Hacker News Reader

Comment by kergonath | Hacker News Reader

> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth.

I completely understand the “gender is social and not biological” concept, and I believe it is true to a large degree. But this is not the case: if you are able to bear a child, then by definition you are female and a woman in the biological sense.

View on HN

Why does it become purely biological and not social in this case? Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women.

No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the opposite direction for it to be true.

Another example: the only vertebrates that can fly are birds(ignoring squirrels and weird fish). That's not equivalent to saying that the ostrich is not a bird.

Flying vertebrate => bird

Bird =/> flying vertebrate

Bats are vertebrates, aren't they?

You're right, I forgot about bats! Yet I still took the time to disparage squirrels. Now I feel silly.

I guess I can fix it easily enough:

Flight(not gliding or floating) implies wings.

Wings don't imply flight.

> Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women.

Not quite sure what the commentor you are replying to means by the social part but they didn't state that giving birth => woman is a 2 way implication.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com