The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by antiterra on Sunday November 20, 2022 @04:44AM (#33679658)

I have a friend whose ovaries were removed when she was a child, and, as a result, she was never fertile. She's not trans, an effeminate male or a butch woman. This would be the case even if she did not receive hormone therapy. She's a woman, and it's not 'reductive' to separate being a woman from reproductive function or hormones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by xcrunner529 on Sunday November 20, 2022 @07:44AM (#33680483)

No but that’s a man made operation. Doesn’t change the origins biological sex. I think rather than trying to change gender from the original biological meaning, maybe (like someone else here said) treat it like a religious identity.

You can have a “personality” trait of masculine, feminine, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by antiterra on Monday November 21, 2022 @10:21AM (#33693528)

I said women shouldn’t be defined by their fertility. This is inclusive of XX women. You blindly interpreted it as an argument to separate biological sex from gender.

The comment I responded to claimed that referring to someone by a biological function such as menstruating was objectifying. I don’t think that follows, because being fertile is not a requirement to be a woman.

Further, if all that matters to you to define biological sex is karyotype regardless of biological expression, that is like a religion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by HyperSane on Sunday November 20, 2022 @09:13PM (#33687862)

But she is still XX and was born with ovaries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by antiterra on Monday November 21, 2022 @10:45AM (#33693830)

That’s irrelevant to the point. We should not define women by their fertility, therefore it is not objectifying to refer to some women by their fertility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by HyperSane on Monday November 21, 2022 @10:32PM (#33701445)

"We should not define women by their fertility"

Not all women can be pregnant, but a person who is pregnant is a woman.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by antiterra on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @01:58AM (#33702917)

Even if they are 46,XY with ovotestes?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature by HyperSane on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @09:37PM (#33714466)

Can they become pregnant? In any case we don't have to modify language for one in a billion freaks.

[ Parent | on HN ]