Some men want to harvest women's wombs in order to implant them in men to allow men to give birth, because that is now considered a compassionate, affirming thing to do.
While this concept has been bandied about for a few years, new fertility treatments have allowed Harley Street private surgeon at the London Transgender Clinic Christopher Inglefield to proclaim that men who present as female and wish to be mothers should receive experimental womb transplants.
Inglefield says that the procedure of womb transplantation for men would be "essentially identical’ to that of ‘cis-women," meaning that he sees little difference in putting a donated womb into a woman than putting it into a man, despite the obvious differences in plumbing.
Inglefield is a plastic surgeon who specializes in both gender confirmation surgery, which involves the dismembering of healthy genitals to replace them with flesh sculpture versions of opposite sex ones. He also has a booming business in surgically altering faces and bodies to appear stereotypically female.
He said that “This pioneering birth is extremely important for any trans female who would like to carry her own child. Because once the medical community accept this as a treatment for cis-women with uterine infertility, such as congenital absence of a womb, then it would be illegal to deny a trans-female who has completed her transition.
"There are clearly anatomical boundaries when it comes to trans women but these are problems that I believe can be surmounted and the transplant into a trans-female is essentially identical to that of a cis-female," he said.
Inglefield argues that males "should be entitled to womb transplants to enable them to have their own babies."
Inglefield claims womb transplants into a "trans female" should be possible. Note he doesn't say "transwoman," which has been the going term, but appropriates the biological term for the sex which produces eggs. (This linguistic creep is how the trans lobby works. First they came for the pronouns, now they are coming for femaleness itself.)
There are two implications: first, that the only thing standing between men, and their ability to gestate babies and give birth, is the availability of a transplantable uterus. Of course, this is—and will always be—pure science fiction. In order to do what nature intended, a womb must be part of a living woman's body, with the endocrine choreography and specialized skeleton that entails.
The second implication is that society is ethically bound to pander to every impossible wish. The claim is that no physical limits, whether by sex, by disease, or by age, should remain un-broached. If medics can do something, they ought. Of course, that is the challenge faced by medical industry which now seeks growth, as opposed to the relief of avoidable human misery. It is vulnerable to cognitive capture by ideologues— in this case, misogynists who believe women should cease to have a monopoly on creating human life.
Transplanting wombs into men is neither possible, nor ethical, nor desirable—unless you're an extreme sexual fetishist whose fetish is womankind herself. So, what is going on here? Why is the mainstream media publishing ghoulish puff-pieces about harvesting women's reproductive organs for dubious men to play around with?
There are two related reasons: marketing, and shifting the Overton window. The suite of extreme plastic surgeries associated associated with the trans movement are complex, expensive, and often lead to repeat surgeries. Additionally, once a person commits to medical transition, they are a lifelong customer of plastic surgeries and pharmaceuticals.
This is a goldmine for surgeons such as Inglefield. As a regular media face, he is good at self-promotion, although he recently removed from the public domain a photograph of himself smiling and posing with two young females upon whose bodies he performed medically unnecessary bilateral mastectomies, his hands draped around their waists. Removing young women's healthy breasts is big business nowadays. In the US, it is authorized under many college health insurance plans. Smiling patients sell more procedures, with the dream of changing sex.
Inglefield's promotional strategy is to 'groom' or condition the public with disturbing images so frequently that we become desensitized to them. His hope is that the general public will, if it won't embrace trans surgeries as routine and even aspirational, come to accept them, to passively acquiesce, because they feel there is nothing they can do to confront such horrors.
Because, if you follow Inglefield's logic to its conclusion, it leads to some horrifying places. If a man could have a woman's womb transplanted into his body, and give birth, he would then expect to be called "mother."
He would be able to achieve this male "motherhood" by way of purchased eggs and his own sperm. The woman is completely erased from the picture. He would have the power to deny his baby any mother at all. Being a misogynist psychopath, he would give zero consideration to the lifelong mental effects on the child of being born without a mother. Humans would no longer be "of woman born" by default.
Then, where would this supply of wombs come from, to create all of these new male "mothers"? What about from the young women queuing up to have the most female of their female parts removed, to complete their "transition" to pretending to be men?
After all, they won't be needing their wombs to make babies, as that is the female reproductive role, and their mental illness—and the societal malaise—is all about denying their femaleness. Women's wombs would become commodities for purchase by rich men, just as there is a trade in kidneys from the healthy poor to the diseased rich. Markets in human organs never go well for the marginalized "donor."
Finally, what about the person who none of these transhumanist ideologues ever give a moment's thought to: the child? We already know—although it is suppressed knowledge—that children born to mothers who are reduced, by economic coercion, to "surrogates" suffer psychological harm. Every child needs its mother. That fact will never go away. Even if she has had an unbearably hard life, and cannot mother in the way society expects women to be able to regardless of resources, the child still yearns for her.
Our children are of our bodies. That human connection is most profound and it exists. Imagine, then, the scope for psychological harm to a child born to an insanely selfish man with the most extreme sexual fetish imaginable: motherhood? Men who view motherhood as a sexual fetish should not be able to implant wombs into themselves, give birth through neo-vaginas, suckle infants, and call themselves mothers. Women and women alone are mothers, and mother.
We know that child sex abusers exploit surrogacy laws to purchase new child victims for themselves. Inglefield's logic leads directly to selling children as chattel, as commodities, just like in the bad old days. It leads to disturbed kids. It leads straight to safeguarding hell.
In a just world, plastic surgeons like Inglefield would not have a business model. They would have no market, because their predatory medical snake oil—sold as a panacea for psychological distress with all manner of causes—would be morally mandated out of existence. Instead, people experiencing ongoing distress at their sexed bodies would be given the best mental health support money can buy, and their cultural environment would not seek to mask that completely understandable distress.
What we can do, as concerned citizens, is it as hard as possible for the likes of Inglefield to conduct their business. Petition legislators, lobby lawmakers to outlaw these ideologically-motivated medical procedures—especially on minors—and always, always, speak up whenever you can safely do so.