This article argues that a critical re(conceive)ing of sex and pregnancy is required in law. Drawing on the dual meaning of conceive – ‘to become pregnant’ and ‘to imagine, or form a mental representation of’, the goal of this article is to better ensure that pregnant men and trans individuals are not denied their reproductive rights, the legal recognition of their gender identities, and the protections of pregnancy discrimination law. Here, I survey molecular biologists’ and critical trans theorists’ scientific and discursive challenges to the understanding of sex as biologically determined; I map the extent to which biological and repronormative discourses – those which materialize and maternalize female identity – underpin legal determinations of trans subjects’ sex and their ability to access state issued documentation; finally, I suggest that feminists’ efforts to construct pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination may unwittingly factor into discriminatory practice against pregnant men by reifying pregnancy as necessarily female and thus pregnant men as ‘really’ women. Drawing on Darren Rosenblum’s call to unsex parenting, I conclude by briefly considering the opportunities presented by unsexing pregnancy in law.
ChristensenJ (2008) Trans Positions. The Advocate (1008): 32–35.
5.
CowanS (2005) ‘Gender is no substitute for sex’: a comparative human rights analysis of the legal regulation of sexual identity. Feminist Legal Studies13: 67–96.
6.
CurrahP (2008) Expecting bodies: the pregnant man and transgender exclusion from the employment non-discrimination act. Women’s Studies Quarterly36(3/4): 330–336.
7.
De BeauvoirS (1949) The Second Sex. New York, NY: Vintage Books(1989).
8.
FrankeK (2009) Theorizing yes: an essay on feminism, law and desire. In: FinemanMA. (eds) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Surrey, England: Ashgate Press, pp. 29–44.
9.
GrenfellL (2003) Making sex: law’s narratives of sex, gender and identity. Legal Studies23: 66–102.
10.
HammarbergT (2009) Human Rights and Gender Identity, Issue Paper. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1476365 (accessed 26 March 2013).
KirklandA (2006) What's at stake in transgender discrimination as sex discrimination?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society32(1): 83–111.
13.
ŁośM (1994) The struggle to redefine rape in the early 1980. In: JulianVRRenateM (eds) Confronting Sexual Assault: A Decade of Change. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, pp. 20–47.
14.
McGuinnessSAlghraniA (2008) Gender and parenthood: the case for realignment. Medical Law Review16: 261–283.
15.
MoreSD (1998) The pregnant man: an oxymoron?Journal of Gender Studies7(3): 319–328.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-555) (1978). An Act to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Available at:http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm (accessed 22 March 2013).
19.
Re: Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner (2002) Supreme Court of Kansas, 273 Kan. 191; March 15.
RosarioV (2009) Quantum sex: intersex and the molecular deconstruction of sex. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies12(2): 267–284.
22.
RosenblumD (2010) Pregnant men: a conversation. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism22(2): 207–278.
23.
RosenblumD (2012) Unsex mothering: toward a new culture of parenting. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender35: 58–116.
24.
SandlandR (2003) Crossing and not crossing: gender, sexuality, and melancholy in the European court of human rights. Feminist Legal Studies11: 191–209.
25.
Scott-DixonK (2009) Public health, private parts: a feminist public-health approach to trans issues. Hypatia24(3): 33–55.
SpadeD (2011b) Laws as tactics. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law21: 442–473.
30.
StrykerS (1998) The transgender issue: an introduction. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies4(2): 145–158.
31.
StrykerS (2006) (De)subjugated knowledges: an introduction to transgender studies. In: StrykerSWhittleS (eds) The Transgender Studies Reader. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–18.
Transgender Law and Policy Institute (2001) Kansas supreme court decision is a call to action (Press Release). Available at: http://www.transgenderlaw.org/cases/karelease.htm (accessed 22 March 2013).
36.
TvT research project (2012a) Transrespect versus transphobia worldwide. Available at: www.transrespect-transphobia.org (accessed 22 March 2013).
VogelL (1990) Debating difference: feminism, pregnancy, and the workplace. Feminist Studies16(1): 9–32.
39.
WeissJT (2009) Intersections of transgender lives and the law: transgender identity, textualism, and the supreme court: what is the ‘plain meaning’ of ‘sex’ in title VII of the civil rights act of 1964?Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review18(2): 573–650. (accessed 22 March 2013).
40.
WilliamsWW (1982) The equality crisis: some reflections on culture, courts and feminism. Women's Rights Law Reporter7(3): 175–200.
41.
WintemuteR (1998) When is pregnancy discrimination indirect sex discrimination?Industrial Law Journal27(1): 23–36.
42.
YoshinoK (2000) The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. In: FinemanMA (eds) (2009) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Surrey, England: Ashgate Press, pp. 201–222.
43.
Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL, 21.
44.
Bliss v Canada [1979] 1978 SCC, 1S.R.C. 183.
45.
Brooks v Canada Safeway Ltd [1989] 1988 SCC, 1S.R.C. 1219.
46.
Corbett v Corbett. [1971] ND 113, 628N.W.2d 312.
47.
Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen [1990] European Court of Justice, Case C-177/88, ECR I-3941, I-3973. Department of Social Security v SRA [1993] 118 ALR 467.
48.
Geduldig v Aiello 1974 94 S.Ct [1974] 2585, U.S. 484.
49.
General Electric CO. v Gilbert Et Al. 1976 S.C.U.S. [1976] 429, U.S. 125.
50.
Kevin and Jennifer v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth [2003] FamCA 94.
