The “Superwoman“ Myth
Reproductive Autonomy, Delayed Motherhood, - and IVF Refusal After 43,- Fate of “Superwomen?”
By Dr. Sonia Gayete-Lafuente at the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR) and the Foundation for Reproductive Medicine an Attending fertility specialist, physician scientist, and Director of Medical Education and a Visiting Researcher at Rockefeller University in NYC. She can be reached through the CHR’s editorial office or directly at sgayete(at)thechr.com
BRIEFING: Across modern cities, from New York to London to Barcelona, an increasing number of highly educated, accomplished women in fertility clinics are increasingly hearing the same question, - “why did you wait so long?” – followed by “now you are too old to try with your own eggs!” And only too often that statement concludes the discussion.
Those women hearing this, however, are rarely uninformed or careless. Many are highly educated professionals, physicians, scientists, lawyers, engineers, academics, entrepreneur, - women who have spent decades navigating demanding career paths and achieving levels of independence that previous generations often fought hard to achieve, - but often failed. In many ways, they indeed are, the embodiment of the promise that women can “have it all”. But now in medical consultation, that promise meets biological reality and, increasingly, institutional boundaries as well.
Unfairly, delayed motherhood is often framed as a miscalculation, a personal mistake. In truth, it, however, reflects something much bigger and more important, - the collision of modern social timelines and the inherent natural demands of reproductive biology.
In this article of The CHRVOICE, we therefore explore the complex intersection of modern womanhood with reproductive biology, and why current prevalent infertility practice in most IVF clinics in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world refuses autologous IVF (IVF with use of their own eggs) to women after after age 43 years, - a policy that deserves careful scientific and ethical reflections.
The Promise and Burden of “Having It All”
Over the past half-century, women have entered an unprecedented era of intellectual, professional, and economic participation. In most privileged places, that also included an era of unprecedented physical freedom. In many countries, women now graduate from universities in greater numbers than men (especially in medicine) and occupy leadership roles across medicine, science, business, and public life. If they wish, they live by themselves, purchase property, marry multiple times or not at all, and travel the world.
Alongside these advances emerged a powerful cultural narrative, the idear (or should we say, - the ideal) of the “Superwoman.” She succeeds professionally, remains healthy and productive, nurtures relationships and enjoys the beauty of life flawlessly and freely. And when the moment feels right, she builds a family. In short, the message has been simple and seductive, - “ you can have it all as a woman!”
What this utopian narrative, however, rarely acknowledges is that female reproductive aging remains biologically constraining in ways that modern professional timelines, economic structures, and social expectations often cannot accommodate. Advanced training with educational pathways extend well into the thirties, career establishment, financial stability, and partnership formation - currently the main reason for planned egg freezing - almost entirely overlap with women’s most fertile years. These realities naturally delay family-building and unfold unpredictable, - just as the rapidly-evolving world we live in does.
For those of us practicing reproductive medicine, these “Superwomen” are often the patients sitting across from us in consultations. They used to be rare; now -at least at the CHR – they likely already are a majority. And increasingly many arrive after the age of 43, when their chances of conceiving with their own eggs are by many colleagues considered “too limited” to still offer them treatments with use of their own eggs. They claim medical futility as the reason for their refusal, - a message that, of course, can hardly be more deeply painful to receive.
Imagine another medical field would act this way! Imagine a medical oncologist would refuse treating advanced stage IV cancer patients because only a few may ultimately survive or cardiologists and surgeons would treat only good-prognosis patients, while those with poorer chances would be denied care and told to go elsewhere. Wouldn’t that be unbelievable and wouldn’t everybody be up in arms and consider such treatment (or actually non-treatment) not only to be unethical but misleading because one, of course, in every medical specialty requires better knowledge and skills for the more difficult cases?
Genomics as a Risky Boundary for Ageism
Reproductive genomics has transformed infertility care. The study of meiotic errors, embryo culture, and preimplantation genetic testing have given clinicians powerful tools to explain reproductive failure in the context of advanced maternal age. These technologies allow us to quantitatively estimate ovarian aging, the likelihood of embryo aneuploidy, and live birth rates.
Offering such knowledge to patients correctly, in principle empowers them; but, in practice, this is not always what happens because what matters in offering information to patients are not only the numbers, - but also how those numbers are presented. Women aged 43 and older seeking autologous IVF often report that these genomic explanations - even if scientifically accurate (which is also not always the case) - are presented as definitive endpoints rather than as information to guided decision-making.
Patients routinely describe consultations in which discussions of declining functional ovarian reserve and percentages of chromosomal abnormalities quickly transition into firm statements of treatment refusal from a medical provider who is presumed to objectively inform (i.e., the term, -“informed consent”) rather than impose her/his opinion on a patient. Many patients, despite understanding the offered statistics perfectly, still wish to retain the right to attempt treatment.
Rigid age cutoffs for treatments are not only illogical (there are younger women with older ovaries and vice versa) but introduce a phenomenon into infertility practice called ageism, - only rarely discussed openly in the field, - yet frequently brought up by the CHR’s patients who in over half of all cases seek treatment at the CHR because they elsewhere (and often in more than one clinic) where given no choice but third-party egg donation. There are even IVF clinics where receptionist refuse appointments after a certain age if patients are not willing to consent to use of donor eggs, even before they get a chance to see a physician. We don’t know of a better example of structural ageism embedded within access to care.
This must be revisited. Responsible medicine requires limits, based in the core ethical principles of non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and beneficence; principles that should also remind us to approach such decisions with humility, recognizing that the authority to define those limits should not – and cannot - rest only in physicians’ judgements.
When Biology Meets Policy: IVF After Age 43
From a biological standpoint, the facts are well established. With advancing maternal age, oocyte numbers decline, mitochondrial function deteriorates, meiotic errors increase, the proportion of aneuploid embryos rises and, consequently, chances of pregnancy decline sharply. By the mid-forties, the probability of generating a euploid embryo from an autologous IVF cycle becomes very low. This is one of the main reasons why at age 25 approximately 1/3 embryos will lead to pregnancy, while at age 45 (the numbers are then not as well established) the chance drops to 1/15-20 embryos.
These realities form the foundation of responsible counseling in reproductive medicine. Yet an important distinction often disappears in clinical practice: low probability is not impossibility. A treatment with a low chance of success may still carry profound personal and ethical legitimacy for a patient. For some women, even a small opportunity of genetic parenthood remains meaningful enough to pursue freely, after thoughtful informed consent. And many other women may have no other options because their religion or their believes do not allow them to even pursue third-party egg donation.
How can we – as a medical specialty – simply abandon them?
In most clinical IVF settings, women over age 43, however, to this day still encounter categorical refusals of autologous IVF. As already noted, even in New York City, cycles are declined before medical evaluation, solely based on age. Clinics may enforce strict age thresholds prioritizing their success metrics and commercial pressures, while patients are incorrectly told that treatment would be unethical or even futile.
In addition to personal frustration, this generates an institutional biased self-fulfilling prophecy: Because these patients are often not offered treatment, fertility specialists have limited experience in managing them; as a result, the small number who do undergo treatment rarely achieve success, feeding the narrative of unequivocal futility, and leading to further discrimination.
The value of trying is, in contrast, well-illustrated by the CHR’s data, a center internationally, of course, widely recognized for treating women of advanced maternal age. In 2025 at the CHR, women aged >43 years who underwent IVF with fresh embryo transfer achieved an 8% clinical pregnancy rate (significantly higher than < 2% reported nationwide), - data to be soon published in RBMO (Reproductive BioMedicine Online). Additionally, we must remember that only practice makes perfect and, most importantly, that everyone deserves medical care.
Reframing Delayed Motherhood Beyond the Myth
We should avoid public discussions of delayed motherhood that carry subtle undertones of blame. Women are too often portrayed as having “waited too long”, as if reproductive timing was purely a matter of personal choice or miscalculation, rather than a structural consequence of modern social and professional systems. Let’s stop the shaming.
The “Superwoman” narrative promised that ambition, independence, and motherhood could coexist seamlessly - as if women could transcend every biological boundary through discipline and careful planning. In reality, many women carry the burden of delayed motherhood while trying to balance careers, relationships, finances, and personal identity under nearly impossible conditions. These women are our sisters, daughters, friends, coworkers, and patients.
The woman who walks into a fertility consultation after age 43 is not simply stubbornly confronting biology; she may instead be carrying the weight of years of responsibility, circumstances, and hope. Rather than viewing these patients through the narrow lens of probability alone, we must recognize the broader human story that brought them to where they are in their lives and engage more compassionately with their realities.
Innovation at the Edges of Reproductive Science
This necessary reframing starts by understanding the “Superwoman.” With this in mind, at the CHR, financially powered by the Foundation for Reproductive Medicine (FRM), we have initiated a new study examining how the concept of “genomic futility” has emerged as a rationale for excluding women aged 43 and older from IVF with use of their own eggs. Through interviews with women across four countries of diverse policy -the U.S., the U.K., Singapore and Japan-, the project explores how women experience age-based exclusion, how they understand genetic parenthood, and even how they view emerging technologies such as stem-cell therapies or in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG) as potential alternatives to using donor eggs. By integrating genomics, social science, and bioethics, our study aims to generate patient-informed ethical principles to guide future evaluation of reproductive technologies for women currently excluded from IVF due to age.
Hopefully, the stories of these “Superwomen” may help expand social awareness, improve fertility education, and, ultimately, challenge policy within the fertility community. In the end, perhaps real progress is not to push “Superwomen,” but to build a world where women are simply supported to thrive, however they choose to live.
INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AT THE CHR AND ELSEWHERE, PLEASE DONATE TO THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT FOUNDATION FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, AT
https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/donation-form/support-independent-fertility-research-before-year-end.
ALL DONATIONS ARE FULLY TAX-DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE LAW.