this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
128 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
1278 readers
358 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely those skills are learned through socialization and reinforced over and over by society. There is a little bit of a biological thing that happens with pregnancy that I find quite interesting:
It's a temporary change for the most part, but people who have been pregnant have a difference in their grey matter from people who were never pregnant in their life.
Just an interesting little part of biology that is still incredibly under-studied.
This is pretty disappointing to read and leans into the TERF angles of “female/male socialisation” and bioessentialism.
And that’s before we get into the fact that not all cis women become mothers.
I read velma's comment and I don't see a connection between the results of a specfic scientific study and TERF behavior or bioessentialism. I mean, experiences of any and all kinds have constant effects on all our brains? Just because a pregnant person's brain changes during pregnancy doesn't mean that those specific brain changes are somehow necessary to be a mother or to occupy the space of motherhood.
What I mean is, one truth does not invalidate the other, both can comfortably exist with each other. A pregnant person's brain goes through specific changes; you don't have to be a cis woman or biologically connected to your child to be a mother, both true. "Mother" is an archetype that goes way beyond notions of gender while pregnancy is a biological process that can be tested and measured. To me, these are clearly different things and in no way conflated by velma in her comment, especially considering she is not the author of the study etc.
Edit: missed a word!
Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we're physical beings made of atoms. We're not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We're sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_human_physiology#Brain_and_nervous_system
An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn't scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture.
We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism.
We don't need to act like conservatives. We don't need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
It's disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there's a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.
Did anyone ever say she did?
It was pretty heavily implied with this comment that I was resorting to bio-essentialism in order to other transpeople when I was referencing an objective physical process that happens during pregnancy.
It might have been a fun little fact you wanted to share, but it gets perceived in relation to conversation about women's inclination to being protectors.
Cis women's brains are rewired during pregnancy in relation to caring and protecting their newborns. I thought it was fitting within this topic.
Try diagramming Mia's argument. It's a core part of the argument, it's just left for the reader to imply. At best, this was done because Mia assumed the reader would be intelligent enough to connect the dots. At worse, it's a mott-and-bailey argument, pulling the old Charlie Kirk trick of heavily implying something (to the point of being a core part of an argument), and then pretending offense because "I never said that."
Thank you
This is a real thing that happens during pregnancy.
I have never claimed that all women are mothers or should be mothers.
Edit: I want to make it really, really clear here. I am in no way a TERF and I resent the accusation.
I've never been pregnant or wished to be, but it still blows my mind. On a podcast recently I discovered that women who've been pregnant carry the cells of their offspring for the rest of their lives, which makes sense that they've been 'hosting' another living organism, but keeps the connection and bond in a beautiful way
The fact these things are just being learnt, is tragic and relegates the biological as well as social importance of women who raise children (including the grannies, aunties, and other women in their 'tribal group')
Society had really done a number on women, and has become the lesser for it
I've always loved this factoid! Knowing I've got my son's imprint on my body for the rest of my life is poetic <3
Its like how mitochondrial DNA passes down through the female line only... we are connected to all our mothers going way back into the past, while keeping a part of any children always in the present
It is beautiful and poetic
In adopted, I have no dna connection to my mother.
Your mitochondria may beg to differ.
This conversation is not an attack on adopted people or trans women.
My mitochondria may link me to the person who birthed me, it does not link me to my mother.
That was the exact point that was made.
Yes, and mine is that such a person is not my mother. The words used by the person I was responding to and the notion I am challenging that motherhood is biologically linked.
You're projecting a lot onto these comments.
Acknowledging how mitochondrial DNA is passed is not a judgment on adopted people.
I’m explaining my connections with these concepts and how they are not absolute truths.
What people think of as a mother/woman is a judgement on how society views mothers/women.
I may be a killjoy, but I need to challenge these ways of thinking.
You're attacking allies and very real biological truths of the cis women in here.
Scientific facts, like how mitochondrial DNA is passed from cis women to their offspring, are not TERF ideas that need to be challenged.
I am not “attacking” cis women at all, I am attacking ideas about what biology means in relation to womanhood.
I never claimed dna being passed down was TERF, I used that word in response to your bioessentialiasm and socialisation language when I responded to your comment.
To this users comment I was talking about what motherhood is, and that is not defined by one’s mitochondrial DNA. Mothers and the people who birth us can be completely seperate things, to see the world as everyone’s mother is the person who birthed them strips motherhood from those who did not. It’s something to be mindful of in how we view things.
I’m removing myself from this conversation now, I’ve said my views on these topics and I feel this is starting to get heated.
Responding to a study about how cis women's brains are changed during pregnancy by accusing me of pushing TERF ideas sure feels like an attack on cis women.
I'm not equating any of this as definitions of what a woman is. And again, I openly resent you trying to paint me as a TERF here.
Edit:
Yeah, accusing others of pushing TERF ideas with absolutely no basis will get people pretty heated.
I apologise, I wasn’t trying to call you a TERF, and I don’t believe you are one.
I was trying to show where I see that language coming from, it’s something my entire existence depends on pushing back against and challenging these views in relation to womanhood and even motherhood.
I appreciate the apology.
Reading along I'm seeing multiple opportunities you had to acknowledge your definition of "mother" was dismissive of all the mothers who didn't give birth to their children, and also doesn't acknowledge the other-than-mother status of, among others, people who gave birth but are raising the child as their father. And instead you kept trying to say the other person is wrong to call you a TERF. Seems to me if you aren't in that pool, you are skating on very thin ice over it. I'm quite an old cis woman who bore and raised 2 kids, and it's not hard for me to figure out what a "mother" is and may be, I suggest you try.
I wasn’t intending to exclude anyone by talking about a specific process that happens during pregnancy. Nor was the intent to exclude anyone by acknowledging the passing of dna. Talking about one type of mother doesn’t mean that other types of mothers don’t exist or arent just as worthy of parenthood as the other.
Thank you for taking the time to explain what was upsetting to others. I genuinely could not place what the reason was and even when asking, was not receiving a clear explanation.
This honestly doesn't sound like they're projecting at all - they speak of their own experience. I think they're upset because you've said that biological attributes would "disagree" with an honest insight into their life's experience.
Their mother - the person who acted in a motherly role in their life. The person who raised them, cared for them, helped them grow - is not product of biological attributes.
I think there were two conversations happening and the conversation about how DNA is passed along with the X chromosome was never intended to exclude anyone. Same as linking to the study about changes in the brain during pregnancy.
Thank you for explaining the breakdown in communication there, I was sincerely having a difficult time understanding where the hostility was coming from yesterday.
It is what it is at this point. I'd like to think my other contributions make it clear my intent has never been to exclude anyone, but I'm aware that I'm not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Nah, they're pretty rightfully blowing a hole in the side of a boat that was definitely starting to get a bit woo.
We are not special unique mystical beings. We are humans
What?
We can't even speak about objective facts like DNA transfer through pregnancy here?
Are cis women not welcome to share their perspectives here?
...are you seriously trying to play a cis victim card??
Fwiw, i'm bloody cis
No, I'm being sincere. I shared a study about how pregnancy affects people's brains and had a discussion about mitochondrial DNA and that has seemed to offend quite a few people.
I'm honestly trying to figure out why sharing those things was upsetting.
You referenced things getting mystical - what are you talking about with that? I'm trying to figure it out.
Benefit of the doubt: you drifted out of genetics and into "unbroken chain" territory.
Yeah i was in my grandma. So were my uncles.
The "unbroken chain" thing is something completely foreign to me, I don't know what you're referencing.
All I acknowledged was that I enjoy that factoid about my son's DNA being in me. That's it.
I agree with you and will also note that they are denying the fatherhood of trans men who have borne children
That's fascinating. There's so much about women's biology that remains so far men's medical research. Where is this quoted from?
Oh oops, I forgot to include the source! I pulled it from this BBC article
Thank you!