Gynocidal Tendencies: The Horror of Transgender Uterus Transplantation

They're coming for our wombs.

Jan 22, 2026

"Contra the things that never happen that happen all the time, there are the things that will surely happen one day, that will never, ever happen, such as uterus transplants in men."

- Matt Osborne

woman in jacket holding phone — Photo by Alexander Aashiesh on Unsplash *I absolutely love this photo.*

Paid subscribers get access to essay voiceovers created by yours truly. If you like to listen, and are sick of the AI voice, consider a paid subscription.

Trigger Warning: Angry TERF being angry and “not nice”, hysteria, and questionable use of punctuation. Unnecessary curses, and be aware that this is genuinely upsetting, especially to people who give a damn. Step away from breakables before reading.

Contents:

Introduction and Inspiration
Coin Slot and Factory in One Go
We Aren’t Just Men with A Few Different Body Parts
The International Society of Uterus Transplantation Ethics Committee
And Don’t Tell Me This Makes it Okay
Paging “Doctor” Mengele
Is This Gynocide in Action?
They Have No Right(s)

Introduction and Inspiration

Instead of sleeping at four this morning, I found myself reading some of the most dark and dystopian shit I’ve had the displeasure of learning about in a long time. I stumbled upon a screenshot taken from Reddit, in which an absolutely shameless trans-identified man pretends to be infertile, along with a reference to an organization called the International Society of Uterus Transplantation.

The women of the MRKH community did not take kindly to this intruder and expressed all of their pain openly, which these guys cannot handle. He tried to be manipulative and when that didn’t work, he ran back “to his own” to complain about how mean these obvious TERFs were to him.

If you want to know how this went for him, here’s a link to the thread.

I have a small confession to make: I know that this is an incredibly important topic and I’m honored that you’re listening to my take on it, dear reader, but, I also kind of wish I hadn’t looked into this. I feel like I’m in an episode of Black Mirror that is somehow not interesting or thought provoking - just deeply upsetting with a distinct flavor of hopeless dystopian despair. That being said, buckle up. This is going to be a rough ride.

“How rough,” you ask?

"Recommendation 2: Animal research is needed to determine the feasibility of UTx in, and uterus donation from, transgender patients and UTx in cisgender males who want to experience pregnancy. If medically and surgically acceptable, gender identity and reproductive status should not be exclusionary factors for uterus donation or transplantation.”

That rough.

Coin Slot and Factory in One Go

Here’s another fine example of disturbing entitlement. Thankfully, this man did not enter a space meant for women, unlike the one above (that’s why he was rightfully torn to shreds).

Thank you to Write sober, edit sober🤎📖 for this screenshot.

Sorry, sweetheart. You’re not going to make it in mechanical engineering if you think males can be given a functioning uterus. I would love to see this “research” you engaged in, which probably amounts to one blog post written by a delusional man. Whatever it was, you are not a scientist in the least. Frankly, you might just want to ditch the college plan all together and use that money to buy yourself a clue.

It really boils my blood that these men think of a woman’s body parts as items to select off a menu. You can just order a “coin slot - factory combo,” and congrats, you’re a woman. By the way, you’re aware that you can’t get a “coin slot”, right? The best you can get is some testicular skin or a piece of stinky colon attached in such a way that it can be fucked.1 You cannot have a vagina, a cervix, a uterus, Fallopian tubes, or ovaries filled with the seeds of life.2 It’s physically impossible, and saying this is not bullying or bigotry.

That uterus you want cannot be constructed - it needs to be a healthy uterus donated from a living woman or one who is very recently deceased. So, like…WHY can’t you transfems have a uterus? Because each one needs to be removed from the body of a real woman in order to give it to a man. Fucking. Asshole.

It might also be prudent to mention that you cannot have a permanent uterus transplantation. The body isn’t meant to be treated like a plug-and-play bit of tech - it wants to reject the foreign body. Having a uterus would mean having to take medication to suppress your immune system, along with very careful monitoring by medical professionals, for the duration of the uterus’ visit.

Per the manuscript in question:

Once the goal of UTx—1 or more successful, healthy live births—is achieved, or once it becomes clear that it will not be achieved, the graft should be removed to limit exposure to immunosuppression and related long-term complications of continuing these medications. The DUETS trial set a limit on graft recipient time to 5 y and the trial in Sweden planned uterus removal after 1 or 2 successful pregnancies.

That means that you are not only proposing that women give up their healthy organs to affirm a man’s identity or give him the “experience of pregnancy”, but you are expecting them to give them away, knowing they are disposable.

And for what? What the fuck are you going to do with a uterus once it’s been somehow anchored inside of your abdomen and sealed away? Do we have to have an anatomy lesson? Is that the issue?

*Thank goodness I’m not a teacher! Or a doctor…*

You’re not capable of being given a vaginal canal let alone all the other parts that make up the female reproductive system. The best you get is a hot mess of a “vulva” and a fuck-tunnel. I guess to sum it all up:

I am genuinely confused by your confusion.

We Aren’t Just Men with A Few Different Body Parts

Women are built for childbearing. Our anatomy supports active pregnancy in many ways that a man’s anatomy does not. That means that even if we were to get the damn uterus into a man and into place (not sure where it would go, honestly), the body cannot support the creation of human life. We have a sort of “pregnancy wizardry” that cannot be replicated in men.

Their male bodies are missing the required:

reproductive tract
endocrine system
immune adaptations
vascular architecture
skeletal and connective tissue design
metabolic programming
post-birth integration
common sense (clearly!)

Reproductive Tract

As I previously mentioned, the uterus is not just floating around in our bodies on its own. It is part of a coordinated reproduction tract with the cervix and vaginal canal. Did you know that the tissue of the cervix is hormonally responsive in a way that no male body tissue is? That’s kind of neat, right?

Endocrine System Tuned for Pregnancy

Administering estrogen and/or progesterone to a male is not enough to simulate the complexity of a body built for pregnancy and childbirth. A woman’s body incorporates essential cyclic and pregnancy-responsive ovarian hormone signaling that cannot be replicated medically.

Immune Adaptations

Our bodies do not like to have things inside of them that do not belong there, especially bodily organs from someone else. I previously mentioned the risk of a male body rejecting a uterus, but have you considered that a fetus is half genetically someone else? Our bodies have evolved a pregnancy-specific immune modulation in order to ensure that both the fetus is safe while allowing the mother to fight infection. A male body is not capable of performing this balancing act, resulting in serious risks to both the fetus and the man in question.

Vascular Architecture

This is more pregnancy magic. A woman’s body undergoes vascular remodeling that, amongst other benefits, increases blood volume and cardio output in order to form a placenta. A man’s body is not capable of placentation, and that’s a big deal breaker.

Skeletal and Connective Tissue Design

There are important structural differences, as well as more pregnancy magic going on here. Of course, a man does not have an attached cervix and vaginal canal in order to give birth, but if he did, his pelvis would not allow a baby to pass through (a woman’s barely does already). And then there’s the pregnancy magic: the mother’s spine curvature, ligaments, and connective tissue change in response to pregnancy hormones.

Metabolic Programming

Pregnancy involves a controlled shift toward:

insulin resistance (to prioritize fetal glucose supply)
fat storage and later mobilization
altered lipid and protein metabolism

There’s nothing in males that allows these finely-tuned adjustments to be made, putting them at risk for severe metabolic dysregulation.

Post-Birth Integration

As many of you are aware, we already have examples of men who have put themselves and their narcissistic desires ahead of their partner and baby by breastfeeding.

Here’s one, and look, another.

However, hormone induced lactation in men isn’t the same thing as a mother’s natural ability to produce milk. Believe it or not, we are people with amazing bodies that are capable of things you cannot reproduce in your own body. I know that’s hard to believe, but it’s just science.

Unfortunately, women are punished for speaking out against this disgusting practice. (This is not empowering. This is fetishistic.) Truth and science are no match for trans advocates and the handmaidens.

In this story, two women broke Australian law by speaking the truth and were banned from Twitter. Jasmine Sussex, in particular, was egregiously punished for raising her concerns about Jennifer Buckley, a trans-identified man who had invaded the Facebook breastfeeding community she was involved with:

Buckley [had been] boasting about making ‘colostrum’ for his newborn son as a transgender ‘mother.’ I didn’t respond to him directly … but I did raise with the ABA (Australian Breastfeeding Association) that ABA Counsellors are entitled to a safe workplace and that what appeared to be a man identifying as a woman was on the page boasting about making colostrum. Only the birth mother makes colostrum,” Sussex explains, noting that she was swiftly penalized for raising her concerns about him.

I was blocked from the [Facebook] page and sent an email that afternoon saying it was a breach of our code of conduct/ethics for me to even raise this as a workplace health and safety issue with the ABA.”

Sussex says that she received an email from the ABA’s National Training Manager the next day removing her from her service on the National Government Funded Breastfeeding Helpline.

via REDUXX

She had been a member for 18 years.

Colostrum is a secretion that is present before the first milk arrives, and it continues for several days. This “foremilk” contains antibodies to protect the newborn against disease and infection, as well as helpful bioactives to strengthen the little one’s immune system. This is just another little bit of pregnancy magic that may be easy to overlook.

Oh! This is probably important, too: a male body is not equipped to perform involution, meaning that anything stretched out is going to stay that way. Women have super duper organ shrinking powers! (I’d choose the power of invisibility first, but that’s still cool.)

I’m sure there is plenty that I’m missing, but truthfully, that alone is enough.

A woman is not a man with boobies and a baby-maker. We are biologically complex and unique beings who deserve to be treated with the level of respect a lifegiver with unique anatomy deserves, fertile or not.

The International Society of Uterus Transplantation Ethics Committee

Before we dig into the rest of this horror show, I’d like to introduce to you Anji Wall, M.D., PhD who is responsible for the highly offensive and upsetting recommendation from above.

*Even that hairline is backing away slowly.*

I’m sure Anji is a very intelligent and knowledgeable person with the best of intentions3, but none of that matters. Instead of putting a woman in charge of recommending that wombs be free for the taking, someone thought it was a good look to select this person instead. You know, this person with very specific interests that might lead to a dangerous bias in their work; this person who knows nothing about having a uterus or being a woman in the least, and this person who obviously knows nothing about feminist issues.

You can’t make this shit up.

The full title of the manuscript is: Evolving Ethical Challenges After a Decade of Uterus Transplantation: Recommendations From the International Society of Uterus Transplantation Ethics Committee. Within, Wall addresses three psychosocial criteria and states that “there are grounds for their ethical re-evaluation and potential revision”:

Relationship Status (of recipients)
Gender Identity (of both recipients and donors)
Reproductive Status (of both recipients and donors)

We are going to focus on number two today. More specifically, I want to discuss uterus transplantation in males.

You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Unless You’re a Dude Who Wants a Uterus)

I’m not sure what makes the people on this committee think that having a man tell us what to do with our wombs is a good idea. Don’t you people ever learn? I suppose because this is coming from a more “liberal position”4 and because this man pretends to be a woman, it’s perfectly okay.5

The Right will just put an asshole like Trump in charge. The Left will put an asshole in charge and make you call him “miss”. Call me hysterical, but I think I actually prefer the straight forward approach from the politically conservative. I’d rather take only the injury of a patriarch over the added insult of mockery and false allyship.

At least a man who admits he’s a man can be called out for being sexist and misogynistic. A trans-identified man cannot be criticized without threatening litigation and violence in retribution for the woman (It’s always the women being targeted.)

There are so many ethical concerns wrapped up in this that I know I will not do this subject justice. Hopefully, though, this will be enough to get you interested in following this issue or learning more. To help fill in the picture, here are a few specific points I’d like to suggest might cause moral quandaries:

Uterine transplants in women are already risky surgeries.
There is no medical reason to perform such a procedure.
Infants cannot consent to this highly experimental and dangerous process.
The assumption of risk (and benefits) is asymmetrical.
This would treat desire as a medical need (like “transitioning”)

But there is plenty more to be concerned about.

I know no one cares about the psychological impact this sort of thing has on women, but since we spend, like, all of our time talking about the feelings of trans folks (and how we are not supposed to hurt them), I think I can just take a moment to be selfish for the sake of 50% of the population. I know there are a lot of women out there who, on a superficial level, would say that a trans-identified man has “the right” to experience pregnancy and/or childbirth. They’re confused and/or do not understand the complexity of such an antifeminist position.

Issues of morality aside, it impacts our psychology, knowingly or not, to live in a world that reduces our bodies to a sushi menu and the rest of our being into a set of stereotypes for men to wear. I know how it impacts me, and knowing how that feels, I am gravely concerned about the women in upcoming generations. Girls deserve much better than this.

And Don’t Tell Me This Makes it Okay

There is mention in the manuscript of women who may not want children,6 as well as trans-identified women, giving up their wombs via donation. I'm not sure I believe that a trans-identified female is in a position to give consent for such a procedure. They are victims of a misogynistic world in the extreme - giving up womanhood completely. They live in a world cruel enough to convince them to cut off their breasts and inject themselves with testosterone because being a woman is so bad. Now you’re going to pretend like they have any ability to consent to giving away their uterus?

Not only is this an unnecessary major surgery for which there is no benefit to the woman, but removing the womb has considerable negative implications for her, beyond the risks of surgery and related infection.

We have two options:

Option 1 is removing the ovaries along with the uterus.
Option 2 is leaving the ovaries in tact and removing only the uterus.

Despite what someone might tell you, neither of these options is harmless and without myriad unpleasant consequences on both physical and mental health.

Option 1 is surgically induced menopause. Instead of a gradual tapering of hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, there is an immediate stop. What might this freshly spayed victim now expect to experience?

Physical Symptoms
- Hot flashes, night sweats, vaginal atrophy, and sexual pain
- Rapid loss of bone density
- Increased cardiovascular risk
Cognitive Effects
- Memory issues
- Brain fog
- Increased dementia risk if performed pre-menopause
Mental Health
- Significantly increased rates of:
  - Depression
  - Anxiety
  - Emotional blunting
  - Suicidal ideation in some cases

There’s a reason why we don’t perform unnecessary major surgeries on people (well, those of us who are sane) when there is no medical reason to do so. If I’m dying of kidney failure and my awesome sister wants to give me hers, she is putting herself at some amount of risk in order to save my life.

This is not patient-centered care. This is the instrumentalization of women’s bodies for the desires of men.

(Not even their needs.)

I don’t want to list more symptoms at you, so just believe me when I say that a hysterectomy (without ovaries) causes all manner of negative physical and mental health issues for the patient.

Grief is an impactful consequence of these procedures that is easily overlooked, but of great importance to consider.

Even in those who willingly undergo hysterectomies, we have ample evidence of severe mental health problems due to grief, even if that woman never wanted children. It can result in loss of bodily integrity, changes in sexual self concept, increased rates of depression (and sometimes PTSD-like symptoms), and a horrific feeling of being hollowed out by modern medicine.

This manuscript treats this situation like a fun little “swapsies” scenario that allows females to unload their unwanted parts on “trans women” who “need” them; a mutually beneficial, perfectly symbiotic relationship free of undue suffering. This dishonest framing oversimplies, and in doing so, threatens to harm everyone involved. More concerning to me is how this agenda is attempting to push uterine transplantation as a matter of personal reproductive liberty, as if everyone has”the right” to a uterus and to bear children.

So, no, this doesn't make any of this better. In actuality, it makes things worse.

Paging “Doctor” Mengele

We saw this coming. Robyn Rowland did, at the very least. I did a bit of digging around in her book, Living Laboratories, to get an idea of what storm she felt brewing way back in 1992:

Male control could also come through the introduction of male ‘mothers’, men themselves bearing children. Though it seems fanciful, the precedents are there.

What I wouldn’t give for it to still seem fanciful. In my eyes, this is inevitable, and we’re getting closer and closer to it becoming an option for men. When first reading this, I just assumed that a womb was necessary for the gestation of the fetus, and that we couldn’t possibly be this close to a true gender dystopia. This is despite reading the manuscript, written by doctors, about considerations to move forward with this highly questionable procedure.

Living Laboratories (again, published in 1992) gave me several new reasons to indulge in my neuroticism over this topic. Instead of slightly re-wording the text, I’m just going to go straight to the source:

In May 1979, a New Zealand woman, Margret Martin, gave birth to a baby girl having undergone a hysterectomy eight months earlier. The fertilised egg had lodged on her bowel, where it received enough nutrients to grow to term without the aid of a uterus. In about 1000 known cases a fertilised egg has worked its way into the abdominal cavity of a woman which can expand to accommodate the fetus. Approximately 9 percent of these women have actually given birth to healthy children. The mother runs an enormous risk during this process and can often die from a massive hemorrhaging.

Dr Roy Hertz has had success with transplanting the eggs of a female baboon into the abdominal cavity of a male baboon, though he did not bring the fetus to term. It appears that a fetus may be able to attach itself to any site which is rich in blood and nutrients. The possibility of implanting a fertilised egg in the human male abdominal cavity has been discussed. A ‘Line’(‘living’ + ‘incubator’) pregnancy would involve the administration of hormones to the ‘male mother’ to ‘mimic that of a pregnant woman’, and delivering the baby through a laparotomy. It has also been suggested that a fertilised egg could be flushed out of a woman’s womb and implanted into the man. As Dr Jules Black, a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is reported as saying: ‘This is the next step in in vitro fertilisation technology’. Dr Alan Trounson, of the Monash IVF programme, reportedly saw no problem with male pregnancy: ‘I think it is a challenge to women’s roles but then women have challenged men’s roles in the community. I don’t see it as something we should be frightened of’.

Yikes, right?

It is my plan to further research medical “advancements” towards uterine transplants in males to then report back. However, that is beyond the scope of this essay. I fear that we are at a tipping point, and about to tip real hard. But, I always say that I don’t “know shit about shit” and that is still the case. Don’t start freaking out based on my word.

(But still, don’t ignore this completely. Please.)

Oh, and fuck that Dr. Alan Trounson jerk. He has no clue what he's talking about.

Is This Gynocide in Action?

In Right-Wing Women, Andrea Dworkin devotes an entire chapter to “the coming gynocide”. When originally reading it, I felt that she had some valid points but it also felt somewhat sensationalist. Now I’m not so sure how much of it was just drama.

She doesn’t talk about men quite literally stealing our wombs, but is instead concerned with more relevant reproductive technologies of the time (published 1983):

…reproduction will become the kind of commodity that sex is now. Artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, sex selection, genetic engineering, fetal monitoring, artificial wombs that keep the fetus alive outside the mother’s body, fetal surgery, embryo transplants, and eventually cloning…

…all these reproductive intrusions make the womb the province of the doctor, not the woman; all make the womb extractable from the woman as a whole person in the same way the vagina (or sex) is now; some make the womb extraneous altogether or eventually extraneous; all make reproduction controllable by men on a scale heretofore unimaginable.

I cannot imagine what she would say if I told her that her using the phrase “make the womb extractable from the woman as a whole person” hit closer to home than she realized. What would she be writing about this?

My totally uninformed guess is that she would be rather concerned for many reasons, but I do also believe she would focus on IVF instead. In vitro fertilization has become a “popular option” since the time when she wrote this. I personally know four couples who have conceived their children using this method. (And I don’t know a lot of people. People are overrated.) Opposition to IVF is almost exclusively the domain of the conservatives, despite it being something all women should be informed and concerned about. As it stands right now, the threat of large numbers of men having uterus transplants is low. The trouble is, even one is one too many.

They Have No Right(s)

I want to break this down for you, one more time:

These people want to take healthy reproductive organs from living or recently deceased women in order to give them to men. These will be used to endanger the life of a man and child. Not long after, the woman’s uterus will be disposed of. Her life-giving ability will have been commodified like the rest of her womanhood.

Coming from a science-loving, truth-seeking, ardent atheist: this is morally abhorrent behavior. Put simply, it's wrong. I’m not concerned about there suddenly being an incredible demand for wombs; I am very concerned that this is even being considered. Even one time is one time too many, because there are certain lines in this world, that, once crossed, set in motion a series of consequences no one can calculate or conceive of. This line must not be crossed. For children. For women. For the future of humanity.

Babies and women do not exist to affirm and validate men. Our bodily organs are not accessories or collectibles for the mentally ill. And yes, I’m a transphobic transphobe from Transphobia. Those words don’t frighten me.

Any man asking a woman to cut open her abdomen and hand him the most womanly part of her so he can sew it up inside himself while pretending to be a woman is mentally ill. And while I’m at it, it is definite proof that these assholes are men. No woman would ever ask this of another, even if there was something this egregious that she could request of a fellow woman.

This manuscript talks about the nature of reality as if it were some biological discriminatory system in need of annihilation in the name of equity. For example:

Nonparity has historically served as a relative or absolute contraindication for living and deceased uterus donation. However, additional principles of inclusivity and nondiscrimination pertaining to opportunities for parenthood may warrant expansion of eligibility criteria in support of nonparous donors. The need to avoid gendered and pronatalist assumptions tying sex/gender to reproductive function and motherhood applies to potential transgender donors for whom goals of gestation, childbirth, and motherhood may never have figured in their plans, or as in cisgender donors who never had a desire for motherhood. However, there may be a higher risk of graft nonfunction in UTx from nulliparous donors as uterus-related infertility would not have been identified before donation.

While this may appear to be an attempt to expand reproductive rights for women (primarily towards those who have never had children), it is a misleading framing that attempts to equate biological limitations with discrimination. (Sound familiar?) A woman’s ability (or inability) to donate her uterus is unrelated to her capacity or desire to parent, and promoting otherwise is an ethically questionable attempt to manipulate the audience. Once you get them all horny for equity and stamping out transphobia, they will be far more willing to accept this idea that trans-identified men (or any men, for that matter) have a right to motherhood, and our very wombs.

There is nothing men won’t try to take from us. Having “womanhood” and the superficial trappings isn’t enough - they demand the very cradle of life we hold inside us. They are happy to cut us up and make us sacrifice our health for narcissistic womb envy and a desire to play God. They want the power to make life without women, and in a world where women have no use, well, you can figure that out for yourself.

I can hardly believe that I’ve been reading and seeing what I have. In all honesty, I have considered more than once than I might be dreaming or hallucinating, or something. There was less than zero ethical consideration put into this sad excuse for a manuscript, and I intend on letting them know that.

Like human cloning, I believe that uterus transplantation in males is an act that, as soon as it is achieved, changes human perception of morality in extremely dangerous ways. There is no turning back from it. This is not a matter of scientific curiosity, and it has absolutely nothing to do with equity or inclusion. This is opening the door to eugenics and the further eradication of women. The life-giving power of the womb is not a right of men, no matter how they identify. We must protect it with ferocity: for children, for women, and for the future of humanity.

Congratulations on making it through the essay. If you managed to read it without breaking a fragile object or throwing something you later regret throwing, a bonus point for you!

Until Next Time, Stay Guilty of Thought Crimes!

MadFem XX

P.S. I promise the next one won’t be this heavy.

Thanks for reading Unwelcome Archive! Please share this essay if you feel it is worthy!

Unwelcome Archive