First baby born in UK to woman with transplanted womb

The article suggests the external egg also limits the creature to a small brain.

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.

> My uncle said yesterday that man's harsh nature goes back to Rome: Homo homini lupus.

What's "homini" supposed to mean?

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 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.

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?

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.

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).

> 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,

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...

Why do you suppose such a test could even exist?

>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.

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)

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.

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 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.

Simple models are useful, but they shouldn't determine who is allowed to live a normal, productive, life without some very compelling justification. Like the "binary sex model" is handy, but nothing about it makes it obvious that we should definitely and always lock gender (another non-binary model often simplified usefully into a binary) directly to biological sex.

There are only two elements in the universe: hydrogen and helium. The binary element model is 98% accurate.

Is a bimodal distribution, or a somewhat reductive “typical male, typical female, intersex” model, so difficult to understand that we can’t use it? I don’t think people are stupid.

Random but nature related: some birds have four sexes

You don’t hear about it because everybody understands that disabled people exist and the broad consensus is that we should accept them, and assist them to a reasonable degree. There’s little reason to discuss it. If people born with less than 4 limbs were subjected to the same treatment trans people get, you’d better believe we’d be out here talking about how not everybody has 4 limbs and we should accept that.

I mean, congenital limb differences are quite literally a spectrum. An entire limb can be absent, or just part(s) of it, or most of the limb can be present but irregularly formed...

You can even mix and match with which parts are present vs absent. I know someone with an arm that stops just above the elbow but still has several (usable!) fingers extending from it. So no joint, but sorta-yes hand.

thanks for the link. and the section in controversy is really worth reading for nuance and thoughtful conversation.

the humans with intersex conditions themselves object the term, as it tags them as sick, a "disease". their personal experience based political interventions have lead to the prohibition of cosmetic surgeries on genitals of minors, or forced hormonal sex assignment on minors, in several European countries that is. so they can decide on their own when they are old enough. that's all the personally affected humans ask for, for the next generation: let them be as they are and allow them to decide on their own.

You can't say "$TRAIT is binary" when you follow that up with "$TRAIT can only be true, false, or sometimes something else". That's not a binary trait by definition.

>it’s really offensive to tell people with DSDs they aren’t their sex.

Not really true. Some people maybe.

>Sex is binary

Sex is complicated. Traits cluster bimodally, but it would be reductive, scientifically inaccurate, to say it’s a simple binary.

>People with DSDs are female or male

That depends on how female and male are categorized. The line between in the trait cluster and outside of the trait cluster is arbitrary. So it depends where you draw that line.

Some people who are DSD consider themselves binary.

Some people who are DSD take great pride in being non-binary.

People who are DSD have been documented for CENTURIES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_people_in_history

But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known and set in stone, when their bible was invented, despite never having microscopes or telescopes or even eyeglasses

Indeed, and same goes for trans people.

The point is sex is a spectrum, we don't have to put everyone in little boxes then get upset when things aren't so clearly defined.

There’s actually a very good case that, while we shouldn’t deny care to people, those with some conditions should not reproduce, morally speaking. Those who are sickly or low iq or carry certain congenital conditions (if they are aware of them) definitely shouldn’t. I have a few congenital problems and, while they’re manageable, they’ve affected my life enough I feel it would be wrong to pass them on absent gene editing to prevent doing so.

The alternative is the quality of the human genome declines to zero and our whole population gets one shotted by being in the same room as a damn peanut.

People love to straw man this obvious issue, saying, “oh so you support forced sterilization?” No, I didn’t say that. They love to point out that this choice also isn’t perfect and talk about “disability rights” or whatever. But they are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. We owe future children more than to saddle them with lifetimes of ailments because we were too selfish to do otherwise.

Do I seem to argue against it? It is intended to ask a simple question:

"At what point does it get silly?"

Heh. I do not believe so for one reason and one reason only. It is not exactly secret what it chooses on a rather daily basis. That as a race we have managed to remove ourselves somewhat from the grip of that choice is a testament to our arrogance. In other words, I do not think you are accurate. I know, because I see things in front of me. I am uncertain on how you know what you know.

[flagged]

How is it awful? There is already too many humans on this planet and here we are spending resources on bodies that would obviously not even begin to exist save for technology. If anything, I am likely more reasonable here than the emotional gasps of 'ooh science'. Is it an interesting solved challenge? Sure. Is it something that is going to further remove us from reality.. also yes.

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.

Yeah exactly.

> 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.

What historical "truth" are you defending? Flat earth? Racism? You're being a bit vague.

If you couldn't tell, that was a jab at your appeal to tradition.