Uterus transplantation has been touted as one of the most innovative reproductive technologies in recent years (Brännström 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 (Brännström 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).
The Brazilian Case: Pioneering and Impact
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).
However, some criticisms arise regarding the way this topic is treated. The scientific discourse surrounding uterine transplantation emphasizes the experience of pregnancy in one’s own body as essential for “ideal motherhood,” disregarding other forms of parenting, such as adoption or surrogacy (Silva and Carvalho 2016).
“Organ of Radical Care”, by Charlotte Jarvis. See more: https://cjarvis.com/organ-of-radical-care-una-matriz-colaborativa/
Biological Motherhood as the Only Way?
Uterus transplantation is often presented as a “dream” or “hope” for women with uterine infertility. However, this approach reinforces biological essentialism, the idea that full motherhood must necessarily involve pregnancy within one’s 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).
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 Júnior, 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.
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 (Castellón 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.
The role of technology in the construction of desires: new reproductive technologies have the power to change not only biological possibilities, but also people’s desires and expectations (Luna 2004; Marini 2018). Before uterine transplants, women without uteruses didn’t see pregnancy within their own bodies as an option. Now, science presents a new possibility, and with it, a new social demand is created.
Uterus Transplant: Innovation or Tradition?
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 “ideal” path to motherhood, medical discourse can reinforce gender stereotypes and minimize other ways of experiencing parenthood (Scavone 2001a).
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).
This post was curated by Contributing Editor Clarissa Reche.
References
Brännström, M. 2018. “Current Status and Future Direction of Uterus Transplantation.” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 23, n. 5: 592–97.
———. 2024. Webinar Uterus Transplantation: A Global Presence Celebrating 10 Years [online]. International Society of Uterus Transplantation.
Castellón, L., M. Amador, R. González, M. Eduardo, C. Díaz-García, N. Kvarnström, e M. Brännström. 2017. “The History behind Successful Uterine Transplantation in Humans.” JBRA Assisted Reproduction 21, n. 2: 126–34.
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’Albuquerque, e E. Chada Baracat. 2018. “Livebirth after Uterus Transplantation from a Deceased Donor in a Recipient with Uterine Infertility.” Lancet 392, n. 10165: 2697–704.
Ejzenberg, D., J. Soares Júnior, e E. Baracat. 2016. “Uterus Transplant: Are We Close to This Reality?” Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 62, n. 4: 295–96.
Luna, N. 2004. “Novas Tecnologias Reprodutivas: Natureza e Cultura em Redefinição.” Campos – Revista de Antropologia [s.l.]: 127–56.
———. 2007. Provetas e Clones: Uma Antropologia das Novas Tecnologias Reprodutivas. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz.
Marini, M. 2018. Corpos Biônicos e Órgãos Intercambiáveis: A Produção de Saberes e Práticas sobre Corações Não-humanos. Tese de Doutorado em Antropologia Social, Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo.
Nucci, M. 2010. “‘O Sexo do Cérebro’: Uma Análise sobre Gênero e Ciência.” In 6° Prêmio Construindo a Igualdade de Gênero – Redações, Artigos Científicos e Projetos Pedagógicos Vencedores – 2010, 147–62. Brasília: Presidência da República, Secretaria de Políticas para as Mulheres.
Rohden, F. 2001. Uma Ciência da Diferença: Sexo e Gênero na Medicina da Mulher. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz.
Scavone, L. 2001a. “Maternidade: Transformações na Família e nas Relações de Gênero.” Interface 5, n. 8: 47–59.
———. 2001b. “A Maternidade e o Feminismo: Diálogo com as Ciências Sociais.” Cadernos Pagu, n. 16: 137–50.
Schiebinger, L. 2001. O Feminismo Mudou a Ciência? Bauru: Edusc.
Silva, A., e L. Carvalho. 2016. “A Meta-analysis on Uterine Transplantation: Redefining the Limits of Reproductive Surgery.” Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 62, n. 5: 474–77.
Soares, J., D. Ejzenberg, W. Andraus, L. D’Albuquerque, e E. Baracat. 2016. “First Latin Uterine Transplantation: We Can Do It!” Clinics 71, n. 11: 627–28.
Vieira, Juliana Rodrigues, Rogerio Lopes Azize, e Marina Fisher Nucci. 2025. “Um transplante efêmero: análise de publicações científicas sobre o caso brasileiro de transplante uterino.” Physis: Revista de Saúde Coletiva 35 (3): e350314.
