Is fertility the essential characteristic of womanhood?
Note: This article is part of a series I’ll be doing where I’ll engage with common arguments against gender transition. While I understand that people may not be persuaded by my rationale here, I hope they will at least see that there is much room for differing opinions.
Trigger Warnings: Infertility, Ableism. First, and as a trigger warning for the discussion that follows, this argument is a form of ableism, which defines certain people as “less than” because of some disability. I've seen many express hurt by this line of thinking, particularly cis women who desperately wish they could bear children but for whatever reason cannot. It’s also hurtful to women who, while fertile, have not yet had kids, and may never do so. As I will show, this argument, in an attempt to invalidate the womanhood of a trans woman, ends up invalidating the womanhood of at least five times as many cis women. Taken to its extreme, the view that bearing children is a requirement to prove womanhood leads to all manner of harmful and even oppressive beliefs about women.
The argument
This argument usually says something like this: "women are defined, more than any other way, by their ability to bear children. Trans women can't bear children, therefore are not women."
Is this the only way to be a woman?
Let's fully ignore the fact that the first uterus transplants are starting to be attempted, but acknowledge that many trans women mourn the fact that they cannot bear children. They very much wish that they could. The desire is there, the anatomy is not.
Also, before I tackle this argument, I want to point something out: I have never heard someone make a theological argument the other way - that “getting someone pregnant is what makes a man a man.” I wonder if that’s because men in leadership positions in conservative circles know that men struggle with sterility as well, and they don’t want to accuse themselves or their co-elders of “not being a man”. Roughly 1 in 10 men will struggle with sterility. If your elder board has 10 people on it, likely one of them has gone through this. 41 men make up the board and council of The Gospel Coalition - one assumes that more than one has been treated for sterility. But with no women on these elder boards, it’s easy to imagine them having a blind spot and just saying “women can bear children” when they’re seeking a quick answer to “what is a woman?”
Again, anti-trans activists love to pose “what is a woman?” as a question and then mock people without a clear and concise answer. But they rarely ask, “what is a man?” I suspect the reason is that those asking it don’t want to suffer the humiliation of having their own manhood questioned. Jon Stewart wrestled with this question on his show The Problem with Jon Stewart (Contains Strong Language).
Can fertility be used to define women?
But let’s get back to the question: does this bar actually work for assessing womanhood?
First, something like 11% of cis women will experience difficulty getting pregnant, even after trying for two years: How common is infertility? | NICHD - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (nih.gov). Modern technology including IVF, fertility drugs, and surrogacy have all made complete infertility far less common, but those are all technological solutions that were unavailable even 100 years ago. They still would not be accessible to those who cannot afford them, or women in countries with less developed health care. And even here, they are still no guarantee.
Infertility has a variety of causes. The most relevant cause to this conversation is this: I Was Born Without a Uterus | Women's Health (womenshealthmag.com). Roughly 1 in 5,000 cis women are born without a uterus. A number of other women undergo hysterectomies for a variety of reasons, some while the woman is still of childbearing age. So yes, trans women are born without a uterus, but this is not unheard of even in cis women.
Furthermore, consider the following, each of which would at minimum require some form of medical intervention for the woman to be able to bear children.
Some fertile women will have sterile partners.
Some fertile women have exclusively same-sex partners.
Some fertile women choose not to bear children, and avoid it by using various methods of birth control.
Some women will simply never have a sexual relationship at all.
And any woman who lives long enough will become infertile naturally via menopause.
Bottom line: 15% (roughly one in seven) of American women aged 45-50 have never had children. Vanishingly few women would bear their first child after that age, so this seems like a reasonable number for us to use as the percent of women who never bear children.
Let's say that "trans women are women" for a moment. Wikipedia says that the transgender population in the United States is approximately 0.6% according to the most recent surveys. Let’s say that’s split approximately evenly between trans women and trans men. There’s 330 million people in the United States, so 165 million women. 15.4% (childless) of that is 25 million women. And 0.6% (trans) is one million. Are we really going to invalidate the womanhood of 25 million childless cis women just to invalidate the one million who were assigned male at birth?
What about eternity?
There will be no childbearing in eternity, as far as we know. According to Jesus (Matthew 22:30), people will not be married in eternity, and I'm quite certain that the vast majority of anti-trans Christians would also say that sex outside of marriage is sin. If no one is having sex, there's no children. Furthermore, there's simply no scripture that references childbearing in heaven - no promise of "the infertile will be made fertile" or anything like that. So if we take a view of gender permanence (the idea that we cannot choose our gender - it’s fixed and unchangeable), why would we assume that womanhood is defined by something that women will be incapable of doing in eternity?
“But women in the Bible were marked by struggles with fertility”
Someone noted a list of women who struggled with infertility and stated that this showed that womanhood was marked more than anything by the ability to bear children: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, Ruth. Let’s consider each (with the miraculous birth in parenthesis):
Sarah (Isaac): Sarah was unable to conceive, and so suggested the forced marriage and rape of Hagar to Abraham, which he did, followed by Sarah dealing harshly with Hagar after Ishmael’s birth (with Abraham’s approval). For 13 years, the birth of Ishmael is accepted, and Sarah even laughs when she hears that she is to bear a child at the age of 90. There does not seem to be any further angst until Isaac is born, at which time Sarah becomes jealous that Ishmael would be an heir with Isaac, and instructs Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, which he does. The story centers around the precarious nature of Abraham’s heir or lack thereof, not Sarah’s infertility. Sarah’s womanhood is not denied for her lack of children.
Rebekah (Jacob/Esau): Yes, there is a single verse which mentions her barrenness, but again, this is portrayed as a problem for Isaac - he is without an heir. He prays for her, and she conceives with Jacob and Esau.
Rachel (Joseph): Yep, again - barren at the start. But look how she solves it? She gives her servant, Bilhah, to Jacob (rape, again), “so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.” When Dan is born, there’s no indication that Rachel accepts him as anything less than her son. She later has Joseph, and is grateful, but this didn’t even follow any kind of prayer or anything. Furthermore, even once she has Joseph, she calls him “another son” (the phrase “May the LORD add to me another son!” cannot refer to a future child, as no more are born), which implies that she sees the children born by Bilhah as fully valid.
Manoah’s Wife (Samson): I’m adding this one, from Judges 13:2. A woman who is nameless but barren. She miraculously gives birth to Samson.
Hannah (Samuel): Hannah wishes to bear a child, and is distraught over not being able to. However, it’s clear that her husband sees her as fully valid as a woman, even preferring her to his other wife and giving her a “double portion” and being confused why she is so upset when she has him. Nevertheless, after she makes a vow to give a child to the Lord (she would rarely see him), God gives her Samuel.
Ruth: Ruth was married to one of Naomi’s sons, but never bore children. She may have been considered “barren” as a result. However, Ruth immediately bears a child upon her marriage to Boaz, so it seems more likely that her first husband was sterile. It’s true that her bearing children is seen as redemption for Naomi, who had lost her sons. But once again - this is a story in which the problem is the continuation of a line, not childbearing per se. That is, Naomi is found childless, but Ruth is the one who bears a child to rectify the situation. I really don’t see how this story can be used to establish the essentialism of childbearing for women.
Elizabeth (John the Baptist): I’m adding Elizabeth. She was indeed barren, and eventually, miraculously, conceived and bore John the Baptist. It’s worth noting that this, and then Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, are the last two miraculous conceptions in the Bible. I’ll come back to this in a moment.
Mary (Jesus): We hold that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and then also had additional children. Her fertility was not central to her story. She was central because of being the mother of Jesus in the same way that Joseph is featured for being Jesus’ adoptive father.
Ok, so those were the examples given of women who in some way or another had a story in which their childbearing was significant and/or miraculous. I don’t see in any of them that the childbearing was essential to their being women, but rather to the continuation of their line, which was paramount in those times. Note that Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah (Leah’s servant who she also gave to Jacob) are not portrayed as invalid women prior to them being given to their master’s husbands. Hannah is not portrayed as any less of a woman than Peninnah prior to the birth and subsequent giving away of Samuel. And Ruth was not seen as invalid in any way, though Naomi’s line (not Ruth’s!) was at great risk since her sons had died, but is continued because of Ruth.
Thus, there are seven miraculous births in the Bible:
Abraham’s line to Joseph:
Isaac
Jacob (and Esau)
Joseph
Samson
Samuel - the man who appoints Israel’s first and second kings.
John the Baptist - the man who points to Jesus
Jesus - the messiah
What do all of them have in common?
They are, as near as I can tell, the only women for whom fertility is noted as a struggle.
They are all part of the messianic story (except Samson, for whom we don’t even know his mother’s name). John the Baptist of course was not in Jesus’ line, but rather lived as a man who would point to Jesus and hail his coming as the Messiah.
Now let’s look at other women in the Bible:
Eve - no fertility issues, though one of her sons did kill another.
Hagar - no fertility issues, and one could argue that her having a son actually caused her great problems.
Deborah - a Judge of Israel, who calls herself a “mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7, other translations have “mother of Israel” or “a motherly protector in Israel.” We don’t even know if she has children, and she’s one of the few Israelites who escape the book of Judges without scandal and disgrace.
Jael - similarly, we see Jael blessed as “Most blessed of women be Jael.” This was for her defeat of Sisera, and again - we don’t even know if she had children.
Naomi - she had children, but they died - a similar grief that Job (a man) experienced
Tamar - her struggle was that she was raped by her half-brother, Amnon, and found no justice.
Bathsheba - raped by David, her husband then murdered because she became pregnant.
Abigail - yes, she bears children, but her fertility is hardly central to her story. In fact, her story is most marked by the subversion of her “fool” husband, Nabal.
Esther - an entire book of the Bible is devoted to Esther’s story, none of which centers around (or mentions) her fertility or lack thereof.
Mary & Martha - neither of whom has any children mentioned, both of whom are dear friends of Jesus.
Junia - seen as “outstanding among the apostles” but any childbearing she did was not mentioned, though she receives this high praise from Paul, along with Andronicus.
Priscilla (Prisca) - a close friend of Paul, and children are never mentioned. She and her husband Aquilla both serve as teachers of Apollos.
Phoebe - a highly trusted deacon, who delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans, and likely would have been the first to answer questions about it that the recipients had (a common task for the one delivering a message in those times). Again - we don’t even know if she was married.
Tabitha - a woman who cares deeply for her community and serves many. She is so beloved that when she dies her friends reach out to Peter in hopes (fulfilled) that she could be brought back. Once again, we don’t even know if she was married, let alone had children.
I see no evidence of lineage being of any importance in the New Testament (except for Jesus, of course). The disciples children are not named, as far as I know. Jesus himself downplays familial relationships repeatedly, though Paul demands that family take care of their elderly widows. We do not know the lineage of any of the apostles with the exception of Paul, who declares his lineage worthless. No child birth of any kind (after Jesus) is mentioned in the New Testament, as far as I know.
Passages on the purpose of women
“in pain you shall bring forth children.”
Let’s consider the curse - does it imply childbearing as essential to women? Once again, from the above examples I think it’s obvious that many important women in the Bible are seen as fully valid women, without children.
But furthermore, if we were to take from this that “painful childbearing” is what it means to be a woman, then we would take difficult farming as being what it is to be a man. But we know that this cannot be true, since many women never bear children, and many men don’t work the land.
Proverbs 31
The longest passage in the Bible that describes what an “excellent wife” looks like is Proverbs 31. It’s a poem, and no woman matches the entire description, but it’s helpful. The only reference to “children” is at the end, and it’s passive - just saying that any children she has will call her blessed. No reference to her fertility is made. Multiple references to “household”, but that would have included servants as well.
Job 42
The conclusion of Job (spoiler alert!) shows God giving him new sons and daughters. The daughters are named, while the sons are not. The son’s sons are mentioned, but any children or spouses of the daughters are not. Job’s daughters are praised for their beauty, not their fertility, and they received an inheritance, counter to custom.
The story of Job also shows that Job was greatly grieved over the loss of his children, and greatly blessed by his later children, showing that parenthood was important to him as well.
1 Corinthians 7
Paul is giving instructions for marriage, and he says something kind of shocking here - that it is “better to remain single”
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
First, we simply do not talk about this enough as a church - the fact that Paul does not see marriage as a priority, but accepts it when needed. Much of today’s church preaches almost the exact opposite - that somehow singles are “not enough”, and marrieds have “arrived.”
That said, if Paul is advising singleness, then he’s advising childlessness, unless we are allowing for sex outside of marriage.
Summary of passages
So in four passages where you’d expect to see something like this, we do not. 1 Timothy 2, “she will be saved through childbearing” is just as easily read “even though childbearing is dangerous, she’ll be brought through it.” The pronouns here are also odd, and may or may not be talking about a specific woman, since it obviously cannot be talking about all women (many of whom don’t have children).
In any case, I see nothing in these passages that indicates that womanhood is defined by childbearing.
Wrapping up
In Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne is sparring on a frozen lake with Henri Ducard, who has recruited him into the League of Shadows. Ducard is taunting Wayne, and generally having his way with him. Disarmed, Wayne finally makes a deft move and manages to force Ducard into a position where Wayne can confidently (and with a smirk) tell him, “Yield.” But Ducard says, “You haven’t beaten me. You have sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke.” Ducard drops his sword on the ice, causing the thin ice under Wayne to break and Wayne to fall through.
To be honest, that’s frequently how theological arguments feel. Someone is desperate to prove a point, and so they reach for the best verses they can find to justify it. But they fail to “mind their surroundings” as Ducard repeatedly reminds Wayne. No one is immune to this - people do it in service of any number of arguments.
But let’s summarize the cost of invalidating trans women by saying that “childbearing is what makes someone a woman.”
Invalidating 15% of American women, and likely more in Europe where childbirth rates have been falling for years.
Reduces women’s worth in life primarily to her ability to bear children. This is a utilitarian stance that men would surely reject if applied to them fathering children (after all, Jesus fathered no children).
Potentially could be used coercively to force women into marriage before they are eager and ready (or to someone who they are not really interested in), by saying “you’re not a real woman until you bear children.”
Heaped all manner of additional fear or guilt on any woman who is struggling to conceive or give birth to a healthy child.
There’s no icy lake to fall through, but that’s an incredibly high toll to pay just to invalidate the womanhood of trans women.
Karen Terrazas, creator of Dear Fertile Church writes about complementarians tendency to reduce women to their childbearing abilities generally (not specifically in talking about trans women):
You [defender of complementarianism] have been shown to throw out God’s design. You have replaced the Creation Mandate with the Curse. You have replaced Love with lead and support, a system that rejects the Great Commission in favor of a utilitarian use of women and children.
The New Testament shows the gospel going forth not by childbearing, though it’s certainly not against childbearing. But rather going forth by the teaching of the Gospel and making of disciples, inviting people into a New Birth. So complete is this change that Paul renders his lineage meaningless when he says:
If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
Children are wonderful. To be cherished, enjoyed, loved, and raised well by parents. Many women look forward to and enjoy bearing children. But some do not, and some cannot. To make any of those women, including trans women, feel less valid is to place heavy burdens on those women. Christ promised easy burdens and a light yoke. He excoriated the religious leaders of his time by saying, “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.”
I find those who judge transgender individuals to match that verse exactly. They have no plan other than shame and gaslighting. They offer no help other than conversion therapies and “pray the gay away” style “healing” that have all been proven not just ineffective but actively dangerous. They force people to live as less than how God made them. In essence, they deny that these siblings in Christ are part of the body of Christ, doing exactly what Paul said not to do in 1 Cor 12: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’”
And in attempting to establish rules against gender transition, they end up harming 25 cis women for every one trans woman who was their target. Oh, and it should be mentioned, that they completely ignore trans men in the process.
Rather than embrace the diversity that God has created in the body of Christ, they judge the parts of it that they find less acceptable.
And in the end, this ends up violating the command to love one’s neighbor, being quick to listen and slow to speak. To bear with one another, and bear one another’s burdens. It sacrifices the hard work of understanding for the quick comfort of legalism. And it harms many, including the name of Christ, in the process.
If that’s you, I encourage you - if nothing else, do not base your anti-trans arguments on this. You’ll hurt a lot of cis women in the process.
But moreover, do the hard work of reaching out to trans Christians. Listen to them. Evaluate the fruit of their lives. Do they have, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control”? Or at least as much of that as the cis Christians you know? The ones I know are great examples of these things, though flawed, of course. They actually have much to teach the church, if only the church would listen.