Re: Can two women make a baby?

[ArmenE]

In the 1983 article recently republished on the website, Can two women make a baby?, Cecil mentions one Dr. Pierre Soupart:

The last time Soupart published anything on the subject was in 1980, and I presume he hasn’t made much progress since.

I thought it relevant to mention that in fact, Dr. Pierre Soupart passed in 1981.

[Hostile_Dialect]

Also, Cecil could stand to acknowledge that, although it was probably acceptable in 1983, it’s now generally considered homophobic to completely ignore the litany of other means by which female couples can have a child. Perhaps, for the benefit of those who are still curious about this phenomenon, an addendum could be tacked on describing these means–or the question could be re-answered in a new column. Just a thought.

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Nanoda]

Technically, if that method was viable, one woman could make a baby. :dubious:

[Baldwin]

@Hostile_Dialect

Also, Cecil could stand to acknowledge that, although it was probably acceptable in 1983, it’s now generally considered homophobic to completely ignore the litany of other means by which female couples can have a child.

“Considered homophobic?” That’s ridiculous. He answered a specific question, about creating an embryo from two egg cells. What would be the relevance of discussing adoption, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization, and what does that have to do with bigotry?

ETA: I would like to see an updated column, though, because I think there’s been more work since then in regards to combining eggs. (For a baby, not an omelet.)

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Baldwin

“Considered homophobic?” That’s ridiculous. He answered a specific question, about creating an embryo from two egg cells. What would be the relevance of discussing adoption, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization, and what does that have to do with bigotry?

The larger point is about two women who want to have a baby together, not some random Teemer’s purely academic interest in a specific scientific experiment. The letter is begging for hope for these ladies:

@Karin H.

Two women friends of mine in Italy are intent on having a baby together. They insist that research has been done in the U.S. and that it is possible (even if the method can “only” produce girls). What can I tell them? Where could they go? What should they do?

Bolding mine.

Cecil answered a much narrower question than was asked. He did it well, granted, and probably sufficiently for the political climate of the time, but if today’s reader stumbles upon this column with the same questions, (s)he will be cheated out of a lot of directly relevant information. There’s a lot of ignorance to be fought on this particular issue, and the original letter writer herself asked after a broad spectrum of issues related to parenting in same-sex couples. Not only are the options you listed relevant, they’re downright essential to a comprehensive answer to the question as asked.

Cecil basically says “No, they’re not impregnating each other any time soon. How silly!” and then finishes the article with this

@Cecil

If your friends want something small and cuddly around the house, tell them to go out and buy a cat.

Again, I’m sure that’s fine for 1983’s purposes, but today, a female couple asking for advice on having a child would be shocked and dismayed to get this response. Within the broader context of reanswering the question in 2009, that sort of answer would certainly be bigoted. Although it was probably intended as a humorous, slightly snarky aside to a silly question about a biological impossibility, today we can hardly imagine this kind of advice without at least a strong hint of malice behind it: “Stop polluting our children’s minds with such disgusting ideas and go buy a cat to play with!”

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Baldwin]

@me

Considered homophobic?" That’s ridiculous. He answered a specific question, about creating an embryo from two egg cells. What would be the relevance of discussing adoption, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization, and what does that have to do with bigotry?

ETA: I would like to see an updated column, though, because I think there’s been more work since then in regards to combining eggs. (For a baby, not an omelet.)

Just thought I’d repeat this. Please read the column, then read what I said. You’re still not making sense.

[Irishman]

Hostile Dialect, I suppose it is arguable what the intent of the original question really is. I mean, it isn’t precisely worded. “Having a baby together” could mean the barrage of “adopting a baby together”, or “one get knocked up and then raising the baby together”, etc.

However, this statement is key to how Cecil interpreted the question:

They insist that research has been done in the U.S. and that it is possible (even if the method can “only” produce girls).

That sentence refers to medical research and the offspring in question only being girls. A reasonable interpretation is to look at combining two eggs, i.e. two XX pairs of chromosomes, as opposed to the traditional XY - XX pairing that occurs naturally. So, it is no surprise Cecil looked at the interesting question of how to combine to eggs and what medical research has been done on that topic.

Now if the question had been “My two women friends are intent on raising a baby together, what can they do?”, then it would be appropriate to chastise Cecil for suggesting they get a cat. But given that the topic was producing a baby together, Cecil just added the last sentence to be funny because he is a smart ass. He does that, you know.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Irishman

Now if the question had been “My two women friends are intent on raising a baby together, what can they do?”, then it would be appropriate to chastise Cecil for suggesting they get a cat. But given that the topic was producing a baby together, Cecil just added the last sentence to be funny because he is a smart ass. He does that, you know.

I suppose I have not been clear. I understand this and I’ve stated (or tried to state) in this very thread that that kind of response was just fine for 1983. And if I haven’t said this clearly enough, I’ll lay it right out here: We should not judge Unca Cece for having said this in 1983. It was probably funny at the time.

But if he were to answer it today, he would be remiss if he ignored the other options female couples have, regardless of how he interpreted the question. (It would be either “But there’s hope for this couple having the child…” or “I know this isn’t what you meant, but it just so happens that female couples can and do have children, and here’s how”.) And I would go so far as to say that, just like any other question with an outdated answer on a site devoted to fighting ignorance, the question could be addressed again from a modern viewpoint, hopefully without modifying the body of the original answer, which is, at worst, a fun read for historical purposes.

Think of it this way: if there had been a major paradigm shift in the thinking about pigeon head bobbing, wouldn’t you want to hear about it in the column?

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

P.S. Thanks for dissecting this and sharing your thoughts.