An article published in the American Medical Association (AMA) Journal of Ethics has suggested that taxpayers subsidize uterus transplants up to $300,000 to help biological males who identify as women to become pregnant. A uterus transplant is a risky and difficult surgery that can take up to 18 months, on average, to complete.
According to The Daily Mail, in the June issue of the Journal of Ethics, the article said that biological men who identify as women and want to have the experience of giving birth can “plausibly justify” the subsidy of uterus transplants, a medical procedure that can cost as much as $300,000. The AMA is now being criticized for taking an “activist position” and has issued a recent “fact check” on the matter.
“Transwomen lack a trait (the ability to bear children) that may cause them to experience psychological dissonance in a way that undermines their health and well-being,” authors Timothy F. Murphy and Kelsey Mumford wrote in the Journal of Ethics. “The lack of a uterus also closes off the prospect of gestating a child in a way that is available to women as a class. It follows that lack of a uterus is an obstacle to full participation in the social goods attached to women’s identity.”
This is entirely untrue as there are biological women who do not have a uterus, yet are fully female.
The Daily Mail explained what a uterus transplant for a biological man would involve, and it begins with a vaginoplasty. This is a surgical procedure that involves removing the man’s testicles, and inverting the penis into a fake vagina. The transplanted uterus would then be attached to the fake vagina. The man would have to begin taking immunosuppressant drugs to attempt to prevent the body from rejecting the uterus, though these drugs don’t always work as well as hoped. In addition, such drugs can cause pregnancy complications and harm to developing preborn child, who would have to be implanted via IVF.
If the biological male is actually able to sustain pregnancy, he would be able to have the uterus removed once the baby (or babies) is born.
“It is odd that the AMA is choosing to really focus on this activist position rather than fund the important research we need in transgender medicine,” Dr. Marty Makary told Fox & Friends. “What’s the regret rate after transition surgery? What’s the long term complication rate of hormones? Those studies are not being done. Instead of funding those studies, they’ve chosen to take an activist position.”
He added that research into transgenderism is difficult to carry out, “because the activists have run a lot of people out of town, th[e] reasonable doctors and objective scientists have been run out of town.”
Makary pointed out that just because something can be done scientifically doesn’t mean it should be done.
“The question is, should it be done? It is odd that the AMA is choosing to really focus on this activist position rather than fund the important research we need in transgender medicine,” he said. “Now there is a movement within the American Medical Association to say, ‘Let’s do this in biologic men or biologic men who identify as women.'”
He continued, “If you remember, for decades, doctors have identified transgender people with chromosomal tests and clear-cut biologic features, but now there’s a movement where some doctors and the American Medical Association is saying people should be able to pick their gender change freely as a matter of personal choice.'”
He added, “That’s why you can walk into a Planned Parenthood as a child and walk out with a bottle of hormones. They believe it’s the job of the medical profession to simply affirm what you want to do.”
Editor’s Note, 9/14/23: This article has been corrected for clarification and differentiation between the AMA and the AMA’s Journal of Ethics.
