you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

but really if you can't comprehend how putting a uterus into a man is less natural than putting one into a female I don't know what else to tell you

It's the same operation. For the same reason. Unless you've got a particular hang up about the sex assigned at birth affecting "natualness" then they're equally natural.

[–]Dontcaretoday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, I do believe that impregnating a male is significantly less natural than doing the same exact procedure to a female. It seems like we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one lol.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I do believe that impregnating a male is significantly less natural than doing the same exact procedure to a female.

I think you're straw manning a little bit to call uterus transplantation "impregnating".

And being assigned male at birth is different from being male. There's all sorts of medical conditions that could lead to that, some of which are quite closely related to some of the reasons why someone without female reproductive organs might be assigned female at birth.

[–]Dontcaretoday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you are performing a procedure that causes a person to become pregnant, impregnating seems appropriate enough. I'm not referring to fringe cases of people having intersex conditions, just a standard XX vs XY.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Having a uterus doesn't cause you to become pregnant.

Women (be they cis or trans) born without a uterus are edge cases.