Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberwomb | Hacker News Reader

Are you guys all delusional on the female anatomy?

No, it could not by only transplanting the womb. Because HUMAN MALES don't have OVARIES. This mother had to have at least one menstruation - which means she had to have functional ovaries. They cannot produce that in males with drugs.

A womb is just a womb - not the full set of organs and functions a female has to have to be able to get pregnant.

Looking at women's bodies as spare parts, incubators, etc is the reason why you guys think this is doable on a human male. It's called misogyny.

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18608942.

The topic was not how to make males produce eggs.

I think the question was interesting, and calling "misogyny" (hatred of women) a question on whether a female organ would be able to work within a male body is kinda ridiculous.

It's not exactly ridiculous - it's an emotional response. To be fair, viewing women as pieces of meat / breeders / subhuman is a pretty widespread part of society and is a kind of misogyny.

Giving birth is an ability that most women have (and is potentially the flip-side of disadvantages like the gender pay gap adjusted for job choices and maternity leave), that men categorically do not have (while men wield the strength advantage), and giving that ability to men on a large, cheap scale is a scary thought for women and could have huge implications.

I think you are the ignorant one, people can get pregnant without functional ovaries, it happens all the time. It just requires an egg donor and in virto fertilization to be performed.

I take your point but it's an interesting issue, isn't it? What would the world look like if it was the norm for men to reproduce without women, and/or for women to reproduce without men?

It is indeed interesting (and reminds me of the axlotl tanks of Dune) but in this instance, the uterus ultimately comes from a woman anyway, so this particular medical feat (and the original question of this thread) doesn't really have much to do with it.

It's also much more practical (and already technically possible, I think?) for females to reproduce without males than the other way round, so that's the most likely development for the future.

I was also thinking of the Vorkosigan series, in which external technologically-assisted gestation and birth is a key liberatory technology.

Why are you expressing such outrage in response to what seems like an earnest and valid question?

The cyberwomb account was created 5 minutes before that comment was posted. And the name "cyberwomb" seems to be problematic under the philosophy expressed. So I'm guessing it's a troll.

I have to say, it seemed more like the account holder was just someone who was honestly angry about it, and made a new account to post for the first time, rather than being a troll.

Human life is more about emotions than logical argument, and this is an emotionally charged issue for people who naturally have wombs.

I mean for a trivial example, I even used to get annoyed by people who have braces, because I always had good teeth and people would always ask me "Oh when did you have braces? When did you have your teeth whitened?". It was only after I had laser eye surgery to correct my terrible vision that I was OK with it all ;)

Hiding that post feels like damage. We're worse off for not having it available as context for this worthwhile discussion. There must be better ways to handle flagged content than by disappearing it. Maybe "jail" the offending account temporarily instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com