Remix clone Hacker News

US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...).

▲

ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-]

> US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb

The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.

from the law

> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,

▲

gcr 3 days ago | parent [-]

isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova?

“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.

	▲	belorn 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus. It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.
	▲	rkomorn 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production. Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy? Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?