So, I heard of this theory that you can save your eggs and they can use them as sperm with someone else's eggs but the baby would always be female? Is that true or is there a chance of it being male? Btw I'm not planning on having kids any time soon I'm just curious on the subject.

I'm not sure what you are asking about here, but it is true that if you are female-bodied you can save your ovum and have them artificially inseminated with sperm from a male-bodied person and have another female-bodied person as the surrogate for the embryo.

Here is a bbc article about Eggs fertilised from without sperm, but the process, afaik, is still a long ways off from being perfected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

This might not be what you wanted but I hope it helps.

Quote from: Josh T on November 03, 2010, 12:30:43 AM
So, I heard of this theory that you can save your eggs and they can use them as sperm with someone else's eggs but the baby would always be female? Is that true or is there a chance of it being male? Btw I'm not planning on having kids any time soon I'm just curious on the subject.

Not sure if your post got mixed a bit. Human eggs cannot fertilize other human egg. The male chromosomes and the interaction of sperm enzymes and proteins are needed for successful fertilization.  It is a quite complex happening. In humans without male female chromosomes the egg will not develop. Female to Female  by ovum fertilization will not happen in  mammals, and of course not in humans.

Cindy

I think I see what you're asking, but you mixed two ideas together.

You can save your eggs and artificially inseminate them with a male's sperm. This is just like regular conception, in that your egg is always X, and the sperm that fertilizes it can be either X or Y. So you'd be able to have a boy or a girl if you went this route.

They've also found a tentative way to turn your own bone marrow into sperm, in the event you would want to fertilize an egg--but your sperm would only be X, because your chromosomes are XX. Then, yeah, you'd only be able to have a girl. I'm not sure if this technology is advanced enough to use it yet though.

Yeah, I read about it.
Scientists were talking about it, they are doing some research, but it's not possible.
Yet... Maybe one day.

Quote from: CindyJames on November 03, 2010, 04:46:14 AM
Not sure if your post got mixed a bit. Human eggs cannot fertilize other human egg. The male chromosomes and the interaction of sperm enzymes and proteins are needed for successful fertilization.  It is a quite complex happening. In humans without male female chromosomes the egg will not develop. Female to Female  by ovum fertilization will not happen in  mammals, and of course not in humans.

Cindy

To be fair they were able to do this in a laboratory with mice ovum, but it took from what I understand several hundred tries to produce a less than satisfactory result, so this kind of technology is a long ways away. The somatic cells contain two sets of chromosomes but they used chemical techniques to get rid of the un-needed set and then mimicked the process that takes place during normal fertilisation.

Quote from: Phate on November 03, 2010, 05:46:11 PM
To be fair they were able to do this in a laboratory with mice ovum, but it took from what I understand several hundred tries to produce a less than satisfactory result, so this kind of technology is a long ways away. The somatic cells contain two sets of chromosomes but they used chemical techniques to get rid of the un-needed set and then mimicked the process that takes place during normal fertilisation.

I agree, they were using a cell fusion technique similar to making transfectants and hybridomas. I think the study was still flawed as they failed to demonstrate that the product would be viable in the long term. Hence they failed to demonstrate reproduction, they had limited success demonstrating transient cell proliferation.

From a practical point of view for human reproduction forget it. It would not have a snow balls chance in Hades of even getting to an Ethics committee. I was surprised the animal model got through.

Cindy

In my country, to legally change one's gender, one must agree not only to be sterilized, but to have ovaries/testes surgically removed. It is illegal to save eggs or sperm in a bank or so as well. This is a demand; if you say no, then that F or M will still be in your passport, your ID, your social security number.

I know a man who, when asked, said that his ovaries doesn't really bother him as they are invisible and have stopped working anyway. To this they replied: "Oh, she wants to stay a woman?". This man has been on T for quite a while, he's got a beard, a deep voice, and everything about him says "man". Wishing to do the less invasive surgery of sterilization apparantly made him a woman in their eyes.

This law is barbaric, and I hope that it will be removed soon. However, that is unlikely as we have a conservative Christian politician in charge of these things, and also a xenophobic party in the parliament. Sigh...

This, of course, means that FtM reproduction is illegal and impossible here, unless one breaks the law and has eggs hidden away in some other country, and lies about not having them.

Maltida where do you live? That is a terrible law. People shouldn't be forced to have parts of their reproductive system removed to be considered the gender than they identify with. Sometimes, removing those parts can actually be harmful and forcing someone to do it is, as you said, barbaric.

It should be illegal to take away their right to reproduce if they so chose it (granted, it's not the typical form of reproduction but that does not matter).

I'm from Sweden. Previously in Sweden, in the 30's, we had a law that meant that people with the diagnosis "slowness of the mind" (approximated translation), a very vague diagnosis, were sterilized against their will. They were put in locked mental institutions and they had to agree to a surgery that the doctors wouldn't describe the effects of if they wanted to get out of there. Forced sterilization. These people were mentally challenged, too poor, slightly insane, or otherwise undesirable. These sterilizations continued into the 1970's. Some of these people were mentally challenged, some were epileptics, but mostly, they were poor.

The governmental people in charge of the legal sex change for transsexuals say that "we demand a surgery which unfortunately leads to sterilization, but we find it reasonable to demand that a man is someone without ovaries and a woman is someone without testicles. The goal is, of course not, sterilization, but that is an unfortunate side effect of it. We demand that a person who does not want to get any other kind of sex-correcting surgery shall apply for this one to get their legal gender changed." If a person should be of too ill health to be able to do such an operation, they say that that person has to, unless they want to stay their previous legal gender. "To be unwilling of this surgery shows that the person is not transsexual, but rather some other diagnosis."

This is insane, and it has to be stopped. I would also like to see them ask women with ovarian cancer how they feel about being men. And men with testicle cancer how they feel about being women.
The gender identity is not in these organs. It's horrible to force people to sterilize, no, castrate themselves. A mere sterlilzation is too little. The organs have to be surgically removed.

I'm currently very angry with my country for allowing these things. Reading up on these laws is a surefire way to make my blood boil.