We live in a world whose inhabitants are obsessed with the LGBTQ+ community. We can see, wherever we look, individuals and organizations advocating for equality and rights that members of this community are supposedly denied — such as the so-called right of male-to-female (MTF) transgender women to carry their own biological children.

The idea that transgender women should be able to carry children has resulted in the decision that the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) will fund research for the transplanting of wombs into MTF transgender women — and while this is being viewed as good news to advocates of LGBTQ+ rights everywhere, there are consequences and risks involved here that thousands, perhaps even millions, of people are overlooking.

While some of the questions at the forefront of my mind are related to the logistics of this — such as where do the transplanted uteruses come from? — the majority of them are related to the almost innumerable risks that are inevitably involved in this. What will doctors do if complications arise after a transgender woman was given a uterus? This is an almost inevitable situation. Since the individual in question was born with male chromosomes, uterine cells were never present in the body, which makes those cells highly susceptible to rejection. When it comes to treatment, the optimal option would be to just remove the uterus, as it is not necessary for the individual’s survival — but what if a fetus now calls said uterus home? We can’t just chuck it into an incubator, so what will we do with it? In addition, since the “mothers” from whom these fetuses would be getting the nutrients essential to their survival would have the chromosomes of a male (XY), will they be more likely to develop disorders inherited from mutations of the X chromosome, such as colorblindness? If so, what can be done to keep the rate of affliction of these diseases and disorders from skyrocketing?

In her article on this subject, Virginia Hale quoted a medical ethics lawyer who said that the normalization of uterine transplants could lead other groups of people, such as men who want to “experience the ‘joys’ of carrying a child”, to demanding uterine transplants (source: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/03/nhs-womb-transplants-transgender/.) This would give rise to a whole new set of challenges, concerns, and questions — the foremost one being whether or not the operation in question is even medically possible.

“Women were not made to do everything a man can do. Women were made to do everything a man can’t do.” This is one of my favorite quotes, and it is applicable here because bearing children is one of the things that women can do that men can’t. While the Left seems to want to enable men to bear children, the fact remains that the male body was not built for such a purpose. It has been proven that women are able to bear the concentrated pain of childbirth better than men — and the last time I checked, males have neither a uterus nor breasts capable of lactating. In addition — and I’ll apologize to the liberals in advance for the statement I’m about to make — men do not have vaginas. Consequently, if by some strange “miracle” a man was giving birth, the child would have to be brought into the world via C-section, which comes with its own set of risks — not to mention extensive scarring. Simply put, a man carrying a child is unnatural.

When it comes to the transgender community, though, the consequences of this decision extend beyond the aforementioned physical risks and what-ifs. The normalization of uterine transplants from cisgender women to transgender women can cause a rift in the transgender community itself because the following controversial question cannot be left unanswered: should transgender women who transitioned later in life (i.e.: who transitioned after having gone through male puberty) also be allowed to have a uterine transplant, or should the procedure only be an option for those who were given T-blockers and estrogen injections since early childhood? The former group would likely struggle with rejection of the organ, as well as potentially fatal complications — while the latter group would have a far higher chance of success, as their bodies are, for all intents and purposes, feminine — so it wouldn’t make sense to allow them to have uterine transplants… but can doctors refuse to operate on a portion of the population? If so, how and where will they draw the line between whose body is “feminine” enough and whose isn’t? If not, how will they go about equalizing the disparity in success rates?

I’m not against transgender individuals, nor am I against the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. I am, however, against liberals who don’t think about the consequences of their actions. I don’t care about religious or social arguments when it comes to this subject; instead, I want to know two things. I want to know if these ideas are even feasible, and I want to know how people intend on determining whether or not the “benefits” outweigh the very real risks. How far are we willing to take technology to make the unnatural natural? Where do we draw the line, if it hasn’t been drawn already?