wyld_dandelyon: (I don't even)
One of my favorite podcasts decided to do a series on pregnancy. The first episode is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0ewmmMjnQ

They spend almost 50 minutes talking about how you know you're pregnant, and the history of pregnancy tests. Then they turn to the definition of pregnancy, which most of us think of as "the period of time starting when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus".

Except, for historical reasons, the medical definition is "the period of time starting with the first day of the pregnant person's last period." After all, that's a clear reportable date, unlike ovulation and conception, which have no obvious physical markers.

For most women, that's two weeks before ovulation. Two weeks before there's even an egg to be fertilized. But that's not true for everybody. My cycle was nearly always 30-32 days, though for part of my perimenopause it was 21, except when I skipped a month and it was 42-60 days. One of the hosts said that her cycle had always been 36 days, so the docs always had to adjust her due date.

But anyway, for the average pregnant person, the implantation of the sperm into the egg doesn't happen until "Week 2" of the pregnancy.

Then they looked at the cycle of implantation. That fertilized egg takes time to grow and change, developing an outer membrane that will eventually become the placenta, and implant into the uterus. That takes more than a week. So, for most pregnant people, they are nearly "four weeks pregnant" according to the medical definition, before even the most modern pregnancy test can detect the hormone that they test for.

So, it's not just that "at six weeks most women don't know they're pregnant", it's "at two weeks the egg is still an unfertilized egg" and "at three weeks, the urine won't have any pregnancy hormone to detect".

And then I remember all those right-wing men saying that six weeks is plenty of time to decide if you want to continue a pregnancy". For someone whose cycle is 36 or more days long, instead of 28, they might have a day or two before the six-week mark from the first day of their last period where they could even detect a pregnancy, if they spent money on a test and took it. I will note that most women don't have symptoms indicating they might be pregnant at this point, or if they do, the symptoms are milder than eating something that didn't agree with you.

I have always thought it's wrong to say a person is "four weeks pregnant" at a point in time that's only two weeks past the date of fertilization. How can you be "pregnant" before you even introduce sperm to your body? It's logically and semantically incorrect.

But legally, with our reproductive health care under attack, it's horrible and unfair.

And having the medical definition of pregnancy start two weeks (or more) before conception and almost four weeks before implantation (and the chance to detect a pregnancy) just increases the confusion about what's really happening. To say nothing of when it's reasonable to expect a person to even know they're pregnant.

So, this rant was brought to you by the belief that science should change its terminology when they learn something that proves the words they've been using don't reflect reality.
wyld_dandelyon: (Disintegrations and Defenestrations! by)
I know I periodically talk about how we humans enshrine and perpetuate our prejudices in the words we use. Usually I'm blogging about subtle usage--but it's not always so subtle.  Names like "Juanita"  (little Juan) or Georgette (little George) may sound pretty, but they belittle the girls and women who are named thus, just in the etymology of the word.  I don't know how many of these girls and women actually feel belittled, event though "little' is a part of their name.

However, I never imagined naming a child "Unwanted".  It's apparently a regular practice in India:

285 Indian girls no longer named Unwanted

Good for India for allowing these girls to change their names!
wyld_dandelyon: (Disintegrations and Defenestrations! by)
I know I periodically talk about how we humans enshrine and perpetuate our prejudices in the words we use. Usually I'm blogging about subtle usage--but it's not always so subtle.  Names like "Juanita"  (little Juan) or Georgette (little George) may sound pretty, but they belittle the girls and women who are named thus, just in the etymology of the word.  I don't know how many of these girls and women actually feel belittled, event though "little' is a part of their name.

However, I never imagined naming a child "Unwanted".  It's apparently a regular practice in India:

285 Indian girls no longer named Unwanted

Good for India for allowing these girls to change their names!

Crockery

Aug. 12th, 2010 09:29 pm
wyld_dandelyon: (Default)
So, the lawyer I work for never heard of crockery, which made me wonder where the word came from. Is it archaic? Or British?

If you know, please share--and if you don't, feel welcome to make up something outrageous!

Crockery

Aug. 12th, 2010 09:29 pm
wyld_dandelyon: (Default)
So, the lawyer I work for never heard of crockery, which made me wonder where the word came from. Is it archaic? Or British?

If you know, please share--and if you don't, feel welcome to make up something outrageous!

Profile

wyld_dandelyon: (Default)
wyld_dandelyon

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     123
45 678 910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
OSZAR »