The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by ch4s3 on Saturday November 19, 2022 @06:02PM (#33675844)

I’m not trying to make any claims about the broader issue or cherry-pick here, but a lot of experts do not include Klinefelter syndrome so I think that’s worth at least noting. Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete and are often fertile is instructive.

My only point in responding is to add useful scientific/medical context. People can make what they want of that information.

Fundamentally I agree with what you seem to be getting at, taxonomy is hard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by foldr on Sunday November 20, 2022 @05:09AM (#33679762)

> Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete AND ARE OFTEN FERTILE is instructive.

It’s only informative if it’s true. With regard to the second conjunct, people with Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome are typically functionally infertile.

I’m not convinced that ‘a lot of experts’ are even working on defining what counts as ‘interesex’. It would make more sense to listen to intersex people, who as far as I can see, tend to think that a fairly broad definition is useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]