First baby born in UK to woman with transplanted womb(bbc.com)
bbc.com
First baby born in UK to woman with transplanted womb
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78jd517z87o
365 comments
> fetal microchimerism
This is just a fact of reality for any women that have children though.
Eg male chromosomes from fetuses being found in women’s brains: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3458919/
(I don’t think this is believed to be unusual or an example of ‘containment failure’ of the womb)
This is just a fact of reality for any women that have children though.
Eg male chromosomes from fetuses being found in women’s brains: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3458919/
(I don’t think this is believed to be unusual or an example of ‘containment failure’ of the womb)
> Results also suggested lower prevalence (p = 0.03) and concentration (p = 0.06) of male microchimerism in the brains of women with Alzheimer’s disease than the brains of women without neurologic disease.
It appears it may even be protective.
It appears it may even be protective.
It's probably the whole "lifestyle package" difference between having children and not. Hard to pin down a single biochemical factor in that.
Pregnancy is, it seems, just another (evolutionary) war.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
Red in tooth and claw at every layer, from the smallest cell to the entire biosphere.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
Red in tooth and claw at every layer, from the smallest cell to the entire biosphere.
> It’s no accident that many of the same genes active in embryonic development have been implicated in cancer. Pregnancy is a lot more like war than we might care to admit.
Amazing article. Another reason that hardshelled laid eggs are such a great invention. The offspring can do its thing from a safe distance.
Amazing article. Another reason that hardshelled laid eggs are such a great invention. The offspring can do its thing from a safe distance.
The article suggests the external egg also limits the creature to a small brain.
Birds, the inheritors of the venerable Dinosaur brand, managed to both produce very large eggs (e.g. ostriches), and impressively capable brains, rivaling those of larger mammalians (e.g. parrots, corvids), interestingly, without the use of very large eggs.
Also amazing with birds is how effectively they've evolved intelligence with a small brain
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html
We overfocus on brain volume, when we should be calculating the number of neurons and neuron size varies wildly.
I can't find the original video, but Suzana Herculano-Houzel developed a technique to measure total neuron counts by liquefying the brain and then counting the cell nucleus density / volume.
WSU Master Class: Big Brains, Small Brains with Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM3TcfGoBY
(nice short popsci intro) The woman who turns brains into soup: Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://youtu.be/d2Uhv0_Ji1k?t=362 (talks about racoon and bird brains)
https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/09/07/brainiac-with-her-inn...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
This paper is really fun, "Brains matter, bodies maybe not: the case for examining neuron numbers irrespective of body size" https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brains-matter%2C-bodie...
I can't find the original video, but Suzana Herculano-Houzel developed a technique to measure total neuron counts by liquefying the brain and then counting the cell nucleus density / volume.
WSU Master Class: Big Brains, Small Brains with Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM3TcfGoBY
(nice short popsci intro) The woman who turns brains into soup: Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://youtu.be/d2Uhv0_Ji1k?t=362 (talks about racoon and bird brains)
https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/09/07/brainiac-with-her-inn...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
This paper is really fun, "Brains matter, bodies maybe not: the case for examining neuron numbers irrespective of body size" https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brains-matter%2C-bodie...
It's something to marvel at, really. Birds _needed_ to evolve super efficient brains due to all the constraints that flight puts on the organism; they have to be more efficient by weight as well as by size. Meanwhile, being earthbound like you or I lets our DNA get away with a lot more slop.
Okay, crows are impressive. But I'm not going to let one do my taxes.
Not doing taxes is a plus for corvids in my book. Seriously, you picked one of the least impressive human activities. Makes me think about my potential reincarnation choices.
Crows fly, mate for life and are considered positive for the ecosystem. Humans do taxes.
Crows fly, mate for life and are considered positive for the ecosystem. Humans do taxes.
The crow wouldn’t let you build its nest either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, but humans would be capable of making something which could serve as a crow's nest, while a crow wouldn't be able to do taxes if we let it...
Are you sure? I would be very surprised if a human could build a nest that a crow would accept unaltered.
Most birds’ nests are built much more intricately than just a pile of sticks thrown together! Usually built from layers of different materials, sometimes weaved or plastered with mud/clay/bird-spit.
E.g. sparrows pick up lavender in my garden, because the oils repel some pests etc.
Most birds’ nests are built much more intricately than just a pile of sticks thrown together! Usually built from layers of different materials, sometimes weaved or plastered with mud/clay/bird-spit.
E.g. sparrows pick up lavender in my garden, because the oils repel some pests etc.
Still nothing remotely close to a human brain.
That seems about right according to research.
There are many articles about bird intelligence available from multiple sources.
A more open minded perspective would instead try to look to what is "remotely close" to a human brain.
Although primates can't quite communicate like humans, they are known for being our closest relatives in scientific biological terms.
I know I am deviating from the birds subject a little, but stick with me. I need to address the "remotely close" expression you used.
Primates can display what humans would recognize as human behavior. Work in groups, social dynamics, use of simple tools.
The "looks like human" effect could be explained by anthropomorphization performed by those very humans (to put it simply: an effect where humans see human features in non human things). In fact, some behaviors considered as human are not commonly displayed by primates, like the ability to keep a pet. There is no clear definitive answer to it, and any dismissal of such behaviors could be also used to dismiss humans themselves, therefore I must refrain from entertaining them too much.
Birds also show a lot of human like behavior. Like the ability to gather objects (to construct a nest and to attract a partner are common examples).
Remember, the closest thing to humans in anatomy and biology (primates) is not very much different from birds in terms of "how it presents human-like" behavior.
So, as a counter argument, I would ask: what makes the difference of thinking between a primate and a bird so different to you? Is it their anatomy that prevents you from anthropomorphizing it so readily? Or do you also think primate brains are "nothing remotely close to a human brain"?
It cannot be denied that "closeness" is a loose definition and could generate endless discussion. I tried to concede a little bit to find a reasonable common ground that is both based on rational thinking and a little bit of open mindedness.
Under such criteria, I can assert that birds might be much more intelligent than previously assumed.
There are many articles about bird intelligence available from multiple sources.
A more open minded perspective would instead try to look to what is "remotely close" to a human brain.
Although primates can't quite communicate like humans, they are known for being our closest relatives in scientific biological terms.
I know I am deviating from the birds subject a little, but stick with me. I need to address the "remotely close" expression you used.
Primates can display what humans would recognize as human behavior. Work in groups, social dynamics, use of simple tools.
The "looks like human" effect could be explained by anthropomorphization performed by those very humans (to put it simply: an effect where humans see human features in non human things). In fact, some behaviors considered as human are not commonly displayed by primates, like the ability to keep a pet. There is no clear definitive answer to it, and any dismissal of such behaviors could be also used to dismiss humans themselves, therefore I must refrain from entertaining them too much.
Birds also show a lot of human like behavior. Like the ability to gather objects (to construct a nest and to attract a partner are common examples).
Remember, the closest thing to humans in anatomy and biology (primates) is not very much different from birds in terms of "how it presents human-like" behavior.
So, as a counter argument, I would ask: what makes the difference of thinking between a primate and a bird so different to you? Is it their anatomy that prevents you from anthropomorphizing it so readily? Or do you also think primate brains are "nothing remotely close to a human brain"?
It cannot be denied that "closeness" is a loose definition and could generate endless discussion. I tried to concede a little bit to find a reasonable common ground that is both based on rational thinking and a little bit of open mindedness.
Under such criteria, I can assert that birds might be much more intelligent than previously assumed.
[deleted]
Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) comments like yours are why I frequent this site.
Thank you, stranger!
For my part, I'll add that "Humans are visual creatures", which biases every aspect of our culture -- and might help explain why many would consider other primates "closer" to us than birds.
Thank you, stranger!
For my part, I'll add that "Humans are visual creatures", which biases every aspect of our culture -- and might help explain why many would consider other primates "closer" to us than birds.
Thanks for your answer. Let me elaborate a little bit. What diffentiates humans from most animals is not about solving complex puzzles (some birds are able to do that) or be able to learn things (birds and primates can do that as well) but in the ability of humans to plan for the future. As far as I know (but do correct me if you have better information) there is no animal that exhibits:
1) the ability to plan ahead of time 2) in a non innate way
The consequence is that humans actually build stuff by investing time and energy by visualizing a future benefit without immediate gratification. I believe this is unique in the realm of animals, at least for now.
1) the ability to plan ahead of time 2) in a non innate way
The consequence is that humans actually build stuff by investing time and energy by visualizing a future benefit without immediate gratification. I believe this is unique in the realm of animals, at least for now.
Primates do display acquired learning. Like the knowledge to hunt ants with sticks. A non innate ability that requires planning and is passed along to members of the same social group.
It has been reported that some eagles and hawks spread fire to drive out prey from dense vegetation. Whether that is learned behavior and planning for the future, a previously undiscovered innate behavior, or just a myth, depends on results of further research.
Whales wearing salmon hats is a story that, if happens to be true, would also be a non-innate behavior, whose purpose we don't know, that could point to something close to what you described.
Humans are different, I cannot disagree.
My play was to challenge our assumptions of what that perceived distance from humans to animals is consisted of.
We can come up with increasingly more convoluted ways of defining what we are. Animals can't. Maybe that is our innate ability.
It has been reported that some eagles and hawks spread fire to drive out prey from dense vegetation. Whether that is learned behavior and planning for the future, a previously undiscovered innate behavior, or just a myth, depends on results of further research.
Whales wearing salmon hats is a story that, if happens to be true, would also be a non-innate behavior, whose purpose we don't know, that could point to something close to what you described.
Humans are different, I cannot disagree.
My play was to challenge our assumptions of what that perceived distance from humans to animals is consisted of.
We can come up with increasingly more convoluted ways of defining what we are. Animals can't. Maybe that is our innate ability.
The baby probably does not benefit from the death of the mother.
That depends. Look it up. You will find there is a point where it switches. Normally the body (of both baby and mother) will protect the mother. Something goes wrong or just gets too far "out of spec"? Miscarriage. After a few months, the body goes so far as to sedate the mother and child before terminating the pregnancy. There is research claiming it actually shuts down the baby's nervous system before decoupling.
But about a month before birth things switch around. The womb partially disconnects from control systems of the mother's body and ... there's an extremely scary way of pointing this out I once heard from a medical professor: "you know just about the only thing a human body can still do when it's decapitated? It can give birth"
In less extreme circumstances, you actually have a switch in your circulatory system ... when pregnancy gets to this point and the mother's body loses power, it will initiate a rapid birthing process, and start shutting down organ after organ to give birth with the remaining power. That includes, eventually, the brain. Only the heart, lungs, liver and womb will remain operational. The body will shut down blood flow to the brain to continue giving birth. Once shut down it cannot be turned back on. So this kills the mother, despite the body remaining functional, in some reported cases, for over an hour, and is something gynaecologists get trained to prevent from happening.
Given how common it was even a century ago for women to die giving birth, one wonders how often this mechanism was involved.
But about a month before birth things switch around. The womb partially disconnects from control systems of the mother's body and ... there's an extremely scary way of pointing this out I once heard from a medical professor: "you know just about the only thing a human body can still do when it's decapitated? It can give birth"
In less extreme circumstances, you actually have a switch in your circulatory system ... when pregnancy gets to this point and the mother's body loses power, it will initiate a rapid birthing process, and start shutting down organ after organ to give birth with the remaining power. That includes, eventually, the brain. Only the heart, lungs, liver and womb will remain operational. The body will shut down blood flow to the brain to continue giving birth. Once shut down it cannot be turned back on. So this kills the mother, despite the body remaining functional, in some reported cases, for over an hour, and is something gynaecologists get trained to prevent from happening.
Given how common it was even a century ago for women to die giving birth, one wonders how often this mechanism was involved.
Ah, a bit of light bedtime reading... I should really turn off my phone before going to bed.
No sources provided and internet failed to confirm ... closest I found was
> In extremely rare forensic cases, a phenomenon called "coffin birth" (post-mortem fetal extrusion) can occur, where gases from decomposition expel a fetus from the deceased mother's body. This is not true childbirth and is extremely rare, occurring only under specific post-mortem conditions.
> In extremely rare forensic cases, a phenomenon called "coffin birth" (post-mortem fetal extrusion) can occur, where gases from decomposition expel a fetus from the deceased mother's body. This is not true childbirth and is extremely rare, occurring only under specific post-mortem conditions.
Oh come on, any medical text will confirm that the womb has it's own nervous system and blood supply and a good text will tell you that the system will function correctly in even completely paralyzed women. Just how do you think that works? And any text will SCREAM at you to keep a constant eye on the woman giving birth: if they stop breathing IT WILL NOT stop the birth, rather it will cause severe symptoms afterwards. A gynaecologist is not telling women to breathe to calm them down.
The blood supply and nerves are weird special cases in a great many ways. For instance, they're not left-right symmetric (whereas the ones of "nearby" systems, like the bladder, are. So this was not done because there's only one womb)
The blood supply and nerves are weird special cases in a great many ways. For instance, they're not left-right symmetric (whereas the ones of "nearby" systems, like the bladder, are. So this was not done because there's only one womb)
>a good text will tell you that the system will function correctly in even completely paralyzed women. Just how do you think that works?
the body has a lot of messaging systems; 'completely paralyzed' people still enjoy the use of many chemical messaging signals; they just generally have a hindered spinal cord or neurological interface element.
A paralyzed person will still go into shock after a dismemberment, blood-flow will be affected by vaso-constriction, and so on. It doesn't surprise me to hear that childbirth can trigger a similar set of conditions to occur.
And that belittles the existence of the underlying support nervous system and the secondary elements. Many completely paralyzed men can achieve erection and ejaculation even with a near total disconnect from the rest of the nervous system. Why? The parasympathetic nervous system and secondary nervous materials in the region in question are taking up the slack from the brain and still allowing 'normal' function.
the body has a lot of messaging systems; 'completely paralyzed' people still enjoy the use of many chemical messaging signals; they just generally have a hindered spinal cord or neurological interface element.
A paralyzed person will still go into shock after a dismemberment, blood-flow will be affected by vaso-constriction, and so on. It doesn't surprise me to hear that childbirth can trigger a similar set of conditions to occur.
And that belittles the existence of the underlying support nervous system and the secondary elements. Many completely paralyzed men can achieve erection and ejaculation even with a near total disconnect from the rest of the nervous system. Why? The parasympathetic nervous system and secondary nervous materials in the region in question are taking up the slack from the brain and still allowing 'normal' function.
But some form of evolution might make it a local optimum. It would at least require 3 or more offspring per pregnancy, and could not happen in mammals, though.
Much harder than that. All mammals drink milk.
> All mammals drink milk.
I don't
I don't
If that was true when you were an infant, you're part of an extreme minority.
You would not have survived more than a few weeks past birth in the absence of modern medical interventions — well, that part at least was true for most of us — but specifically an inability to process milk as an infant is very rare, precisely because "mammary" is what puts the "mam" in "mammal".
You would not have survived more than a few weeks past birth in the absence of modern medical interventions — well, that part at least was true for most of us — but specifically an inability to process milk as an infant is very rare, precisely because "mammary" is what puts the "mam" in "mammal".
> precisely because "mammary" is what puts the "mam" in "mammal"
It puts the "mamm" in; that second m is also part of the root.
It puts the "mamm" in; that second m is also part of the root.
As is the third m.
The word "mammary" contains two "m's." (c) ChatGPT
It contains one m and one double m. They're distinct concepts.
I get downvoted every time I feel like posting this (the thread is markedly appropriate), so I'll give some background this time. I'll get to the point after a little bit of setup.
To segue from your post, I was adopted as an only child at birth, so formula was the only option. No IgA exposure, which probably over-taxed my early immune system.
But in being adopted, I have very nontraditional feelings about cloning, artificial birth, etc. I knew about my adoption from an early age, so it deeply worked itself into my thinking. At about elementary school age, some of my asshole neighbors bullied and called me a bastard, but that didn't really impact me as much as the feeling of being a genetic island completely alien to everyone else. All of my peers were related to their birthing parents and sometimes clonal siblings, yet I was alone in the universe. My weird hobbies and behaviors and preferences were out of the norm for my family. Despite my closeness with them, I didn't feel the same as everyone else around me. I wasn't. I was a nerd, absorbed into science books and Bill Nye. The southern culture and football and Christian God I grew up around wasn't my home, and I couldn't understand it just as others couldn't understand me. Everyone talks about blood as being a big deal - it's even in the foundation of the religion I was raised in - but to me, it meant nothing. It really shaped how I feel about humanity and biology and families and reproduction and the universe. Ideas, not nucleotides, are the information that matters.
I've understated and undersold how fundamentally differently this makes me feel about people.
Because of my perspective, I have controversial viewpoints about human biology. I don't find them weird at all, but there's a good chance it'll offend you:
If we can ever get over the societal (religious?) ick factor, perhaps we could one day clone MHC-negative, O-negative, etc. monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs. Use genetic engineering to de-encephalize the brain, and artificially innervate the spine and musculature. We'd have a perfect platform for every kind of organ and tissue transplant, large scale controlled in situ studies, human knockouts, and potentially crazy things like whole head transplants to effectively cure all cancers and aging diseases except brain cancers and neurodegeneration.
Because they're clones engineered to not expose antigens, their tissues could be transplanted into us just like plants being grafted. No immunosuppressants. This might become the default way to cure diseases in the future. We could even engineer bodies that increase our physiological capacity. Increased endurance, VO2 max, younger age, different sex, skin color, transgenic features. Alien hair colors. You name it.
I bring things like this up and get ostracized and criticized. But it feels completely normal to me. Our bodies are machines. We should do everything we can to repair them and make them better. It appalls me that we aren't making progress here.
In light of how others think, I don't think I'd have these thoughts so comfortably if I didn't feel like something of a clone already. A genetic reject, an extraterrestrial growing up, tends to think differently.
Flipping this around, your aversion to this is because you have a mother and father that birthed you that you share blood with. That you grew up in a god fearing society bathed in his sacrificial blood. If you were like me, perhaps you'd think like me.
I'm totally perplexed that other people find this disgusting or horrifying. It feels wholly natural.
And we should absolutely do it.
To segue from your post, I was adopted as an only child at birth, so formula was the only option. No IgA exposure, which probably over-taxed my early immune system.
But in being adopted, I have very nontraditional feelings about cloning, artificial birth, etc. I knew about my adoption from an early age, so it deeply worked itself into my thinking. At about elementary school age, some of my asshole neighbors bullied and called me a bastard, but that didn't really impact me as much as the feeling of being a genetic island completely alien to everyone else. All of my peers were related to their birthing parents and sometimes clonal siblings, yet I was alone in the universe. My weird hobbies and behaviors and preferences were out of the norm for my family. Despite my closeness with them, I didn't feel the same as everyone else around me. I wasn't. I was a nerd, absorbed into science books and Bill Nye. The southern culture and football and Christian God I grew up around wasn't my home, and I couldn't understand it just as others couldn't understand me. Everyone talks about blood as being a big deal - it's even in the foundation of the religion I was raised in - but to me, it meant nothing. It really shaped how I feel about humanity and biology and families and reproduction and the universe. Ideas, not nucleotides, are the information that matters.
I've understated and undersold how fundamentally differently this makes me feel about people.
Because of my perspective, I have controversial viewpoints about human biology. I don't find them weird at all, but there's a good chance it'll offend you:
If we can ever get over the societal (religious?) ick factor, perhaps we could one day clone MHC-negative, O-negative, etc. monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs. Use genetic engineering to de-encephalize the brain, and artificially innervate the spine and musculature. We'd have a perfect platform for every kind of organ and tissue transplant, large scale controlled in situ studies, human knockouts, and potentially crazy things like whole head transplants to effectively cure all cancers and aging diseases except brain cancers and neurodegeneration.
Because they're clones engineered to not expose antigens, their tissues could be transplanted into us just like plants being grafted. No immunosuppressants. This might become the default way to cure diseases in the future. We could even engineer bodies that increase our physiological capacity. Increased endurance, VO2 max, younger age, different sex, skin color, transgenic features. Alien hair colors. You name it.
I bring things like this up and get ostracized and criticized. But it feels completely normal to me. Our bodies are machines. We should do everything we can to repair them and make them better. It appalls me that we aren't making progress here.
In light of how others think, I don't think I'd have these thoughts so comfortably if I didn't feel like something of a clone already. A genetic reject, an extraterrestrial growing up, tends to think differently.
Flipping this around, your aversion to this is because you have a mother and father that birthed you that you share blood with. That you grew up in a god fearing society bathed in his sacrificial blood. If you were like me, perhaps you'd think like me.
I'm totally perplexed that other people find this disgusting or horrifying. It feels wholly natural.
And we should absolutely do it.
> Our bodies are machines. We should do everything we can to repair them and make them better. It appalls me that we aren't making progress here.
unlike man-made machines, we do not fully understand our bodies yet, and as such should be careful when trying to make them better. Don't start randomly `rf -rf *` on a Unix system if you don't know what it does, don't start randomly using steroids if you aren't sure of the long term biological consequences.
Obviously, your proposed "monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs" would help with that.
If you'll also allow me a quick remark on your upbringing, as someone from an intellectual Parisian family who grew up in God-fearing, football-loving Texas...
I'm sure that somewhere in the South, there is a little gay kid, or one born with an odd mutation, to his birth parents, who felt or feels the exact same way you did - as something of an alien. I believe that the vast majority of cultures will produce outsiders, and it's also very probable that somewhere in Paris, there is someone who doesn't feel at home in the midst of heavy intellectual conversation and would prefer a simpler world focused on traditional religion and football (possibly association football/soccer, rather than American football).
Humans can form 'tribes', in the loosest sense of the word possible, based on genetics, but we also form tribes based on similar beliefs, values and interests - for example, Hacker News :)
unlike man-made machines, we do not fully understand our bodies yet, and as such should be careful when trying to make them better. Don't start randomly `rf -rf *` on a Unix system if you don't know what it does, don't start randomly using steroids if you aren't sure of the long term biological consequences.
Obviously, your proposed "monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs" would help with that.
If you'll also allow me a quick remark on your upbringing, as someone from an intellectual Parisian family who grew up in God-fearing, football-loving Texas...
I'm sure that somewhere in the South, there is a little gay kid, or one born with an odd mutation, to his birth parents, who felt or feels the exact same way you did - as something of an alien. I believe that the vast majority of cultures will produce outsiders, and it's also very probable that somewhere in Paris, there is someone who doesn't feel at home in the midst of heavy intellectual conversation and would prefer a simpler world focused on traditional religion and football (possibly association football/soccer, rather than American football).
Humans can form 'tribes', in the loosest sense of the word possible, based on genetics, but we also form tribes based on similar beliefs, values and interests - for example, Hacker News :)
> Humans can form 'tribes', in the loosest sense of the word possible, based on genetics, but we also form tribes based on similar beliefs, values and interests - for example, Hacker News :)
I agree with this, and I'm glad we do. But I've posted the "let's harvest clones for organs" idea numerous times on HN -- a community where many of us are on somewhat of a similar wavelength. It's usually met with a lot of vitriol and disgust.
> Obviously, your proposed "monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs" would help with that.
That's one of the nice things about this. It would give us an organismal research platform where we could replicate experiments. No more animal studies, imperfect chimera systems, or molecular experiments we can't scale up. We'd have a perfect test bed for investigating almost everything that ails us.
I agree with this, and I'm glad we do. But I've posted the "let's harvest clones for organs" idea numerous times on HN -- a community where many of us are on somewhat of a similar wavelength. It's usually met with a lot of vitriol and disgust.
> Obviously, your proposed "monoclonal human bodies in artificial wombs" would help with that.
That's one of the nice things about this. It would give us an organismal research platform where we could replicate experiments. No more animal studies, imperfect chimera systems, or molecular experiments we can't scale up. We'd have a perfect test bed for investigating almost everything that ails us.
On a general note, if this feels natural and right to you, don't be quick to dismiss others' views as having less substance or credibility and being conditioned. But I appreciate that you earnestly believe this, and for that there is nothing prima facie wrong with your view either.
> Our bodies are machines. We should do everything we can to repair them and make them better. It appalls me that we aren't making progress here.
I feel like this is not obvious. Many people seem to want to enjoy life more than anything else, and if this biotech means curing cancer so they can do so for longer, sure, but at some point it may be too invasive. Like if you have to undergo a procedure every year to get diminishing returns. A lot of the features you mention are nice to have, but not strongly appealing to me personally. Particularly for something like immortality: if I'm going to have that, I want a lot of other things too that biotech won't obtain.
Also, at that level of biotech, it seems like we could forgo the clones and enhance our bodies directly. That would remove the ethical concerns of cloning, in particular the notion of creating clones for our own purposes instead of letting them reach their own. Beliefs that boil down to "I was here first" or "I beat you" are common, but I find them problematic.
Birth/creation is a fascinating philosophical topic. I have a radical view which isn't quite "life is suffering so being born is a net harm", but I think that life is not all that valuable. I won't go out of my way to harm existing life, but I'm not sure I should go out of my way to accomodate new life. If humans all died off naturally, would that be such a bad thing? Life is great, but it's not that great. If we do gain cloning technology, I think we should afford clones the potential to do as they will, just as we want for ourselves. Again, we could probably obviate clones for the purposes you see.
> Our bodies are machines. We should do everything we can to repair them and make them better. It appalls me that we aren't making progress here.
I feel like this is not obvious. Many people seem to want to enjoy life more than anything else, and if this biotech means curing cancer so they can do so for longer, sure, but at some point it may be too invasive. Like if you have to undergo a procedure every year to get diminishing returns. A lot of the features you mention are nice to have, but not strongly appealing to me personally. Particularly for something like immortality: if I'm going to have that, I want a lot of other things too that biotech won't obtain.
Also, at that level of biotech, it seems like we could forgo the clones and enhance our bodies directly. That would remove the ethical concerns of cloning, in particular the notion of creating clones for our own purposes instead of letting them reach their own. Beliefs that boil down to "I was here first" or "I beat you" are common, but I find them problematic.
Birth/creation is a fascinating philosophical topic. I have a radical view which isn't quite "life is suffering so being born is a net harm", but I think that life is not all that valuable. I won't go out of my way to harm existing life, but I'm not sure I should go out of my way to accomodate new life. If humans all died off naturally, would that be such a bad thing? Life is great, but it's not that great. If we do gain cloning technology, I think we should afford clones the potential to do as they will, just as we want for ourselves. Again, we could probably obviate clones for the purposes you see.
> I don't find them weird at all, but there's a good chance it'll offend you:
It does not offend me. I cannot say if I would be upset if this were to be turned from idea to reality because the closest thing in reality is quite upsetting; but because I think that the only part of a body capable of suffering is the CNS, I also regard any potential upset on my part about a realisation of your idea as a "me problem", not a "you problem".
That said, I don't know how far we are from being able to perfom what you suggest, even in principle.
It may well be the case that growing a full human without a CNS is harder than solving 3D bioprinting.
One downside of such a degree of biological mastery, is that it does to trust in real life what AI is currently doing to trust online.
It does not offend me. I cannot say if I would be upset if this were to be turned from idea to reality because the closest thing in reality is quite upsetting; but because I think that the only part of a body capable of suffering is the CNS, I also regard any potential upset on my part about a realisation of your idea as a "me problem", not a "you problem".
That said, I don't know how far we are from being able to perfom what you suggest, even in principle.
It may well be the case that growing a full human without a CNS is harder than solving 3D bioprinting.
One downside of such a degree of biological mastery, is that it does to trust in real life what AI is currently doing to trust online.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Island"? I'm curious what your reaction to it would be.
> If we can ever get over the societal (religious?) ick factor
I believe those kinds of "ick" factors are there for a reason - protecting us from a descent into deep dystopia or something.
Implementing new human things at scale often has unanticipated indirect negative consequences.
> If we can ever get over the societal (religious?) ick factor
I believe those kinds of "ick" factors are there for a reason - protecting us from a descent into deep dystopia or something.
Implementing new human things at scale often has unanticipated indirect negative consequences.
I think that in this case, the ick factor is because evolved traits can only work with relatively simple patterns.
My guess is for many of us, our gut says "looks like a human therefore is human"; if you try to tell gut instinct it's fine because there's no brain, you're gut's response is "Brain and brain! What is brain?"
My gut seems to care more about dynamic behaviour than static appearance, but for what it's worth — and despite being able to understand the premise of @echelon's suggestion without being upset by it — even I find images of a real, natural, human birth defect where the brain is missing, to be horrifying (content warning: do not google "anencephaly" unless you're strong stomached).
My guess is for many of us, our gut says "looks like a human therefore is human"; if you try to tell gut instinct it's fine because there's no brain, you're gut's response is "Brain and brain! What is brain?"
My gut seems to care more about dynamic behaviour than static appearance, but for what it's worth — and despite being able to understand the premise of @echelon's suggestion without being upset by it — even I find images of a real, natural, human birth defect where the brain is missing, to be horrifying (content warning: do not google "anencephaly" unless you're strong stomached).
> Have you ever seen the movie "The Island"? I'm curious what your reaction to it would be.
It's a typical Hollywood sci-fi film with the usual Hollywood lessons and platitudes.
We wouldn't be producing clones with brains or consciousness. We might even have to modify the spine and stomach.
So there's no thinking at all. They'd be like plants.
It's a typical Hollywood sci-fi film with the usual Hollywood lessons and platitudes.
We wouldn't be producing clones with brains or consciousness. We might even have to modify the spine and stomach.
So there's no thinking at all. They'd be like plants.
Most of the ick factors are because of our empathy, which triggers upon seeing another human being in "icky" states of being and makes us imagine what it would feel like to be in such a state.
Have you found that other adoptees feel similarly about or at least are more sympathetic to your ideas?
Given that you've spent some time thinking about this, perhaps you should spend time thinking about the ethics of it, and write a full report AGAINST your idea from the ethics point of view, and then see if you can address all those concerns in a second report.
Some key ethics concerns to consider:
* creating brainless clones is almost like creating a sub-species of humans that we're going to farm like cattle.
* given that many people consider embryos & fetuses have certain rights, can we find a way to create brain-less clones without killing viable embryos?
In reality, most of the work done in this area is going to be focused on growing organs, rather than entire bodies. This lets us sidestep most of the ethical concerns.
Some key ethics concerns to consider:
* creating brainless clones is almost like creating a sub-species of humans that we're going to farm like cattle.
* given that many people consider embryos & fetuses have certain rights, can we find a way to create brain-less clones without killing viable embryos?
In reality, most of the work done in this area is going to be focused on growing organs, rather than entire bodies. This lets us sidestep most of the ethical concerns.
Terry?
My uncle said yesterday that man's harsh nature goes back to Rome: Homo homini lupus.
The article says it goes back a lot further than Rome!
> So if it’s a fight, what started it? The original bone of contention is this: you and your nearest relatives are not genetically identical. In the nature of things, this means that you are in competition. And because you live in the same environment, your closest relations are actually your most immediate rivals.
The article says it goes back a lot further than Rome!
> So if it’s a fight, what started it? The original bone of contention is this: you and your nearest relatives are not genetically identical. In the nature of things, this means that you are in competition. And because you live in the same environment, your closest relations are actually your most immediate rivals.
In all non-human species selfless cooperation falls off a cliff beyond siblings, and AFAIU this comports well with Game Theory-type models for understanding genetics. Popular examples of non-human cooperation, naked mole rates and bonobos, actually live in communities dominated by sisters. (It's not often noted, though, in the breathless narratives extolling the virtues of cooperation and anthropomorphizing the rest of the animal kingdom.)
Human behavior, however, is still a deep, deep mystery in terms of evolutionary biology. I'm always wary of people applying evolutionary principles to human behaviors. Writ large you can see contours of what we would expect to see, but even then it's unclear why the boundaries are where they are, or to what degree we're projecting expectations into the data, etc. The speculation quotient is extreme. I wouldn't put any stock into evolutionary biology-based explanations for human behavior. And just as a practical matter, it's not like most people would leave their most hated cousin to die in a ditch; and though most people wouldn't leave anyone to die in a ditch--at least, if they knew that's what they were doing--I'm betting they're more likely to save a cousin than a stranger.
Human behavior, however, is still a deep, deep mystery in terms of evolutionary biology. I'm always wary of people applying evolutionary principles to human behaviors. Writ large you can see contours of what we would expect to see, but even then it's unclear why the boundaries are where they are, or to what degree we're projecting expectations into the data, etc. The speculation quotient is extreme. I wouldn't put any stock into evolutionary biology-based explanations for human behavior. And just as a practical matter, it's not like most people would leave their most hated cousin to die in a ditch; and though most people wouldn't leave anyone to die in a ditch--at least, if they knew that's what they were doing--I'm betting they're more likely to save a cousin than a stranger.
my viewpoint is that the human ability to cooperate effectively is why there's currently 8+ billion of us on earth and chimpanzees are an endangered species.
Our capacity for stories and language helps us create large cooperation networks, which is a unique evolutionary advantage.
Chimps have cooperation limited to "we are genetically close and you give me banana so I give you banana".
Humans can create something like the Roman Republic, or modern nation states and corporations, based on a shared set of stories and language (culture, also includes stuff like rituals, socio-sexual taboos, etc), which enables millions of us to collaborate together towards a common goal. Which is why we're so successful as a species.
Our capacity for stories and language helps us create large cooperation networks, which is a unique evolutionary advantage.
Chimps have cooperation limited to "we are genetically close and you give me banana so I give you banana".
Humans can create something like the Roman Republic, or modern nation states and corporations, based on a shared set of stories and language (culture, also includes stuff like rituals, socio-sexual taboos, etc), which enables millions of us to collaborate together towards a common goal. Which is why we're so successful as a species.
Capitalism allows thousands of people who don't know eachother or even speak the same language to work together to make all the components of a pencil.
All of those people might be selfish, yet they still work together without even knowing they are doing so.
All of those people might be selfish, yet they still work together without even knowing they are doing so.
> My uncle said yesterday that man's harsh nature goes back to Rome: Homo homini lupus.
What's "homini" supposed to mean?
What's "homini" supposed to mean?
Homo homini lupus is the latin for "Man is wolf for man", famous quote from Plautus.
Homini is the declination of Homo, is dative case. I don't know how to properly translate dative to english, something like "to give".
I know this from Philosophy and Latin (separate) in Highschool around the nineties in Spain. They both were compulsory global subjects. I think Latin is not compulsory this days.
Homini is the declination of Homo, is dative case. I don't know how to properly translate dative to english, something like "to give".
I know this from Philosophy and Latin (separate) in Highschool around the nineties in Spain. They both were compulsory global subjects. I think Latin is not compulsory this days.
> famous quote from Plautus
The quote from Plautus appears to be lupus est homo homini, which is much easier to parse. There's a verb and everything. (I didn't know that; I just looked it up.)
> I don't know how to properly translate dative to english, something like "to give".
Yes, the word literally means "giving [case]", but the grammatical concept in English is generally called "indirect object". English mostly doesn't have cases, so supplemental arguments to verbs tend to be marked by associated prepositions, making them "indirect".
When talking about Latin specifically or languages with noun case in general, it is normal in English to refer to the "dative case"; you don't really need to translate it.
I assume the case was named after the action of giving because giving is a very common action that necessarily involves three things. (Giver, gift, and recipient.) The name tells you what it means by example: "if a gift is given, the dative case is the one you'd use for the recipient".
The quote from Plautus appears to be lupus est homo homini, which is much easier to parse. There's a verb and everything. (I didn't know that; I just looked it up.)
> I don't know how to properly translate dative to english, something like "to give".
Yes, the word literally means "giving [case]", but the grammatical concept in English is generally called "indirect object". English mostly doesn't have cases, so supplemental arguments to verbs tend to be marked by associated prepositions, making them "indirect".
When talking about Latin specifically or languages with noun case in general, it is normal in English to refer to the "dative case"; you don't really need to translate it.
I assume the case was named after the action of giving because giving is a very common action that necessarily involves three things. (Giver, gift, and recipient.) The name tells you what it means by example: "if a gift is given, the dative case is the one you'd use for the recipient".
> Homo homini lupus
And kiwi kiwi kiwi.
Couldn't help myself, being a speaker of a language with grammatical cases, which allows the translation of "homo homini lupus" without changing the grammatical structure. At the same time, some loanwords escape the declination system, giving birth to the joke above.
And kiwi kiwi kiwi.
Couldn't help myself, being a speaker of a language with grammatical cases, which allows the translation of "homo homini lupus" without changing the grammatical structure. At the same time, some loanwords escape the declination system, giving birth to the joke above.
> At the same time, some loanwords escape the declination system, giving birth to the joke above.
I hope I'm safe in assuming that "kiwi kiwi kiwi" comes off as pure nonsense.
But if it's possible for loanwords to come in without being forced into the system, there must be something you could add to the sentence to bring back the effect? What would that look like?
I hope I'm safe in assuming that "kiwi kiwi kiwi" comes off as pure nonsense.
But if it's possible for loanwords to come in without being forced into the system, there must be something you could add to the sentence to bring back the effect? What would that look like?
Honestly it's an edge case, because there are few loanwords that don't get involved in the declension system. For some reason the government made official guidelines that the system only applies to native words, but that didn't stick, and most loanwords do have declension forms. With "kiwi" being one of the exceptions of course.
Going back to the question though, I can't think of words I could add without changing the overall structure. As in, our translation of "homo homini lupus" is "człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem", and it's not like you could "just add something to make it full form". Well, you could say "człowiek człowiekowi jest wilkiem", with "jest" meaning "is", but when you say "kiwi kiwi jest kiwi", it still sounds like garbage. I guess the only way out of this would be to use something different, like "kiwi dla kiwi jest jak kiwi", which is "a kiwi to a kiwi is like a kiwi", but that's not what we want, because when we talk about people and wolves again, it becomes "człowiek dla człowieka jest jak wilk", and now it's clear that the cases have changed.
Giving an example of a loanword, the government's official position used to be (or even still is?) that "radio" has only one form, but if you ask me, "radio radiu radiem" sounds clear and natural.
Going back to the question though, I can't think of words I could add without changing the overall structure. As in, our translation of "homo homini lupus" is "człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem", and it's not like you could "just add something to make it full form". Well, you could say "człowiek człowiekowi jest wilkiem", with "jest" meaning "is", but when you say "kiwi kiwi jest kiwi", it still sounds like garbage. I guess the only way out of this would be to use something different, like "kiwi dla kiwi jest jak kiwi", which is "a kiwi to a kiwi is like a kiwi", but that's not what we want, because when we talk about people and wolves again, it becomes "człowiek dla człowieka jest jak wilk", and now it's clear that the cases have changed.
Giving an example of a loanword, the government's official position used to be (or even still is?) that "radio" has only one form, but if you ask me, "radio radiu radiem" sounds clear and natural.
Homini is the dative of homo, meaning roughly "to (a) man".
The phrase is a latin proverb meaning, roughly, "A man is a wolf to another man".
The phrase is a latin proverb meaning, roughly, "A man is a wolf to another man".
Man man’s wolf
Homo homini lupus
what an odd coincidence to see David Haig mentioned in the article. I just stumbled over his interview on Sean Carroll's podcast a few days ago, discussing the exact same topic (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/11/30/125-...)
"And so while the cooperative outcome would be the most efficient, you lead to a situation in which there are conflict costs, and I think this explains why things go wrong so often during pregnancy. Of course, at first sight it's strange, my heart and my liver have been functioning very well for for 62 years, and yet during pregnancy, you have a natural process that only lasts for nine months, and yet many things go wrong during it. And I would argue that the reason why pregnancy doesn't work as smoothly as the normal functioning of the body is that in normal bodily functioning all the parts of the body are genetically identical to each other and working towards survival of that body, but in pregnancy, you have two different genetic individuals interacting with each other and natural selection can act at cross-purposes, there's a sort of politics going on, and we know that politics does not always lead to efficient outcomes."
"And so while the cooperative outcome would be the most efficient, you lead to a situation in which there are conflict costs, and I think this explains why things go wrong so often during pregnancy. Of course, at first sight it's strange, my heart and my liver have been functioning very well for for 62 years, and yet during pregnancy, you have a natural process that only lasts for nine months, and yet many things go wrong during it. And I would argue that the reason why pregnancy doesn't work as smoothly as the normal functioning of the body is that in normal bodily functioning all the parts of the body are genetically identical to each other and working towards survival of that body, but in pregnancy, you have two different genetic individuals interacting with each other and natural selection can act at cross-purposes, there's a sort of politics going on, and we know that politics does not always lead to efficient outcomes."
> Pregnancy is, it seems, just another (evolutionary) war.
I think this is a useful insight even on a higher level. For evolution (if you want to anthropomorphize it), war and conflict are just another set of tools in the toolbox. Where humans see those as evidence of something going wrong and evil to eradicated, for evolution it's "working as intended".
(Or, if you don't want to anthropomorphize it, an indication how much of evolution and biology is just barely tamed chaos)
(Careful to draw conclusions for human society from this though. People in the past had already seen the Darwinian "struggle between the species" as a model for society, which brought "Social Darwinism" and ultimately the Nazi ideology.
A different conclusion would be that biology is in fact not a perfect ideal to aspire to, and even in the situations where it "works", its factual objectives are not always the same as ours. Which does give legitimacy for the endeavor to improve upon it - for everyone)
I think this is a useful insight even on a higher level. For evolution (if you want to anthropomorphize it), war and conflict are just another set of tools in the toolbox. Where humans see those as evidence of something going wrong and evil to eradicated, for evolution it's "working as intended".
(Or, if you don't want to anthropomorphize it, an indication how much of evolution and biology is just barely tamed chaos)
(Careful to draw conclusions for human society from this though. People in the past had already seen the Darwinian "struggle between the species" as a model for society, which brought "Social Darwinism" and ultimately the Nazi ideology.
A different conclusion would be that biology is in fact not a perfect ideal to aspire to, and even in the situations where it "works", its factual objectives are not always the same as ours. Which does give legitimacy for the endeavor to improve upon it - for everyone)
> containment vessel to protect the mother (host) from the fetus (roughly, xenomorph) that would otherwise explode like an aggressive parasite (killing them both).
You can also flip the perspective the fetus is trying to survive in a hostile environment designed to strangle it. If it isn't clawing for every ounce of food and air it will become a miscarriage. It must interface with a system built for millenia designed to kill anything that doesn't have its code.
In truth, it is the equilibrium that evolution has achieved. Placenta must account for the most vicious fetus, and fetus must account for most vicious placenta.
You can also flip the perspective the fetus is trying to survive in a hostile environment designed to strangle it. If it isn't clawing for every ounce of food and air it will become a miscarriage. It must interface with a system built for millenia designed to kill anything that doesn't have its code.
In truth, it is the equilibrium that evolution has achieved. Placenta must account for the most vicious fetus, and fetus must account for most vicious placenta.
I think in this metaphor the placenta is actually on the fetus' side and also had the baby's DNA.
Did you read the article? It's not. It's somewhat fighting against it. Plus immune system would see baby's DNA as corrupted, since half of it is just wrong.
> Plus immune system would see baby's DNA as corrupted
The immune system can't see DNA at all. It works by other methods.
The immune system can't see DNA at all. It works by other methods.
True but it can detect DNA isn't the same by comparing expressed proteins.
Not to mention when multiple fetuses are involved. It's a miracle there are as many twins+ as there are.
> So I mean, you probably don't want to have any leaks or weak stitches in your uterus transplant...
With this sort of surgery, they wouldn't be cutting into the uterus (womb) itself when extracting it from the donor, but instead will cut around it to remove it, along with some very essential plumbing. The receiving mum will also be on industrial-strength immune suppressants anyway.
Where you DO have to worry about leaks and weak stitches is with said plumbing (uterine arteries and veins) -- they have to support virtual firehoses of blood through the duration of pregnancy, and their damage is one reason why a delivery can go south very, very quickly. Obstetric medicine is definitely a high-risk sport, which is why their malpractice insurance rates are head and shoulders above any other medical specialty. But I digress...
With this sort of surgery, they wouldn't be cutting into the uterus (womb) itself when extracting it from the donor, but instead will cut around it to remove it, along with some very essential plumbing. The receiving mum will also be on industrial-strength immune suppressants anyway.
Where you DO have to worry about leaks and weak stitches is with said plumbing (uterine arteries and veins) -- they have to support virtual firehoses of blood through the duration of pregnancy, and their damage is one reason why a delivery can go south very, very quickly. Obstetric medicine is definitely a high-risk sport, which is why their malpractice insurance rates are head and shoulders above any other medical specialty. But I digress...
This is at the same time the most horrible description of what is going on, and the most hilarious :D "roughly, xenomorph" really got me!
There is, famously, an alternative reading of the Alien franchise where it's about a non-consensual pregnancy in a society that forbids abortions.
Pretty sure that’s not some fringe theory. Didn’t the director and visual designers consciously use rape as the model for how to depict the Alien attacks?
[deleted]
Absolutely. From what I understand, there's been an evolutionary war for resources between the womb and the placenta, which is a big part of why human pregnancies are so complicated and invasive compared to other mammals (because no other mammal has this anywhere near as extreme as we do).
Why us and not other mammals? No idea.
Why us and not other mammals? No idea.
I believe it all comes down to our giant noggin/brain. It's a giant resource tar pit, it's why we're born effectively premature, it's why we take forever to be in any shape of form self sufficient and it's why we would drain the mother of all resources available if she wouldn't regulate that desire to fuel our brain to the max.
Turns out, being the most intelligent apex comes with some gestational specialities.
Turns out, being the most intelligent apex comes with some gestational specialities.
They also check the blood type of the baby and the mother and I believe this is to make sure the mother won’t throw clots, and to take precautions if there’s a mismatch.
Your list of keywords is missing "ectopic pregnancy", which seems like exactly the kind of issue your comment contemplates.
> not exactly the warm cradle
That would be the gestational sac, no?
That would be the gestational sac, no?
> The first baby born as a result of a womb transplant was in Sweden in 2014. Since then around 135 such transplants have been carried out in more than a dozen countries, including the US, China, France, Germany, India and Turkey. Around 65 babies have been born.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29485996
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29485996
"Grace was born with a rare condition, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, where the womb is missing or underdeveloped, but with functioning ovaries"
A rare, congenital, condition.
A rare, congenital, condition.
I stopped and looked at the natal photo for a while. It is a feeling I have not had before. This new life, chanced not only by lineage but multiple family members and a host of research and medical staff.
The image shows very little technology, but to me, is the epitome of how life and progress can unite.
The image shows very little technology, but to me, is the epitome of how life and progress can unite.
I was deeply moved looking at it as well.
Just for clarity, "in UK" is qualifying the whole thing, not that she just happened to be in the UK. A woman in Alabama had a child via a uterus transplant, among other places.
This is really cool but it's ultimately a stop-gap measure.
Where we want to end up is with artificial wombs because that will ultimately give individuals much more control over their reproduction and will do away with the onerous physiological and psychological stresses that pregnancy puts on women.
Where we want to end up is with artificial wombs because that will ultimately give individuals much more control over their reproduction and will do away with the onerous physiological and psychological stresses that pregnancy puts on women.
I could see this being combined with pigs, to place human embryos in pigs to carry humans to term.
An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14194422
An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14194422
Actually we are still discovering and learning about the biology of birthing.
We can now support extremely premature babies outside the womb, but as of now, the risks of growing a baby in an artificial womb is not overcome with the benefits.
Why?
Because you are trivialising the emotions of pregnancy and motherhood. It is not stress all the time, it is also joy and satisfaction and like everything in life, a roller coaster.
We can now support extremely premature babies outside the womb, but as of now, the risks of growing a baby in an artificial womb is not overcome with the benefits.
Why?
Because you are trivialising the emotions of pregnancy and motherhood. It is not stress all the time, it is also joy and satisfaction and like everything in life, a roller coaster.
Perhaps there's benefit to pregnancy for both the mother and baby and fully detaching them from the experience might have negative consequences.
If everything scientific inquiry accomplishes is a “miracle”, then nothing is.
Is it a miracle I can go to JFK and fly through the air and be in Europe for dinner?
It’s a surgical procedure. It’s cool that it worked. We don’t need to invoke the supernatural here, especially given the oodles of hard work that went into this by very real and natural human beings.
Is it a miracle I can go to JFK and fly through the air and be in Europe for dinner?
It’s a surgical procedure. It’s cool that it worked. We don’t need to invoke the supernatural here, especially given the oodles of hard work that went into this by very real and natural human beings.
For my money I would say, yes, and I think Louis C.K. was right when he said, "Everybody on every plane should just constantly be going, 'Oh my God! Wow!' You're sitting in a chair in the sky!"
Yes, but by that logic we should be dumbfounded with awe every time we speak to turn on the lights, make a long distance call, eat a fresh fruit grown on another continent, or walk around after open heart surgery.
At some point we should just assign credit where credit is due: thousands upon thousands of people working very hard for many decades to make the impossible possible.
Our modern world is amazing, but it’s not miraculous. It’s achievement, not supernatural.
At some point we should just assign credit where credit is due: thousands upon thousands of people working very hard for many decades to make the impossible possible.
Our modern world is amazing, but it’s not miraculous. It’s achievement, not supernatural.
Pretty amazing. I suppose that the effects of immunosuppressants on pregnancy and the unborn child are already well understood.
This is great news, but I wonder how that ever got approved given the safety implications for mother and child.
Wondering the same. Surrogacy would seem like a much safer option. Just use the working womb without transplanting it. Why put two people through major surgery, plus additional risks for the baby?
> Surrogacy would seem like a much safer option. Just use the working womb without transplanting it.
In some jurisdictions the former could be illegal while the latter would be legal.
In some jurisdictions the former could be illegal while the latter would be legal.
[deleted]
> He told the BBC around 10 women have embryos in storage or are undergoing fertility treatment, a requirement for being considered for womb transplantation. Each transplant costs around £30,000, he says, and the charity has sufficient funds to do two more.
Is this because they're not connecting the transplanted uterus to the fallopian tubes or something? Or is there some other reason that it wouldn't be possible to conceive the "old-fashioned way" post-transplant?
Creating and freezing embryos otherwise seems like a very strange thing for a woman to have done who has no uterus, unless she was already considering surrogacy. Where was she expecting them to grow?
Requiring the embryos to be created before knowing whether the womb transplant would be possible or successful seems really odd to me.
Is this because they're not connecting the transplanted uterus to the fallopian tubes or something? Or is there some other reason that it wouldn't be possible to conceive the "old-fashioned way" post-transplant?
Creating and freezing embryos otherwise seems like a very strange thing for a woman to have done who has no uterus, unless she was already considering surrogacy. Where was she expecting them to grow?
Requiring the embryos to be created before knowing whether the womb transplant would be possible or successful seems really odd to me.
Surrogacy is already a thing; stored embryos have a use without womb transplants.
Yeah, that's why I said "unless she was already considering surrogacy".
There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between women who ate so desperate to carry their own child that they'd undergo a womb transplant, and women who are already so committed to having a biological child that they've prepared embryos to do so by surrogacy.
But none of that answers my actual question anyway, about why it isn't possible to conceive naturally in a transplanted womb.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between women who ate so desperate to carry their own child that they'd undergo a womb transplant, and women who are already so committed to having a biological child that they've prepared embryos to do so by surrogacy.
But none of that answers my actual question anyway, about why it isn't possible to conceive naturally in a transplanted womb.
Note this is currently not possible without the use of In vitro fertilization
MRKH is inherited, which adds an additional ethnical layer to this.
Apparently so are most of the male conditions that require ICSI IVF.
Interesting, I did not know that. Makes me wonder if we're compounding infertility issues into the future if this is done at scale. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's worth thinking about.
Probably we are, but we're also negating them with science at probably a higher rate.
Lab-grown vaginas made from the patient's own stem-cells have also been transplanted into women [1]. Hopefully soon it will be possible to get the whole #!/usr/bash.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_transplantation#Labora...
(I don't know why this lab stopped performing this procedure though.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_transplantation#Labora...
(I don't know why this lab stopped performing this procedure though.)
I can't help but wonder if there is any hope of this working for trans persons in the future?
Could someone born as a man have a transplanted womb and get pregnant through in-vitro fertilization, in theory? anyone here with more medical knowledge who can comment on how likely that is to work at some point in the future?
Could someone born as a man have a transplanted womb and get pregnant through in-vitro fertilization, in theory? anyone here with more medical knowledge who can comment on how likely that is to work at some point in the future?
Considering how many trans people who are assigned female at birth get hysterectomies (tissue that would otherwise be discarded), maybe there could be a "give a uterus, take a uterus" matching program...
Maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make but people who get hysterectomies aren't doing it for fun, they're doing it because the organ is diseased so giving it to someone else wouldn't work.
Among those "trans people who are assigned female at birth" who "get hysterectomies" how many would you say are doing it because the organ is diseased. (Not that the proposal is practical, of course.)
This is not true; trans men get hysterectomies for different reasons than that it is diseased.
Yep, and many cis women will remove completely non-diseased uteruses as a form of permanent birth control :P
One woman has told me she kept asking for this, but the doctors kept refusing "in case [she] want[s] kids later".
As you may imagine, she was not happy with such responses.
As you may imagine, she was not happy with such responses.
It might work with a C-section. Reassignment surgery isn’t stretchy enough for a live birth. For trans girls who start before male puberty they might get enough pelvic rotation for there to be enough room for it, though.
Not transfem myself, but considering the risk of tears and other unpleasantness from a vaginal birth I know I'd probably opt for a C-section if I were in that position regardless... recovering from bottom surgery once is tough enough without the miracle of life wreaking havoc on the place after :P
Yeah exactly.
I would suspect this is extremely dangerous. The female genome is intricately evolved to handle the hormone war of pregnancy.
Are you an expert in the field? All I've read so far on the subject induicates that it should be doable in the near future.
Any sources you would recommend?
[deleted]
Apparently [1], it's not completely out of the question, but more research is needed before it can be safely attempted on a trans woman.
However, I fear the largest hurdle will be a political one, with so many nutjobs [2] so hell-bent on imposing their dogmatic definition of gender on everyone.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/08/23/uterus-transplant...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-har...
However, I fear the largest hurdle will be a political one, with so many nutjobs [2] so hell-bent on imposing their dogmatic definition of gender on everyone.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/08/23/uterus-transplant...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-har...
Thorentis(3)
> I can't help but wonder if there is any hope of this working for trans persons in the future?
why just trans? it would work on any male regardless of what they identify as if it were possible. No need for penis removal either, C-section would work.
why just trans? it would work on any male regardless of what they identify as if it were possible. No need for penis removal either, C-section would work.
I guess trans women would have more of a desire to give birth than men. As one of the latter, I don't particularly seek experiencing child-bearing.
> I guess trans women would have more of a desire to give birth than men.
No, since plenty of trans men have babies. All these considerations would be completely irrelevant.
No, since plenty of trans men have babies. All these considerations would be completely irrelevant.
Trans men having babies is not strong evidence for cis men having less of a desire to give birth than trans women. If you have the equipment for it, it's going to happen some percent of the time.
> Trans men having babies is not strong evidence for cis men having less of a desire to give birth than trans women. If you have the equipment for it, it's going to happen some percent of the time.
It's strong evidence that the desire to birth child has nothing to do with gender identity, which latter will be pretty much pointless by the time science allows human fœtus gestation outside the human female body.
It's strong evidence that the desire to birth child has nothing to do with gender identity, which latter will be pretty much pointless by the time science allows human fœtus gestation outside the human female body.
Unless the procedure has changed dramatically, it requires a functional vagina. Neovaginas are qualified but I would not expect most male-identified people to opt for vaginoplasty.
> Unless the procedure has changed dramatically, it requires a functional vagina. Neovaginas are qualified but I would not expect most male-identified people to opt for vaginoplasty.
First, male-identified people can be born biological female. It's an identity.
Second, the procedure doesn't exist for biological males to begin with right now, neovagina or not. A neovagina is physiologically not a biological female vagina to begin with anyway so I wouldn't help at all with the gestation. Birth can be done via C-Section.
First, male-identified people can be born biological female. It's an identity.
Second, the procedure doesn't exist for biological males to begin with right now, neovagina or not. A neovagina is physiologically not a biological female vagina to begin with anyway so I wouldn't help at all with the gestation. Birth can be done via C-Section.
You'll be surprised to learn that neovaginas are also possessed by cis women. Trans men requiring vaginoplasty and receiving a uterine transplant are the nichest possible edge case, your "gotcha" is pure distraction.
Trans women will receive the modern* uterine transplant operation, this I can state with certainty. Birth is done via C-section as a requirement of the UTx operation, the vagina is required for discharge. I haven't been able to pay attention to the operation for a few years, but it is clear that you are operating from uninformed conjecture.
*The first uterine transplant was performed on a trans woman in Germany in 1930, Lili Elbe. This pioneering surgery lead to her death, as transplantation medicine was not adequately developed at that point in time.
Trans women will receive the modern* uterine transplant operation, this I can state with certainty. Birth is done via C-section as a requirement of the UTx operation, the vagina is required for discharge. I haven't been able to pay attention to the operation for a few years, but it is clear that you are operating from uninformed conjecture.
*The first uterine transplant was performed on a trans woman in Germany in 1930, Lili Elbe. This pioneering surgery lead to her death, as transplantation medicine was not adequately developed at that point in time.
> You'll be surprised to learn that neovaginas are also possessed by cis women. Trans men requiring vaginoplasty and receiving a uterine transplant are the nichest possible edge case, your "gotcha" is pure distraction.
> Trans women will receive the modern* uterine transplant operation, this I can state with certainty. Birth is done via C-section as a requirement of the UTx operation, the vagina is required for discharge. I haven't been able to pay attention to the operation for a few years, but it is clear that you are operating from uninformed conjecture.
> *The first uterine transplant was performed on a trans woman in Germany in 1930, Lili Elbe. This pioneering surgery lead to her death, as transplantation medicine was not adequately developed at that point in time.
Not all transmen require a vaginoplasty, not all transwomen have had a vaginoplasty or even have the desire to do so.
No biological male has ever birthed a child so far, so all that's speculation about what is or isn't needed from you is just that, speculation, based on nothing since it's technically not possible for now.
The desire to birth a child doesn't depends on anybody's gender identity nor anatomy.
Now stop trying to put people in boxes and keep an open mind.
> Trans women will receive the modern* uterine transplant operation, this I can state with certainty. Birth is done via C-section as a requirement of the UTx operation, the vagina is required for discharge. I haven't been able to pay attention to the operation for a few years, but it is clear that you are operating from uninformed conjecture.
> *The first uterine transplant was performed on a trans woman in Germany in 1930, Lili Elbe. This pioneering surgery lead to her death, as transplantation medicine was not adequately developed at that point in time.
Not all transmen require a vaginoplasty, not all transwomen have had a vaginoplasty or even have the desire to do so.
No biological male has ever birthed a child so far, so all that's speculation about what is or isn't needed from you is just that, speculation, based on nothing since it's technically not possible for now.
The desire to birth a child doesn't depends on anybody's gender identity nor anatomy.
Now stop trying to put people in boxes and keep an open mind.
[deleted]
I've had my eye on the UTx op for the better part of the decade. It is my understanding that there's no medical reason to expect it would not be successful in a trans woman. I don't have recent numbers but we passed >100 uterine transplants a while back. The most complicated physical requirement is a functional vagina for discharge (which is generally on the roadmap for trans women interested in carrying a child).
I am unaware of trans women having received this operation yet, but Lili Elbe died after the first uterine transplant nearly 100 years ago, before the Nazi regime destroyed trans medicine and eradicated contemporary trans existence. Given the global climate, I don't expect any trans recipients to be eager for publicity. It will happen, and soon.
I am unaware of trans women having received this operation yet, but Lili Elbe died after the first uterine transplant nearly 100 years ago, before the Nazi regime destroyed trans medicine and eradicated contemporary trans existence. Given the global climate, I don't expect any trans recipients to be eager for publicity. It will happen, and soon.
What would be the point of that? I'd be surprised if it got past an ethics committee.
Aside from this, the male pelvis isn't shaped to accommodate a womb, and males don't have the hormonal milieu to enable pregnancy.
The closest that researchers have come to having a male gestate a foetus was in rats. But they had to connect the bloodstream of the male rat to a pregnant female rat, where both were implanted with embryos at the same time. Even then, it worked less than 5% of the time.
Aside from this, the male pelvis isn't shaped to accommodate a womb, and males don't have the hormonal milieu to enable pregnancy.
The closest that researchers have come to having a male gestate a foetus was in rats. But they had to connect the bloodstream of the male rat to a pregnant female rat, where both were implanted with embryos at the same time. Even then, it worked less than 5% of the time.
Presumably, the point would be that a trans woman wanted to have kids without using a surrogate (which some people have ethical qualms with)
"You will live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."
That's a very negative attitude. Think about how happy these women must be to have this procedure done. Just because something isn't natural doesn't mean it's horrible.
It's interesting how something that seems both incredible to me and genuinely gives me hope for the future of myself and many others can be viewed by others as horrific and a perversion, although I am a bit saddened to think about it.
People's perspectives give wildly different views on things.
People's perspectives give wildly different views on things.
I can totally comprehend trans women having babies. Heck, I can comprehend cis men having babies: Arnold Schwarzenegger did it in the 90s.
I can't truly comprehend the mass data collection and surveillance system, how it interplays with intelligence and law enforcement, and what the impact of connecting a global constellation of privatized armed satellites and a constellation of advanced phased array antennas & sdrs to either end of the system will be, however. I believe there are bigger threats to humanity than bodily autonomy.
I can't truly comprehend the mass data collection and surveillance system, how it interplays with intelligence and law enforcement, and what the impact of connecting a global constellation of privatized armed satellites and a constellation of advanced phased array antennas & sdrs to either end of the system will be, however. I believe there are bigger threats to humanity than bodily autonomy.
Whose baby is it? If I get a transplanted womb and have hundreds of kids are they mine of the original owners? I would assume the current owner, but Anglo laws tend to be completely backwards when it relates to sex.
I don't think there is any womb out there that is going to produce 100 kids for you.
It would be quite interesting to see how public discourse about gender is affected by this, and in particular if this procedure is done successfully on a transgender woman. Regardless of your political outlook, it will no longer be possible to say that the ability to give birth is a condition for being a woman. (And what will happen should chromosome replacement become possible? It seems unlikely that anyone would really invest in such a procedure, but is it medically feasible?)
Damn, it's almost like Gender is largely vibes and any attempt to root it in a strict biological standard is as patently ridiculous as it would be trying to do the same to horoscopes.
Giving birth is already not a precondition of being a woman, as the category "infertile women" exist.
Giving birth is already not a precondition of being a woman, as the category "infertile women" exist.
It's not gonna be affected, because that debate isn't based on facts. The debate is between people who just wanna live and let live, and people who want to dictate to others how to live. All the arguments are crafted a posteriori to the defend the position the people already started in.
If the procedures got so good that a trans woman/man was indistinguishable from one born that way who would still object to them claiming the gender they choose, most of the arguments fall apart at that point.
Almost everyone who opposes trans people's existence today. Opposition to trans rights is rooted in patriarchal hegemony and the control of bodies. Our existence is a fundamental threat to the foundational perspective of the predominant power-structure in society.
No one does a womb-check before granting women validity. It's always been a vibe thing and people who do not conform to the prescribed model of existence as a man or woman are constantly denied full privileges under the framework. It's not just trans women getting the short end of the stick here, it's everyone: men who do not embrace dominance culture or otherwise display "effeminacy" are denied true Man status, women who don't meet beauty standards or possess a submissive demeanor are slurred as bull-dykes or the dreaded transexual.
This isn't an issue with any real reasonable basis for it's opposition, it's a golem of pure hatred and disgust in a suit vs. people who want to live full, free lives.
editing to add: the first known uterine transplant was performed on Lili Elbe who received treatments through the Institute of Sexology in Germany. The Institute was famously destroyed by the Nazi regime. It's barely coincidental that fascism has risen again as medical science brings this technology to maturity. Trans women gave their lives for this medical miracle.
No one does a womb-check before granting women validity. It's always been a vibe thing and people who do not conform to the prescribed model of existence as a man or woman are constantly denied full privileges under the framework. It's not just trans women getting the short end of the stick here, it's everyone: men who do not embrace dominance culture or otherwise display "effeminacy" are denied true Man status, women who don't meet beauty standards or possess a submissive demeanor are slurred as bull-dykes or the dreaded transexual.
This isn't an issue with any real reasonable basis for it's opposition, it's a golem of pure hatred and disgust in a suit vs. people who want to live full, free lives.
editing to add: the first known uterine transplant was performed on Lili Elbe who received treatments through the Institute of Sexology in Germany. The Institute was famously destroyed by the Nazi regime. It's barely coincidental that fascism has risen again as medical science brings this technology to maturity. Trans women gave their lives for this medical miracle.
> Our existence is a fundamental threat to the foundational perspective of the predominant power-structure in society.
Have you considered that people just think that performing any kind of sex-change operation is dumb, made a deduction from that that the subject is dumb, and everything else you mentioned stems from that?
Much simpler explanation than "power structures", which makes very little sense considering most people don't have any power.
Have you considered that people just think that performing any kind of sex-change operation is dumb, made a deduction from that that the subject is dumb, and everything else you mentioned stems from that?
Much simpler explanation than "power structures", which makes very little sense considering most people don't have any power.
They would just move to calling the procedure a violation of the "natural order" - "Lovecraftian horror", "Frankenstein arrangement", "something Mengele would do" - argue that it is akin to rape, create conspiracy theories about uteri being stolen, and/or invoke "Think of the children!"
I saw all of that already. Some of it in this very thread, some of it on the defunct /r/GenderCritical: I remember someone proposing committing suicide by volcano to keep her uterus out of "male [sic] hands".
I saw all of that already. Some of it in this very thread, some of it on the defunct /r/GenderCritical: I remember someone proposing committing suicide by volcano to keep her uterus out of "male [sic] hands".
> it will no longer be possible to say that the ability to give birth is a condition for being a woman
This "gotcha game" has become so tiresome.
This "gotcha game" has become so tiresome.
aaaja(2)
From an individual perspective this is absolutely crazy and should never be done. But from a broader perspective it's clearly very beneficial for the advancement of science to have such fearless pioneers. Amazing stuff!
This is incredible technology. But I am crying in American at "Each transplant costs around £30,000, he says."
That seems extraordinarily affordable for a permanent, life-altering operation that needs 30 medics and takes 17 hours.
For a comparison, check out what a 1-month supply of a biologic drug costs: https://www.goodrx.com/stelara
For a comparison, check out what a 1-month supply of a biologic drug costs: https://www.goodrx.com/stelara
The think that was the point, it's unimaginable that something like that could only cost 30k in the US.
I'll raise you for the cost of a single dose of Pluvicto:
https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/pluvicto
https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/pluvicto
Is this permanent? I thought transplanted uteruses were usually removed after birth.
It will not be permanent, she can have two babies but they will remove the womb afterwards
It's part of a clinical trial, and the staff donated their time, so I don't think that number tells you anything meaningful about what it would normally cost.
Only a low multiple of IVF treatment, remarkable!
Completely dwarfed by the total cost of raising a child. It’s a surprisingly expensive hobby.
Yea but in america such a transplant probably costs 300k just to go to the hospital ez
prob also raising a child way expensier if you factor uni and such into it vs UK
prob also raising a child way expensier if you factor uni and such into it vs UK
I don't think anyone in America is actually paying a bill for $300,000 for a transplant. It's either paid for by insurance, or if someone doesn't have insurance, via hospital charity or a state medical aid plan. The only exception would be an absurdly rich person who doesn't have insurance.
Why would insurance cover a womb transplant?
Would insurance cover a transplant that isn't necessary for survival?
They cover cornea transplants, which are necessary for sight.
But they tend not to cover fertility stuff.
But they tend not to cover fertility stuff.
Don’t worry, our current President promises to be the “fertilisation President” and is pushing to cover IVF and other fertility treatments mandatory on isursnfr.
“American health care is incredibly expensive.”
“That’s ok, other people bear the enormous cost.”
Not really a win, that.
“That’s ok, other people bear the enormous cost.”
Not really a win, that.
That’s not how it works! The bill of $300k gets negotiated down to like $20k.
The negotiated rate is still super high. There are procedures where it costs less to fly overseas and get it done self-pay than the out-of-pocket cost with insurance in the US.
Don't forget the people who don't have insurance and are too poor to pay for the treatment, those suckers.
If someone is low income and doesn’t have insurance, they should apply for state Medicaid or other assistance programs. These programs exist and are very helpful.
While yes they should, that is still going to be minimal coverage that doesn't cover tons of stuff, especially something like voluntary uterus transplant.
It varies by state, but in some Medicaid is some of the best coverage you can get. (I have a personal mission to dispel the myth that poor Americans can't access health care, because often they can - and spreading the idea they can't leads to adverse health outcomes.) Specifically, patients aren't ever charged for anything.
Uterus transplants are still experimental. The only ones I could find in the U.S. are in clinical trials and are being paid for by the institution to people accepted into the program, such as the one at John Hopkins.
There are not gynecologists (yet) charging $200,000 for uterus transplants in America.
Uterus transplants are still experimental. The only ones I could find in the U.S. are in clinical trials and are being paid for by the institution to people accepted into the program, such as the one at John Hopkins.
There are not gynecologists (yet) charging $200,000 for uterus transplants in America.
I'm not religious, but publishing this the day before Easter is disgusting.
It’s incredible and Inwish long life and happiness to the newborn and her family
I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that “someone born without a womb is a woman” and “hey we can transplant wombs now”
Thousands of scientists and medical practitioners have taken thousands of baby steps to get to this point. We should fund every single one of them - we never know where research will take us.
I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that “someone born without a womb is a woman” and “hey we can transplant wombs now”
Thousands of scientists and medical practitioners have taken thousands of baby steps to get to this point. We should fund every single one of them - we never know where research will take us.
It’s not that confusing. “Has a womb” is not a common definition of “woman”. Women don’t stop being women after having a hysterectomy.
The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex.
The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex.
There's at least four common definitions of "woman", and I have in fact seen people use "has a womb" as one of them despite, as you may guess, all the people piling on immediately with a reply along the lines of what you yourself say — that this would exclude women who have had a hysterectomy.
The other three I've commonly seen are:
(1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate
(2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY
and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery.
The other three I've commonly seen are:
(1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate
(2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY
and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery.
Why do you use the the Nazi demographic term "transvestite?"
(also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
(also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
I promise I'm asking this question in good faith because I would genuinely love to understand your reasoning: why does the term "transvestite" have anything to do with Nazism?
From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it.
What did I miss?
From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it.
What did I miss?
no worries, people typically use “transgender” or “trans” as an umbrella term these days
I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory.
I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory.
I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding of my earlier comment that led to this chain.
Where I wrote above:
> current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public
That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion.
("vest" as in vestments, clothing).
Where I wrote above:
> current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public
That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion.
("vest" as in vestments, clothing).
The emotions fueling my reaction are based on the way I experienced the word as a child in the 80s and 90s, and I could delve deeper into that but it's mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that I experienced the word in hateful ways.
In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment.
The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse.
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment.
The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse.
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
The word "transvestite" predates the Nazis by a few decades, coined by someone the Nazis hated because he was gay and Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
> trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB.
> trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB.
I did intend to type "Nazi era", though I find the clarification is meaningless to the point. I'm all for reclaiming words, but I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular
Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century.
Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century.
> I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular
It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing.
It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard)
> Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition.
Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills.
It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing.
It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard)
> Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition.
Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills.
It's bizarre that you try to talk down about trans issues that you are not informed about and label your interlocutor, a trans woman, as transphobic for not highlighting trans men when talking specifically about women.
If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language.
If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language.
I am very confused by your response. I listed a bunch of different *common* definitions of "what is a woman" and showed that *all of them have flaws*. It's the idea of "common sense language" that I'm opposing here, because the reality is much more interesting than such simple definitions.
I am also not labelling *you* transphobic at all. It was quite obvious that you are not, even before you stated you are a trans woman. Fun fact: myself, gender fluid. (Huh, first time I've said that in a pubic forum with my name on it…)
When I wrote:
> Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
This sentence is not about you. It's a much more general observation, noting what is wrong with *the public discourse*, specifically that transphobes insist on certain definitions which end up with outcomes that they themselves are dissatisfied with.
> RHPS
While I also watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in my teens (late 90s), that film (1975) predates me by so much, I wasn't sure if they used "transvestite" to mean "cross dressing" or "transgender". Where I first used the word "transvestite" to your objection, I meant specifically what is also called "cross dressing", because I was talking about *outward appearance in public*, and clothes are the outward appearance in public.
That and hair, I guess. My hair is long enough I've had at least one straight guy get half way through a wolf-whistle before noticing a beard. At least, I assume they were straight, given the appearance of a beard was simultaneous with them stopping.
I am also not labelling *you* transphobic at all. It was quite obvious that you are not, even before you stated you are a trans woman. Fun fact: myself, gender fluid. (Huh, first time I've said that in a pubic forum with my name on it…)
When I wrote:
> Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
This sentence is not about you. It's a much more general observation, noting what is wrong with *the public discourse*, specifically that transphobes insist on certain definitions which end up with outcomes that they themselves are dissatisfied with.
> RHPS
While I also watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in my teens (late 90s), that film (1975) predates me by so much, I wasn't sure if they used "transvestite" to mean "cross dressing" or "transgender". Where I first used the word "transvestite" to your objection, I meant specifically what is also called "cross dressing", because I was talking about *outward appearance in public*, and clothes are the outward appearance in public.
That and hair, I guess. My hair is long enough I've had at least one straight guy get half way through a wolf-whistle before noticing a beard. At least, I assume they were straight, given the appearance of a beard was simultaneous with them stopping.
US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...).
> US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb
The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.
from the law
> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,
The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.
from the law
> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,
isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova?
“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.
“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.
The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus.
It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.
It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.
The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production.
Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy?
Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?
Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy?
Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?
What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?
Depends why you need to know and with what level of accuracy. Just looking at their face is about 96%-98% accurate[0], and becomes even more accurate when other cues are available such as voice, gait, and build. For casual purposes, humans are incredibly good at predicting sex, without any technology or scientific understanding. One might speculate that being able to accurately find a mate is an evolutionary advantage.
For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization.
At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am...
[2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr...
For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization.
At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am...
[2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr...
The question was:
>What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?
You've managed to provide 0 tests that conclusively answer the question.
>What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?
You've managed to provide 0 tests that conclusively answer the question.
If your target level of accuracy is 100%, there is probably no medical test that can show anything.
Did you know there is no conclusive test for Alzheimer’s, IBS, migraines, and dozens more physical conditions, nor for any psychiatric condition? Do you think these aren’t real, or that they cannot be discerned to a useful degree of accuracy?
Did you know there is no conclusive test for Alzheimer’s, IBS, migraines, and dozens more physical conditions, nor for any psychiatric condition? Do you think these aren’t real, or that they cannot be discerned to a useful degree of accuracy?
Well that's why when the law is concerned, it usually defers identification to a trained professional (e.g. as determined by a doctor ).
Besides that, there are things you can determine with certainty: The presence of a substance in blood for example
Besides that, there are things you can determine with certainty: The presence of a substance in blood for example
A physical examination by a doctor, possibly augmented by imaging, is an excellent way to determine sex if previous observations and tests have been ambiguous. This is rarely a great difficulty, but when it is, it's how DSDs get diagnosed.
So which tests with which results would you rely on?
Which bit are you having difficulty understanding? Make trivial observations if you want moderate accuracy (~99%), use a cheek swab or genetic test if you want greater accuracy, consult a doctor if you are still unsure.
Which part of my question are you having difficulty understanding? If this is so important and accurate surely you can name and explain the important and accurate tests, and their results. Maybe it isn't as simple as you say?
Why should the simplicity of the definition (which, by the way, is what sex means in mammals generally, not just in humans) mean that the testing has to be simple in 100% of cases? I’ve already described cases where it isn’t. That doesn’t change the definition.
Do you think natural phenomena don’t exist or can’t be useful unless there is a simple test to grant you the details?
Do you think natural phenomena don’t exist or can’t be useful unless there is a simple test to grant you the details?
I think there are tests that intelligent people can describe which demonstrate the phenomena exists. That's what science is.
I think my answer was larger than the box you drew for it, and now you’ve sealioned yourself into a very weird corner where you seem to think the existence of male and female developmental pathways is somehow negated by edge cases.
So the SRY cheek swab test that the IOC ruled ineffective before the 2000 Olympics is what you think is accurate? Interesting.
It is a screening test, not a diagnostic test. False positives are possible, but so are followup tests for those cases.
I guess it doesn't answer my question then.
Why do you suppose such a test could even exist?
A friend of mine takes estrogen and has breasts, feminine voice, etc. Her body’s arguably taken both sexual differentiation pathways over the years. I think even this definition isn’t so clear-cut.
Body modification through technology doesn’t really encroach on the scientific classification of the natural world. The Vacanti mouse which had an apparent human ear grown on its back was an amazing thing in its own right, but its existence doesn’t mean we need to update our understanding of what a mouse is.
> I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that "someone born without a womb is a woman" and "hey we can transplant wombs now"
MRKH syndrome is a disorder of female sex development, and if you look at this from the perspective of developmental biology it's clear that anyone affected by this must be a woman. I feel it shouldn't be too hard an idea to struggle with.
That they have a working womb transplant technique is impressive from a medical technology point of view but I think not enough has been said about the ethics of this experimentation.
Personally I wouldn't risk exposing my baby to transplant anti-rejection drugs. We don't know how this may impact the short-term or long-term health of the baby.
MRKH syndrome is a disorder of female sex development, and if you look at this from the perspective of developmental biology it's clear that anyone affected by this must be a woman. I feel it shouldn't be too hard an idea to struggle with.
That they have a working womb transplant technique is impressive from a medical technology point of view but I think not enough has been said about the ethics of this experimentation.
Personally I wouldn't risk exposing my baby to transplant anti-rejection drugs. We don't know how this may impact the short-term or long-term health of the baby.
The same could've been said about IVF - the technology is not old, the first person born to it was only in 1978.
As I understand it, the court ruled that specifically within the text of the 2010 Equality Act, where it says 'woman' with no qualifier, that refers only to biological females. I do not know how many such places there are, but other parts of the act do apparently refer to other women and that they should not be discriminated against in the same way.
The court is really saying that the lawmakers did not specify properly what they meant in certain cases and that they should probably modify those sections (they are carefully not to tell Parliament what to do), which can be done and does sometimes get done when such things crop up.
The court is really saying that the lawmakers did not specify properly what they meant in certain cases and that they should probably modify those sections (they are carefully not to tell Parliament what to do), which can be done and does sometimes get done when such things crop up.
> but other parts of the act do apparently refer to other women and that they should not be discriminated against in the same way
Yes, the act (as it should) protects people from discrimination based on gender reassignment, e.g. you can't fire someone for their gender identity or deny them from a service.
The act makes it illegal to discriminate against someone due to their "sex", but a portion of the act allowed for "single sex" spaces where there is reasonable grounds to have them, but the act (reasonably at the time) did not define what sex was.
A piece of Scottish legislation referred to "woman as defined by the Equality Act", but the Equality Act never said if it was referring to biological sex or gender identity, the Scottish government said it would include people with gender reassignment certificates, a "woman's rights" charity disagreed. Hence the court got involved and found the original intention was to refer to biological sex, which was confirmed by the politician that introduced the Equality Act (Harriet Harman).
Yes, the act (as it should) protects people from discrimination based on gender reassignment, e.g. you can't fire someone for their gender identity or deny them from a service.
The act makes it illegal to discriminate against someone due to their "sex", but a portion of the act allowed for "single sex" spaces where there is reasonable grounds to have them, but the act (reasonably at the time) did not define what sex was.
A piece of Scottish legislation referred to "woman as defined by the Equality Act", but the Equality Act never said if it was referring to biological sex or gender identity, the Scottish government said it would include people with gender reassignment certificates, a "woman's rights" charity disagreed. Hence the court got involved and found the original intention was to refer to biological sex, which was confirmed by the politician that introduced the Equality Act (Harriet Harman).
On the important issue of discrimination, Clause 9 makes it clear that a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act as a person of the acquired sex or gender. Once recognition has been granted, they will be able to claim the rights appropriate to that gender.
- Lord Filkin, the Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 (18th December)
- Lord Filkin, the Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 (18th December)
This is not actually a struggle whatsoever, it only is if you pretend it is thus. Humans have 2 legs and 2 arms. It I was born without legs, am I still a human?
I was born as a baby, but I sure 'aint one now.
Here's another one for you, given how many people care about XX/XY as a distinction of gender: Humans have 46 chromosomes, but by this definition, about 0.6–1.0% of live births from human mothers are of individuals who aren't human.
Language is a tool we use to create categories, don't let language use you. Insisting that everything in reality must conform to the categories that language already has, is mistaking the map for the territory.
Here's another one for you, given how many people care about XX/XY as a distinction of gender: Humans have 46 chromosomes, but by this definition, about 0.6–1.0% of live births from human mothers are of individuals who aren't human.
Language is a tool we use to create categories, don't let language use you. Insisting that everything in reality must conform to the categories that language already has, is mistaking the map for the territory.
Language is more than a tool, though. It's how we understand reality. My native language is English, I speak a little Spanish, more than a little German, and used to speak some other stuff (the use it or lose it kind). And in every effort to learn those language you, well, learn things about how to structure your thought and understanding of things. I think you're mistaking my point for something else.
In learning German as an adult, one thing I keep noticing is how a single word in one language is several in the other.
English: Times, German: Mal or Zeiten.
"Every time" is "jedes Mal", but "good times" is "gute Zeiten". "Three times four" uses "mal".
And every time a new thing gets invented, found, or imported, neologisms pop up, or words get borrowed from other cultures. In English, robins are said to have "red breasts", because the colour orange had not yet been coined when the bird needed a name, because the fruit after which the colour is named had not yet arrived.
People also argue about if "vegetarian hamburgers" is a sensible term, as if the "ham" implies meat, even though (1) the meat varieties usually use beef, and (2) it's named after the place Hamburg.
Before the development of hormonal and surgical solutions, the only thing trans people could do was change their clothes. At some point, the medical options are so capable that any given previous definition of gender becomes malleable. A womb implant is one such option.
English: Times, German: Mal or Zeiten.
"Every time" is "jedes Mal", but "good times" is "gute Zeiten". "Three times four" uses "mal".
And every time a new thing gets invented, found, or imported, neologisms pop up, or words get borrowed from other cultures. In English, robins are said to have "red breasts", because the colour orange had not yet been coined when the bird needed a name, because the fruit after which the colour is named had not yet arrived.
People also argue about if "vegetarian hamburgers" is a sensible term, as if the "ham" implies meat, even though (1) the meat varieties usually use beef, and (2) it's named after the place Hamburg.
Before the development of hormonal and surgical solutions, the only thing trans people could do was change their clothes. At some point, the medical options are so capable that any given previous definition of gender becomes malleable. A womb implant is one such option.
Sure, but Mal and Zeit intentionally elicit different contextual meanings. The literal word is the same in English but it's quite obvious that the context is different, and in German the context calls for a different word. English, while being within the Germanic language family, isn't as particular in many ways as German can be or is. If you can speak multiple languages surely you understand what I am getting at. Vegetarian "hamburgers" is a poor example because, well, the point of calling something a "vegetarian hamburger" is that it resembles a _real_ hamburger, which would contain meat. Thus, you now understand my point about changing language in this regard.
> Thus, you now understand my point about changing language in this regard.
I really don't.
As I say in such discussions, "you're only allowed to call them 'hamburgers' if they're from the Hamburg region, otherwise it's just a sparkling fried patty".
See also: https://xkcd.com/3075/
I really don't.
As I say in such discussions, "you're only allowed to call them 'hamburgers' if they're from the Hamburg region, otherwise it's just a sparkling fried patty".
See also: https://xkcd.com/3075/
If you’re writing laws, your choice of language matters quite a lot. “Humans have 2 legs and 2 arms” alongside “humans are entitled to unalienable rights” could lead to foreseeable problems, so specifying in your writing that “humans typically have two legs and two arms” would be a smarter bet. It’s not important in a hacker news comment, but is important in law.
That's a gross oversimplification. Virilisation is a complex process with many factors.
If you're still human if you're born without legs then clearly neither genetic or developmental traits determine someone's humanity.
So at what point do we call someone a woman born without a uterus? When a 'normal' pregnancy would have resulted in them having a uterus? When different genetics would have resulted in them having a uterus? Or when she herself complains that she lacks a uterus?
If you're still human if you're born without legs then clearly neither genetic or developmental traits determine someone's humanity.
So at what point do we call someone a woman born without a uterus? When a 'normal' pregnancy would have resulted in them having a uterus? When different genetics would have resulted in them having a uterus? Or when she herself complains that she lacks a uterus?
I'm applying the same logic, I'm not simplifying anything. You are using the word "humanity" to mean something different from what the rest of the thread is talking about. To address what I think your point is, many wish to expand the malleability of basic biological concepts based on edge cases. Edge cases for which we already have definitions and categories. You are doing so now, by attempting to entrench ambiguity on the entire concept of "woman" by observing that the woman in TFA was born with a specific, heritable, abnormality that prevented the nominal development of a uterus.
The biotech coming down the line will make our current culture wars seem like a disagreement between two best friends.
All of the following are nearly possible today:
+ A man implanted with a womb giving birth.
+ A woman stealing genetic material and creating a baby, the gender of the second parent is irrelevant here.
+ A woman wanting an abortion, instead having the fetus removed and placed in an artificial womb under the care of the father.
And one that I was working on:
+ Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely.
All of the following are nearly possible today:
+ A man implanted with a womb giving birth.
+ A woman stealing genetic material and creating a baby, the gender of the second parent is irrelevant here.
+ A woman wanting an abortion, instead having the fetus removed and placed in an artificial womb under the care of the father.
And one that I was working on:
+ Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely.
> Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely.
I’m sorry, you were working on what? Where does one learn more about this concept?
I’m sorry, you were working on what? Where does one learn more about this concept?
>Where does one learn more about this concept?
One does not.
One builds the tools to run the experiments to discover the rules.
The closest are FinalSpark and CorticalLabs, but they both are only using in vitro neurons as the computational substrate.
Neuralink et al. are working in vivo, but they are only doing output and don't have any plans to do input, let alone to actively disrupt normal neural activity and take control of bodily processes.
If you're very interested feel free to drop me a line.
One does not.
One builds the tools to run the experiments to discover the rules.
The closest are FinalSpark and CorticalLabs, but they both are only using in vitro neurons as the computational substrate.
Neuralink et al. are working in vivo, but they are only doing output and don't have any plans to do input, let alone to actively disrupt normal neural activity and take control of bodily processes.
If you're very interested feel free to drop me a line.
I am one of the co-founder of FinalSpark, I believe biocomputing implies to master in vitro learning, and once you get there it may open new perspectives.
On what time scales?
Short term in vitro learning's been shown in the original CorticalLabs paper (20 min), but the sheer difficulty of keeping neurons alive, working, unstressed, fed and oxygenated in vitro while highly active for more than an hour at a time means that no one's been able to show how that short term learning transfers to long term memory.
Using an organism that already provides all the life support for the neurons means that you can have test runs that last hours to weeks with continuous stimulation.
Your tech is easily modifiable so it can do that since it's based on the Intan RHS chips. Happy to have a chat about it since you're one of the two companies that could potentially pull this off right now.
Short term in vitro learning's been shown in the original CorticalLabs paper (20 min), but the sheer difficulty of keeping neurons alive, working, unstressed, fed and oxygenated in vitro while highly active for more than an hour at a time means that no one's been able to show how that short term learning transfers to long term memory.
Using an organism that already provides all the life support for the neurons means that you can have test runs that last hours to weeks with continuous stimulation.
Your tech is easily modifiable so it can do that since it's based on the Intan RHS chips. Happy to have a chat about it since you're one of the two companies that could potentially pull this off right now.
The Supreme Court wasn’t deciding anything other than the intention of an existing law and the meaning of the words in that law (which were unclear enough to require clarification). BOTH sides of the debate claiming that the Supreme Court has now defined what constitutes a “woman” are wrong and doing nothing but polarising people for their own selfish gain.
This ^. It was your standard run-of-the-mill statutory interpretation case. Limited to a single badly defined statute, written somewhat carelessly. This is common for statutes.
What often happens is that a "supreme" court like this will file an opinion attempting to clarify the meaning as best they can, but it really requires a statutory amendment by the legislators to fix it. Often that is what happens next.
What often happens is that a "supreme" court like this will file an opinion attempting to clarify the meaning as best they can, but it really requires a statutory amendment by the legislators to fix it. Often that is what happens next.
Unfortunately when you try to explain this to people, the most common response (regardless of which side they're on) is to express that "Yes, but OUR side is right, so misrepresenting the ruling in our favor is right too."
The same kind of people where if you're not on their extreme, you're on the opposite extreme and might as well be Satan himself.
You're not allowed to be in the middle anymore.
You're not allowed to be in the middle anymore.
People are rightly judged for saying they're "in the middle" because too often their "middle" is just whatever they perceptually decided the position of the left and right was and then they picked their position in reaction to that, rather then out of any consideration of the issue.
People love to be "in the middle" and thus "reasonable".
People love to be "in the middle" and thus "reasonable".
This is why the entire exercise of finding a place on a political spectrum is a trap and a scam, the only thing that really matters:
Are you an extremist or a moderate? Because I can get along with a moderate person on the left, right, or anywhere in between. By the same token extremists regardless of stripe are unbearable.
Are you an extremist or a moderate? Because I can get along with a moderate person on the left, right, or anywhere in between. By the same token extremists regardless of stripe are unbearable.
You're both right. We don't distinguish between the reasonable middle grounders and the unreasonable ones. More broadly, we don't distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable arguments. We never have. Truth as determined by humans is basically a popularity contest.
I don’t think anyone struggles with “someone born without a womb is a woman.”
When a woman is born without a womb, the doctors should investigate and figure out why that is. Is something else missing? Could there be other issues? A diagnosis should be made.
No such investigation is necessary when a man is born without a womb.
When a woman is born without a womb, the doctors should investigate and figure out why that is. Is something else missing? Could there be other issues? A diagnosis should be made.
No such investigation is necessary when a man is born without a womb.
You can't tell if a newborn girl has a womb or not. Not without ultrasounds or scans.
[deleted]
ck2(8)
This is just fudging to justify some trans based delusion. It’s all pretty straightforward.
[deleted]
miroljub(1)
So if they do a DNA test, her sister is the actual biological mother I guess.
No, That's not how any of this works... The DNA comes from the egg, the uterus (aka womb) is just an incubation chamber.
Would only have the sister's DNA if it was an ovary transplant.
Would only have the sister's DNA if it was an ovary transplant.
> Would only have the sister's DNA if it was an ovary transplant.
Fun fact: fetal cells transmit back to the mother and can be spotted in virtually every organ afterwards - it's called "Fetomaternal cell microchimerism" [1].
It's not a far stretch to assume the transfer works also the other way around and you can detect maternal DNA in the fetus/child, but I'm not aware if there has been research around that.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357422...
Fun fact: fetal cells transmit back to the mother and can be spotted in virtually every organ afterwards - it's called "Fetomaternal cell microchimerism" [1].
It's not a far stretch to assume the transfer works also the other way around and you can detect maternal DNA in the fetus/child, but I'm not aware if there has been research around that.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357422...
Yep, mom→fetus/child is "maternal microchimerism" and it is also widely studied (though less so than the reverse) and seemingly confirmed.
This is interesting to me at the margins, because one of the things I learned when my wife got pregnant the first time was that the womb is not exactly the warm cradle of nurturing that I had always (without thinking much about it) imagined, but in many ways a blast door or containment vessel to protect the mother (host) from the fetus (roughly, xenomorph) that would otherwise explode like an aggressive parasite (killing them both).
So I mean, you probably don't want to have any leaks or weak stitches in your uterus transplant...
Keywords: fetal microchimerism, placental barrier, trophoblast invasion