Human variation in the shape of the birth canal is significant and geographically structured.

The human birth canal shows a tight fit with the size of the neonate, which can lead to obstetric complications. This is not the case in other apes, and has been explained as the outcome of conflicting evolutionary pressures for bipedal locomotion and parturition of a highly encephalized fetus. Despite the suggested evolutionary constraints on the female pelvis, we show that women are, in fact, extremely variable in the shape of the bony birth canal, with human populations having differently shaped pelvic canals. Neutral evolution through genetic drift and differential migration are largely responsible for the observed pattern of morphological diversity, which correlates well with neutral genetic diversity. Climatic adaptation might have played a role, albeit a minor one, with populations from colder regions showing a more transversally oval shape of the canal inlet. The significant extent of canal shape variation among women from different regions of the world has important implications for modern obstetric practice in multi-ethnic societies, as modern medical understanding has been largely developed on studies of European women

Diameters of human bony birth canal in different populations

Antero-posterior and medio-lateral diameters of the birth canal (inlet, midplane and outlet) in women from different recent and archaeological populations. The measurements were taken by Dr Lia Betti on skeletal remains using an internal caliper. The pelvic girdle was rearticulated firmly at the level of the auricular surface, and plasticine was used to fill in the pubic symphysis. Elastic bands were use to keep the bones in articulation while taking the measurements

Shaping birth:variation in the birth canal and the importance of inclusive obstetric care

Regional variation in pelvic morphology and childbirth has long occurred alongside traditional labour support and an understanding of possible normal courses of childbirth for each population. The process of migration and globalization has broken down these links, while a European model of ‘normal’ labour has become widespread. The description of ‘normal’ childbirth provided within obstetrics and midwifery textbooks, in fact, is modelled on a specific pelvic morphology that is common in European women. There is mounting evidence, however, that this model is not representative of women's diversity, especially for women of non-white ethnicities. The human birth canal is very variable in shape, both within and among human populations, and differences in pelvic shapes have been associated with differences in the mechanism of labour. Normalizing a white-centred model of female anatomy and of childbirth can disadvantage women of non-European ancestry. Because they are less likely to fit within this model, pelvic shape and labour pattern in non-white women are more likely to be considered ‘abnormal’, potentially leading to increased rates of labour intervention. To ensure that maternal care is inclusive and as safe as possible for all women, obstetric and midwifery training need to incorporate women's diversity. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Multidisciplinary perspectives on social support and maternal–child health’