Anyhow just a factoid.

I personally was helped by oral medications and I have a friend starting IVF. I want to smack every one asking her if she is going to have 8 kids like that lady.

Thanks Lady for the 5 steps back…

I just feel like we have bigger battles to fight, and while the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic power has some merit (and seems to be at the root of this debate), when we focus instead on flailing our fists at the dummies who use words incorrectly, we come off as people who’d rather fight semantics than actual issues. In this case (though Mr. Sapir is a really cool fellow), I have to disagree that this word’s incorrect usage intrinsically causes misunderstanding.

While the general public has no flippin’ idea how IVF works (or even what the difference between IVF and other ARTs might be), I think that the general population doesn’t even begin to have the sophistication to understand the nuances of the “transfer” vs “implant” concepts. I want them to understand that it’s medicine, and that it’s an acceptable procedure to be used to attempt to resolve infertility. It would be nice if the terms were used correctly, but I’d rather that the broader concept of “medical treatment” be understood.

What this argument brings to the forefront is the frustration we feel over the general misunderstanding (and thus lack of acceptance) of infertility. And for me, the best way to clear up misunderstandings is not to get caught up in a battle of terminology, but rather to get caught up in a battle of knowledge.

I want to spend my time sharing the idea that we infertile types aren’t a bunch of freaks but are rather just plain ol’ people who happen to be dealing with broken babymakers. And the constant focus on terminology lends to us an air of the freakish.

It’s like when I start geeking out on report design, and ripping on people who don’t use the word “query” correctly (and oh, dear, don’t start us on whether “SQL” is pronounced “ESS-CUE-ELL” or “Sequel”- that debate will never end), I come across as an arrogant know-it-all rather than someone who genuinely wants an outsider to understand the process.

I mean, think of how you feel when you are having a conversation and someone smacks you down because you use the wrong word. If you have the understanding of the concept (at least as far as is necessary for the purposes of whatever conversation), when someone corrects your usage, it comes across as petty, and it makes you feel like that person has no desire to have a conversation with you, but instead to “instruct” you on all the nuanced ways that you are wrong. Which, I mean, if I’m in a classroom setting, might be appropriate, but in casual conversation is never appropriate, unless you are just trying to make the other person feel dumb.

I think arrogance is the death of understanding and so to continually point out what (to outsiders might be considered small and irrelevant) differences in word usage results in people shutting off the understanding part of their brain and instead turning on the defensive part.

So. I will continue to piss off the infertile world by refusing to take people to task when they use “implant”. I know I’m supposed to toe the party line, and I know I just lost my IF club card by saying so, but there it is. I couldn’t care less about the general uneducated population’s usage of “implant”.

It’s beyond my control, I cannot resist adding this additional thought. As time passes and we look at these events in hindsight, as HISTORY, these are the events that could have a seriously negative snowball effect not just for women TTC their own bio baby, but evvvveryone–whether they give IF a second thought or not:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obamas_FDA_swiftly_approves_embryonic_stem_0124.html

3 words: embryonic stem cells.

Thank you, Mel, for the post. Thanks for being so visible out there as our honorary IF spokesperson. Thanks for your continued total absence of apathy.

Their reason (excuse) for this decision is inexcusable. The English language is wonderful because there are so many words to specifically communicate ideas–it’s their JOB to use words authentically and well.

I have many punches I’d like to swing on this. Is that the hormones? Not sure. This is ALL so rage-worthy.

Yesterday I wrapped up my “prepping my womb” post–an exercise in hope as I establish a fluffy home for the embies. It was an emotional process. But more importantly, in that post, I address ABORTION. I’m vehemently PRO-CHOICE. Legalized abortion is inextricably intertwined with our rights to utilize ART procedures. It’s a slippery slope. Admittedly, it’s a touchy subject I have yet to read posted by a fellow IFer.

On my 2nd post on the same day, I bemoan the fact that they do not yet have the technology to actually do the implantation.

That doctor has already established he is unethical. So why in the world would he be believed that he has figured out how to do an actual implantation vs. transfer?

Seriously want to line these people up for my punch fest.

Hear! Hear!

That little difference in verbage makes the whole difference in all of this, especially to people who aren’t familiar with IF and IVF specifically.

It’s very upsetting to see and hear the way people are reacting to this story, and you are very right, most of it could have been solved by a simple switch of words.

If the NYT was so worried about people not understanding, why couldn’t they have put a simple definition in the story as well?? Very frustrating from the IF point of view.

All terminology aside, the whole situation seems ridiculously irresponsible.