this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
128 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
1278 readers
493 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
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