At what age does a woman move from being described as “she hasn’t got children” to “she didn’t have children”?

[Kneidlach]

A clunky question I know but this was something I was musing about today. Of course it’s directly linked to fertility and so is obvious in one sense.

But I feel like there’s a grey area. For example I think referring to a 30 year old and saying “she hasn’t got children” makes perfect sense, and referring to a 70 year old and saying “she didn’t have children” also makes sense. They are both purely statements of fact.

So when does the switch take place?! In my head it’s probably around 45, or maybe late forties. But would referring to a woman aged 45 and saying “she didn’t have children” rather than “she hasn’t got children” make sense? It feels like it would be a vague insult in a way that I can’t quite pinpoint. Perhaps as it draws attention to ageing and getting older.

45?

You put that better than me.

I don't even get why it's a point of conversation, it's like the default is to have children and people who don't are commented on by saying they don't have children as if it's strange somehow

Nobody ever muses over whether it's right to say "she has children"

Maybe around 40?

It'll be different for everyone though depending on life stage.

46/7 probably. 44/5 bit of a grey area as still possible but less likely. 50 definitely. That said people adopt/ use surrogates etc at 50 or beyond so I don’t know!!

Also, I'd be wary of using the difference in tense to discuss someone's fertility - you really don't know what someone has been through.

This is not me being snarky, just a genuine comment.

So many people I know have had children in 40s. 40 too early

"Hasn't got children" does not make sense as got is past of get?

Surely, she does not have children, is better english and covers all bases?

I think I'd always just say she doesn't have children rather than she hasn't or didn't.

Not until 60 to be safe.

im in my 50s and frustratingly still show signs of occasionally ovulating.

I'd probably just go with "doesn't have children" for both.

On a similar subject, when do you move from "falling over" to "having a fall"?

I think it would always be better to use “doesn’t”.

It can be a very sensitive issue. I don’t have children and am now at the age of not having grandchildren either. So a double whammy of sadness.

If people ask I now always say…. “Sadly we don’t have children”
I think that’s enough of an explanation I need to give to new people I meet and it stops them in their tracks of delving further as to why.

There can be many reasons as to why people didn’t have children, many of which were not their choice or expectations of adulthood.

Is this an acceptable ‘description’ about someone?

Like really?

“Doesn’t have” is always safer - unless you know them really well, they may have had a neonatal or child death you aren’t aware of. It didn’t really used to be talked about. So maybe they did have children but don’t any longer.