A SYTYCB entry
In the mail this morning I received a copy of the libertarian Reason magazine with my name on it that must have been sent to me by my conservative brother. I’ll read anything that you put in front of me so I began flipping through it. I came across an article that caught my eye titled “Resetting your biological clock: Egg freezing opens up new frontiers in gender equality” and obviously I had to read it.
Egg freezing is a process that takes a woman’s eggs and freezes them for future use. The purpose is so that women can have the option to have babies later in life, when they are not as likely to be able to do so biologically. The author of this article, Ronald Bailey, argues that this will increase gender equality because it gives women the same opportunity to choose when they can conceive as men. It takes away from the stress of the “biological clock.” He makes a good point. Now women have the option to not only choose when not to have a baby (with birth control) but they can choose when they want to have a baby as well. This provides women with the opportunity to build a career and then choose to have a baby later in life. Sounds pretty good right?
What Bailey fails to mention in his article is the cost of this procedure. According to this article on NPR the entire procedure could end up costing up to $40,000 in total. How many women have that kind of money? Not to mention the procedure is not guaranteed to work and is still in an experimental phase. You’d have to be seriously rich to lay down that kind of money on something that may not even work.
Could this procedure be considered a step for feminism? With the high price and the small amount of women who can afford it I would definitely say no. Rachel Lehmann-Haupt says that this procedure could be as “revolutionary as the birth control pill.” The difference is that birth control is available to all women and is much easier to afford. I can’t support something as feminist if it excludes such a large group of women. Italian doctor Eleanor Porcu argues that this process is “harmful to feminism” because it overrides the fight for women to be free to get pregnant at a young age. The biggest thing stopping women from getting pregnant young is work. Instead of trying to make it so that women can get pregnant when they are done working we should be focusing on work benefits that could allow women to have both. This procedure is also largely a capitalist enterprise, exploiting the emotions and needs of women for profit. Feminism and capitalism have never gotten along.
Once a procedure like this enters a stage where it is no longer considered experimental and is available and affordable to all women it could absolutely be a big step for women. However it is important to understand that not all women want to have children, as Bailey insinuates in his article. The way this process is being marketed goes back to the idea that women exist solely for the purpose of having babies, and this simply is not true. Sure there are plenty of women who want children but there are also plenty who don’t. I also think that in this discussion people should consider adoption as an option. With this procedure being so expensive and potentially ineffective adoption provides a much easier alternative.
10 Comments
This is potentially great news for a trans men who want to have a biological child in the future, long after they have removed their reproductive capabilities.
Well what the procedure does is remove your eggs for future use but then they get inserted back into the uterus after being fertilized so that you yourself can get pregnant and have the baby. I guess in the case of a trans man I suppose this could work because they could freeze their old eggs but they would have to find someone else to carry the baby to term unless they still have their uterus.
Yes, I’m well aware of what the procedure does.
It’s a given that if the man had his reproductive capabilities removed he would need to find a surrogate.
If uterus transplants become more commonplace, this would be great news for hetero trans couples; especially if they both freeze sperm and eggs.
Right but at the stage its in it isn’t even guaranteed that it will work and it is drastically expensive. Maybe in the future this can be a good thing but at this point I really don’t think it’s worth it.
The worth of the procedure is up to the individual, not you
FYI, the pholaplasty surgery cost around $100,000.
Being trans is already drastically expensive.
I think it’s very important that you are pointing out the cost of this procedure and the class issues it raises. From what I have read the earlier this is done, the more likely it is to work, and young women are even less likely to have that kind of money to spend on this.
Exactly. And another part of the problem from what I’ve been reading is that women are finding out about this when they are already in their late 30s and 40s and aren’t as fertile as they may have been in their 20s.
Another interesting thing I’ve been reading though that I didn’t mention in my post is a lot of women’s parents are encouraging them to do it and paying for it because they want grand children. Still though, at the current costs this is the kind of thing that most women would have to spend a lot of time saving for and by time they have the money it might end up not even working.
I think this can be potentially a really good thing, but not until it is more readily available and affordable for all women, not just a select few.
It was pointed out to me in a comment by @tetesagehen (that hasn’t been approved to be posted yet) that when I said “the biggest thing stopping women from getting pregnant is work” I was generalizing and that this isn’t necessarily true. This was an honest typo. I meant to say something more along the lines of “a big reason women don’t get pregnant young” or “one of the main reasons many women don’t get pregnant young.” Something to that effect. I understand that all situations are different and everyone has different reasons for waiting and in some cases work may not even be an issue (depending on the job itself, career goals, work benefits etc.) I was only elaborating on Porcu’s view that egg freezing may undermine the fight for better work benefits and paid leaves for mothers.
Just wanted to clarify that.
This is a response to @geegee (whose comment also didn’t get approved yet) about how adoption is also a long and expensive process and is it actually easier:
I think you make a good point but here’s my argument: 1.The process of adoption is definitely a long one that requires planning ahead of time and being approved and going through application processes and lots of stuff and could even take years. With that said the process of egg freezing needs to be done when you are young enough that the eggs are still furtile, so probably pretty far in advanced from when you actually intend on using them. Either way you have to plan pretty far ahead. 2. As far as costs go it is true that adoption can be pricey (although I’m pretty sure that it is also situational) and can be up to 30,000. And ultimately if there is travel involved could end up being about the same as the egg freezing procedure. (again, each situation varies). 3.With that said I think the biggest deciding factor (at least for me) would be the fact that (assuming you get approved) an adoption will without a doubt result in you having a physical child. With egg freezing there is question as to how effective it actually is.
It really just depends on the situation though. Some people might say egg freezing is better for them while others will say adoption. I just think it is important that adoption be at least considered as part of the egg freezing decision.