There's this interesting phenomenon that kicks in right around when women without children hit their late 20s to late 30s in which people love to offer unsolicited advice about what reproductive choices they should make. It generally comes with a heavy dose of pity that the poor woman must feel terribly unfulfilled, as every woman has an overwhelming urge to reproduce once they hit "a certain age." If you say that you don't want children or that it's not something that is currently under consideration, the follow-up is usually something along the lines of "you'll feel differently about that in the future," and if you're dealing with a real asshole, they'll tell you that your child will be autistic if you wait until you're ready. It's rooted in this concept of the "biological clock"--the idea that women suddenly subconsciously feel an irresistible urge to have children as their bodies approach menopause.

If you haven't heard it before, let me tell you that the entire premise of the "biological clock" is complete nonsense rooted in a stubbornly persistent streak of sexism in our culture, and even if it isn't, other people's reproductive choices are nobody's business but their own (unless they themselves start a conversation about it). Here's a PSA: Don't ever offer unsolicited comments about someone's ability or decision to have children. Here are a few reasons as to why that's a terrible idea:

1. It's none of your business, as "unsolicited" = nobody asked you. It's a deeply personal choice, and other people's uteruses do not need commentary.
2. Women should obviously not be required to be baby factories. There's nothing wrong with a woman choosing to make her own life decisions. (Duh.)
3. There may be a medical reason that someone or their partner cannot have children, and that reason may be upsetting to them.
4. There may be a personal reason (e.g. an abusive childhood, depression, a genetic condition that they don't want to pass on) that the person has chosen not to bring children into the world. None of those things are your business.

I have yet to hear the term "biological clock" come from a woman; anecdotally speaking, it seems to be men who are really insistent on this idea. (To be fair, the “maybe you’ll feel differently one day” has come up in conversations with women, but generally in the context that they themselves were once on the fence about motherhood.) My theory is that our culture has promoted this idea that men can have children whenever they want, as late in life as they want, with as many women as they'd like, because they have the advantage of female desperation. Many men are "desperate" to have children and "carry on their legacy" too. The notion that maybe it's not all up to men must be a real challenge to the patriarchy. And before any feminist haters make any comments about my use of the term "patriarchy," let me remind you that "patriarchy" literally means "ruling father" in Latin (via Ancient Greek, if you want to get technical with your etymology). And what we're talking about here is literally a threat to the rule of fatherhood.

Hey, you know what else is natural? All sorts of human atrocities. Do you feel an overwhelming urge to murder people of different races to prioritize people who are similar to you genetically? No? Congratulations, you have overcome "natural" biological impulses. That's because we have cultural pressures that override biological impulses that are not beneficial to society as a whole.

Even if we are so bound to our biology, there are plenty of reasons to believe that reproducing isn't a universal biological impulse among humans anyway. People who have a sexual orientation that does not include sleeping with people of the opposite sex cannot technically have children "the natural way" without doing something that biologically feels "unnatural" to them. Anthropologists have explained this phenomenon by pointing out that it is actually in a culture's interest to have certain members of society not reproducing so that there are more adults around to take care of the children and perform other functions that having to take care of children would preclude, and to prevent overpopulation. Homosexuality is an observed phenomenon cross-culturally, and it’s not a genetic accident.

There’s a direct correlation between a country’s GDP, its treatment of women, and birth rates. Countries where per capita income is higher, people have more years of education, and women have more autonomy have much lower birth rates. Japan’s population is shrinking because of low birth rates, and the United States would have a shrinking population if not for immigration. Where women have the option to pursue careers and have sexual education and access to birth control, they often choose to delay or not have children. There are also factors that come into play that have to do with religious belief or poverty. Women in poverty with less access to education or birth control tend to have more children, as do women who are part of religious movements that ban or discourage birth control and abortion, or promote marriage at a younger age.

This is not to say that successful, wealthy, or non-religious women choose not to reproduce as a rule. Many successful women are also mothers. But I doubt that you’ll meet a mother who will argue that having a child and having a career is an easy balancing act, particularly those without a partner in the picture or the ability to afford childcare. A woman’s choice to have children or not is a function of cultural and personal circumstance as much as it is a biological one, if not more so.

In conclusion: let's put the term "biological clock" to rest, shall we?