{"id":333053,"date":"2025-12-07T11:17:15","date_gmt":"2025-12-07T11:17:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/anthropology\/uterus-transplantation-a-scientific-advance-or-the-reflection-of-gender-stereotypes\/"},"modified":"2025-12-07T11:17:15","modified_gmt":"2025-12-07T11:17:15","slug":"uterus-transplantation-a-scientific-advance-or-the-reflection-of-gender-stereotypes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=333053","title":{"rendered":"Uterus Transplantation: A Scientific Advance or the Reflection of Gender Stereotypes?"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Uterus transplantation has been touted as one of the most innovative reproductive technologies in recent years (Br\u00e4nnstr\u00f6m 2018). The procedure allows women without a uterus to become pregnant and give birth using a donated organ, which is removed after the baby is born in most cases (Br\u00e4nnstr\u00f6m 2024). But behind this advancement, there is also a debate about the values and beliefs that drive the development of this technology. After all, to what extent do highly innovative medical technologies, such as uterus transplantation, cease to express a progressive vision of the future and instead reinforce morally conservative values related to motherhood, gender, and gestation? Could this really be a solution to a medical problem, or is it a response to a social construct that prioritizes biological motherhood over other forms of parenthood? (Luna 2004; Luna 2007).<\/p>\n

The Brazilian Case: Pioneering and Impact<\/h2>\n

In 2016, Brazil hosted a first-of-its-kind uterus transplant: for the first time, a patient received an organ from a deceased donor and had a successful pregnancy. The case gained international notoriety and was widely cited in the scientific community (Ejzenberg et al. 2018). The team involved in the successful case points out that this procedure could expand the possibilities of motherhood for women born without a uterus or who had the organ removed (Soares et al. 2016).<\/p>\n

However, some criticisms arise regarding the way this topic is treated. The scientific discourse surrounding uterine transplantation emphasizes the experience of pregnancy in one\u2019s own body as essential for \u201cideal motherhood,\u201d disregarding other forms of parenting, such as adoption or surrogacy (Silva and Carvalho 2016).<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

\u201cOrgan of Radical Care\u201d, by Charlotte Jarvis. See more: https:\/\/cjarvis.com\/organ-of-radical-care-una-matriz-colaborativa\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Biological Motherhood as the Only Way?<\/h2>\n

Uterus transplantation is often presented as a \u201cdream\u201d or \u201chope\u201d for women with uterine infertility. However, this approach reinforces biological essentialism, the idea that full motherhood must necessarily involve pregnancy within one\u2019s own body (Silva and Carvalho 2016). This concept ignores other possibilities, such as adoption, which is often discredited in the scientific discourses analyzed (Ejzenberg et al. 2018).<\/p>\n

Doctors involved in the procedure emphasize that the lack of a uterus can have significant psychological impacts and that existing alternatives (adoption or surrogacy) are difficult to accept legally or socially (Ejzenberg, Soares J\u00fanior, and Baracat 2016). However, this argument disregards the fact that adoption, for example, is a valid and enriching maternal experience that does not depend on pregnancy to be meaningful.<\/p>\n

Risks and costs, the hidden side of the procedure: unlike other transplants, a uterus transplant is not vital; it does not save lives (Silva and Carvalho 2016). Although it seeks to provide the experience of pregnancy to a woman who previously would not have had that possibility, the procedure is complex, involves immunosuppression therapy, and can lead to serious health complications (Castell\u00f3n et al. 2017). Furthermore, the surgery and treatment are expensive, raising questions about its viability as an accessible procedure for all women who desire it.<\/p>\n

The role of technology in the construction of desires: new reproductive technologies have the power to change not only biological possibilities, but also people\u2019s desires and expectations (Luna 2004; Marini 2018). Before uterine transplants, women without uteruses didn\u2019t see pregnancy within their own bodies as an option. Now, science presents a new possibility, and with it, a new social demand is created.<\/p>\n

Uterus Transplant: Innovation or Tradition?<\/h2>\n

Uterus transplantation undoubtedly represents an impressive medical and scientific advancement. However, it is crucial to reflect on the values that drive this technology and the discourse surrounding it (Nucci 2010; Rohden 2001). By emphasizing pregnancy as the \u201cideal\u201d path to motherhood, medical discourse can reinforce gender stereotypes and minimize other ways of experiencing parenthood (Scavone 2001a).<\/p>\n

The debate on uterus transplantation should not only be about technical advances, but also about the social and cultural meanings of reproduction, motherhood, and, most importantly, how traditional science deals with gender issues (Schiebinger 2001; Scavone 2001b). After all, science is not neutral: it is shaped by values, interests and perspectives that need to be constantly questioned (Vieira, Azize and Nucci, 2025).<\/p>\n\n

This post was curated by Contributing Editor Clarissa Reche.<\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Br\u00e4nnstr\u00f6m, M. 2018. \u201cCurrent Status and Future Direction of Uterus Transplantation.\u201d Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 23, n. 5: 592\u201397.<\/cite><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2024. Webinar Uterus Transplantation: A Global Presence Celebrating 10 Years [online]. International Society of Uterus Transplantation.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Castell\u00f3n, L., M. Amador, R. Gonz\u00e1lez, M. Eduardo, C. D\u00edaz-Garc\u00eda, N. Kvarnstr\u00f6m, e M. Br\u00e4nnstr\u00f6m. 2017. \u201cThe History behind Successful Uterine Transplantation in Humans.\u201d JBRA Assisted Reproduction 21, n. 2: 126\u201334.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Ejzenberg, D., W. Andraus, L. Baratelli Carelli Mendes, L. Ducatti, A. Song, R. Tanigawa, V. Rocha-Santos, R. Macedo Arantes, J. Soares, P. Serafini, L. Bertocco de Paiva Haddad, R. Pulcinelli Francisco, L. Carneiro D\u2019Albuquerque, e E. Chada Baracat. 2018. \u201cLivebirth after Uterus Transplantation from a Deceased Donor in a Recipient with Uterine Infertility.\u201d Lancet 392, n. 10165: 2697\u2013704.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Ejzenberg, D., J. Soares J\u00fanior, e E. Baracat. 2016. \u201cUterus Transplant: Are We Close to This Reality?\u201d Revista da Associa\u00e7\u00e3o M\u00e9dica Brasileira 62, n. 4: 295\u201396.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Luna, N. 2004. \u201cNovas Tecnologias Reprodutivas: Natureza e Cultura em Redefini\u00e7\u00e3o.\u201d Campos \u2013 Revista de Antropologia [s.l.]: 127\u201356.<\/cite><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2007. Provetas e Clones: Uma Antropologia das Novas Tecnologias Reprodutivas. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Marini, M. 2018. Corpos Bi\u00f4nicos e \u00d3rg\u00e3os Intercambi\u00e1veis: A Produ\u00e7\u00e3o de Saberes e Pr\u00e1ticas sobre Cora\u00e7\u00f5es N\u00e3o-humanos. Tese de Doutorado em Antropologia Social, Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ci\u00eancias Humanas, Universidade de S\u00e3o Paulo.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Nucci, M. 2010. \u201c\u2018O Sexo do C\u00e9rebro\u2019: Uma An\u00e1lise sobre G\u00eanero e Ci\u00eancia.\u201d In 6\u00b0 Pr\u00eamio Construindo a Igualdade de G\u00eanero \u2013 Reda\u00e7\u00f5es, Artigos Cient\u00edficos e Projetos Pedag\u00f3gicos Vencedores \u2013 2010, 147\u201362. Bras\u00edlia: Presid\u00eancia da Rep\u00fablica, Secretaria de Pol\u00edticas para as Mulheres.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Rohden, F. 2001. Uma Ci\u00eancia da Diferen\u00e7a: Sexo e G\u00eanero na Medicina da Mulher. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Scavone, L. 2001a. \u201cMaternidade: Transforma\u00e7\u00f5es na Fam\u00edlia e nas Rela\u00e7\u00f5es de G\u00eanero.\u201d Interface 5, n. 8: 47\u201359.<\/cite><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2001b. \u201cA Maternidade e o Feminismo: Di\u00e1logo com as Ci\u00eancias Sociais.\u201d Cadernos Pagu, n. 16: 137\u201350.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Schiebinger, L. 2001. O Feminismo Mudou a Ci\u00eancia? Bauru: Edusc.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Silva, A., e L. Carvalho. 2016. \u201cA Meta-analysis on Uterine Transplantation: Redefining the Limits of Reproductive Surgery.\u201d Revista da Associa\u00e7\u00e3o M\u00e9dica Brasileira 62, n. 5: 474\u201377.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Soares, J., D. Ejzenberg, W. Andraus, L. D\u2019Albuquerque, e E. Baracat. 2016. \u201cFirst Latin Uterine Transplantation: We Can Do It!\u201d Clinics 71, n. 11: 627\u201328.<\/cite><\/p>\n

Vieira, Juliana Rodrigues, Rogerio Lopes Azize, e Marina Fisher Nucci. 2025. \u201cUm transplante ef\u00eamero: an\u00e1lise de publica\u00e7\u00f5es cient\u00edficas sobre o caso brasileiro de transplante uterino.\u201d Physis: Revista de Sa\u00fade Coletiva 35 (3): e350314.<\/cite><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n