The medical establishment has gone totally around the woke bend. Now, a peer-reviewed advocacy article in the AMA Journal of Ethics argues that the cost of uterus transplants for trans people should often be subsidized, particularly for “transwomen who want to gestate children.” From, “Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen be Subsidized?” (My emphasis):

Even though there has been no uterus transplant to date in transwomen [males] that we know of, some clinicians have maintained that there are no absolute barriers in anatomy, hormones, and obstetric considerations that would rule out the possibility of successful UTx [uterine transplant] in transwomen. Transwomen wanting to gestate children can plausibly justify subsidy of UTx on a number of grounds. . . . 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. 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.

Ow, my head! The prospect of enabling such utter solipsism is more than I can stand. Why should society be required to support — much less subsidize — sophisticated surgeries and aftercare to enable the emotional obsessions of a male who feels female? No: Childbearing is not “attached to a women’s identity.” It is the biological reproductive function of women. Such opinions could make a Salvador Dalí painting look realistic.

Wait, it’s not just about “transwomen.” Some “transmen” — females — who have had their uteruses removed should also qualify for subsidies:

Some transmen have children prior to any body modifications that interfere with gestation. Others do not and have their uterus removed to conform their bodies to a certain gender ideal. . . . Transmen’s justifications for subsidies will differ from those of transwomen in that transmen cannot claim that they lack a capacity characteristic of men that compromises their health or that compromises status equality with other men. Unless one wants to argue that all people have a fundamental interest in gestating, it is not clear that men lack a capacity they ought to expect as a matter of reproductive justice.

Moreover, other means of having children are available to them, no less than to other adults facing infertility of one kind or another. One might make the case for some transmen, however, that their fertility was compromised by failure on the part of clinicians and institutions to incorporate the prospect of retaining a uterus until such time as they decided definitively not to gestate children. As a matter of restorative justice, some transmen might have a stronger case for subsidies than others. This claim would be undercut, of course, by informed consent processes that advised about this option.

Allow me to translate (to the best of my ability): “Transmen” should not expect uterine-transplant subsidies since gestation is not a characteristic of men’s “identity” — unless, that is, they were victimized by a negligent failure to provide them with the information needed to give informed consent when they had a hysterectomy. Holy cow.

Do you know what is never discussed in this “ethics” article? The safety and well-being of the gestated child that, in the case of “transwomen,” would develop (if it can be done) in a body not designed for childbearing. And why? Because it isn’t about the baby. It is so that the transperson can “feel” fulfilled.

I don’t know why, and I don’t know how, but the trans issue has driven our elites mad. Read the whole article — but take some Dramamine first — because it will make you feel as if the bedrock of rationality has lost its solidity.