6 ms·

You can convert female cells to sperm cells (using stem cells), so male is not required. Although, I believe the offspring can only be female.

gillci 4y ago
- psychphysic 4y ago
  It doesn't quite work due to genetic imprinting.[0] basically some chromosomes are labelled "from mum" and some "from dad" and specific portions from each are active. It's all rather complex but where imprinting doesn't work right you do get distinct genetic conditions (compare Prader Willi and Angleman syndromes). [0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Imprinting https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Imprinting
  - gillci 4y ago
    That's fascinating, is such imprinting something that we have the technology to control yet - or in the near future?
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      I'm not expert but as far as I know no where near having the ability to control it.
      - gillci 4y ago
        Ah that's unfortunate, thanks for the info. Very interesting to think about the possibilities of the far future anyway.
- peanutcrisis 4y ago
  Why do you need to paint all males with the same brush? If what you've described is "applied feminism", I'd strongly suggest you take a hard look at your own sexism (and genocidal tendencies). I've no horse in this race, but such rhetoric is toxic and unwelcome on hacker news.
  - gillci 4y ago
    Perhaps think of this as a science fiction thought experiment instead. It could be an interesting societal outcome of such technology, right?
    - peanutcrisis 4y ago
      I have no issue with thought experiments. However, your choice of words (i.e. "useless male") clearly illuminates your nasty intent. As such, I can't afford your original post any interpretation more charitable than sexism, regardless of your attempt to frame it now as a "thought experiment". Edit: In response to your follow up, "useless" can be used as matter of fact, or as an implication of "worthlessness". Again, your choice of words "applied feminism" betrays your claim.
      - gillci 4y ago
        Well if they're not needed any more to supply sperms, then in terms of reproduction they would be useless wouldn't they. That's the only purpose of a male when compared to the female - this is a simple fact, no need to take it personally.
        nomel 4y ago
        Artificial wombs are nearly feasible. I think, in some horrible future, your genocidal thoughts could be applied to either group.
        BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        >That's the only purpose of a male when compared to the female - this is a simple fact, no need to take it personally. There is nothing factual about this unless your world view is an infantile one which believes the only valuable difference between men and women is the ability to create sperm vs the ability to carry eggs. Common complaints from women clearly reveal that isn't the case.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Species where the male is only of value for impregnation tend to have the males die off after impregnation. The fact that human males live long afterwards means that evolution selected for that to happen because males have a critical role in the education, support and defense of the children.
psychphysic 4y ago
There is a wrinkle, genetic imprinting. You can put a woman's X chromosome in a sperm but it'll be labelled "from mum" and not work quite right. See Prader Willi and Angleman syndrome for examples.
bastawhiz 4y ago
That's exactly it. You can't get a Y chromosome from two X chromosomes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
anon291 4y ago
This won't work. Male genomes are imprinted to form a placenta. For example, when embryos receive two sets of genes from a male and none from the female, they turn into molar pregnancies (a giant, aggressive placenta). Embryos receiving both set from a female and none from a male do not form a placenta and can't implant.
midoridensha 4y ago
I think this will be the norm in the future: women can simply reproduce artificially without any injections from men, and their children will all be female. Men will quickly die out, and the world will probably be better off honestly (just look at who fills up the prisons, and who starts and fights in wars).

gillci 4y ago

psychphysic 4y ago
It doesn't quite work due to genetic imprinting.[0] basically some chromosomes are labelled "from mum" and some "from dad" and specific portions from each are active. It's all rather complex but where imprinting doesn't work right you do get distinct genetic conditions (compare Prader Willi and Angleman syndromes). [0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Imprinting https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Imprinting
- gillci 4y ago
  That's fascinating, is such imprinting something that we have the technology to control yet - or in the near future?
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    I'm not expert but as far as I know no where near having the ability to control it.
    - gillci 4y ago
      Ah that's unfortunate, thanks for the info. Very interesting to think about the possibilities of the far future anyway.
peanutcrisis 4y ago
Why do you need to paint all males with the same brush? If what you've described is "applied feminism", I'd strongly suggest you take a hard look at your own sexism (and genocidal tendencies). I've no horse in this race, but such rhetoric is toxic and unwelcome on hacker news.
- gillci 4y ago
  Perhaps think of this as a science fiction thought experiment instead. It could be an interesting societal outcome of such technology, right?
  - peanutcrisis 4y ago
    I have no issue with thought experiments. However, your choice of words (i.e. "useless male") clearly illuminates your nasty intent. As such, I can't afford your original post any interpretation more charitable than sexism, regardless of your attempt to frame it now as a "thought experiment". Edit: In response to your follow up, "useless" can be used as matter of fact, or as an implication of "worthlessness". Again, your choice of words "applied feminism" betrays your claim.
    - gillci 4y ago
      Well if they're not needed any more to supply sperms, then in terms of reproduction they would be useless wouldn't they. That's the only purpose of a male when compared to the female - this is a simple fact, no need to take it personally.
      - nomel 4y ago
        Artificial wombs are nearly feasible. I think, in some horrible future, your genocidal thoughts could be applied to either group.
      - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        >That's the only purpose of a male when compared to the female - this is a simple fact, no need to take it personally. There is nothing factual about this unless your world view is an infantile one which believes the only valuable difference between men and women is the ability to create sperm vs the ability to carry eggs. Common complaints from women clearly reveal that isn't the case.
WalterBright 4y ago
Species where the male is only of value for impregnation tend to have the males die off after impregnation. The fact that human males live long afterwards means that evolution selected for that to happen because males have a critical role in the education, support and defense of the children.

psychphysic 4y ago

There is a wrinkle, genetic imprinting. You can put a woman's X chromosome in a sperm but it'll be labelled "from mum" and not work quite right. See Prader Willi and Angleman syndrome for examples.

bastawhiz 4y ago

That's exactly it. You can't get a Y chromosome from two X chromosomes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anon291 4y ago

This won't work. Male genomes are imprinted to form a placenta. For example, when embryos receive two sets of genes from a male and none from the female, they turn into molar pregnancies (a giant, aggressive placenta). Embryos receiving both set from a female and none from a male do not form a placenta and can't implant.

midoridensha 4y ago

I think this will be the norm in the future: women can simply reproduce artificially without any injections from men, and their children will all be female. Men will quickly die out, and the world will probably be better off honestly (just look at who fills up the prisons, and who starts and fights in wars).