There seems to be a place for homosexual people. I say this because the males and the females in a tribe would necessarily need to be separated, while the males went to hunt. The previous proposal, that some males would remain to guard the females would mean that these would lose their place within the male peer group. Homosexuals, especially if they are efiminate, would have little interest in a the male peer group place.

Now I went on to conjecture that this sub group, homosexuals, didn't generally breed. If they did then they might have been seen as a risk to the females. Therefore, the persistance of homosexuals, their continual emergence in recorded history, inspite of persecution, principally in Africa and the ME, together with the significant numbers that seem to exist today would seem to be more than simple genetic traits.

I fully accept arguments on my point about homosexuals not breeding. The issue is quite complicated however.

Epigentics may well open some new areas of thought.

Quote from: spacial on July 14, 2010, 10:05:00 AM
I can't see transgender as being heriditory simply because there doesn't appear to be any evidence for it.

...

Epigentics may well open some new areas of thought.

Agreed - there is no evidence, as YET!

But that, I think, may begin to change soon as the complexity of the new genetics involved becomes clearer. I think the main reason there is, as yet, no evidence is that the researchers who were looking at it were searching using a rather simpler model of genetic inheritance and, as is now becoming known in relation to various other conditions there are pattens of inheritance which are rather more complex than these early geneticists realised.

i saw a tv show that had a segment bout this it said you have to be very healthy, have at least a bachelor's degree and be at least 5'10 cuz it said people feel it will produce smarter taller healthier babies