8 Keeping it in the Family: Debating the Bio-Intimacy ... 203their partner’s sperm and the woman carries the pregnancy. The child is
therefore genetically the couple’s child’. In this discourse, UT restores
what becomes situated as a genetic bio-intimacy (ovaries and eggs) as
well as that of legitimate heterosexual bodies (partner’s sperm and the
woman who carries her own pregnancy).
Motherhood in UT cases gets positioned as inherently residing in
pregnancy and childbirth, privileging the idea that reproductive work
must equal the intent to parent. When combined with their own
genetic material, UT recipients are turned into rightful and legitimate
mothers. The fact that an UT pregnancy necessitates immune suppres-
sant medication and is always planned to result in a Caesarean deliv-
ery is made to appear legitimate when put in close proximity to women
who have undergone (other) life necessary treatments such as kidney
transplants, yet nevertheless achieve pregnancy and birth. Meanwhile,
the exchangeability of the uterus, including the various reproductive
paths made possible, are managed and directed at particular women
only. This is in spite of the fact that the uterus clearly, through its
extraction and exchangeability, opens up for new providers and recipi-
ents alike. As noted in one Danish article, transgendered men can be
granted the option, during sex reassignment surgery, to donate their
uterus. Here the uterus moves from the classification of reproductive
waste (‘we throw out about 20 well-functioning uteruses every year’, the
physician notes in reference to sex reassignment surgeries), or a road-
block. ‘In reality, it was just mostly in the way’, one transgendered man
comments in reference to the potential ability for his uterus to become
thingified and gain new value as someone else’s reproductive organ. ‘It’s
not like DNA, like with sperm or eggs, but just a case for the foetus.
I would have liked to have given it to someone who needed it’ (Pabst
2016 ). These types of exchanges are, however, likely limited not only
due to the lack of Danish UT expertise but also due to Danish legal
restrictions which makes no specific mentioning of uterine transplants,
yet specifies that transplanting another person’s ovaries to a recipient
with the specific purpose of assisted reproduction is illegal.^6
The stories and debates are united through affects of hope engen-
dering particular understandings of UT as similar to other types of
replacement surgeries. Anna, for example, positions the replacement of