Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Is the End in Sight? The First Mammal is Born to Two Mothers


A leading British newspaper recently carried some chilling scientific news:
Never has a major scientific breakthrough carried such sinister implications for mankind - specifically, for men.

“Sorry, chaps, you’re obsolete": that may as well have been the headline of an announcement that gripped the research community on Thursday, as the birth was revealed of the world’s first mammal born to two mothers.

A team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences stunned geneticists by revealing they had effectively rewritten the rules of reproduction, and in the process discovered exactly why some animals, including humans, need to have sex. The breakthrough came in the form of 29 mice successfully born to same-sex (female) parents.Not only were the animals born healthy, but they went on to have babies themselves.

A similar experiment using two male parents failed, however, the pups dying within days of being born.

In achieving the successful births, the researchers proved they had identified and overcome the factor that makes joint male-female involvement in reproduction essential for humans. Commentators said the study may pave the way for single-sex humans to reproduce in the future, although not any time soon. Mammals can produce offspring only through sexual reproduction using an female egg fertilised by male sperm.

Not all the natural world uses the same process.Some female birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians are able to reproduce alone, with hammerhead sharks and Komodo dragons some of the more colourful examples. The Chinese team set out to identify the genetic process that takes place at the point of mammalian conception that demands genes from both sexes.

They focused on a phenomenon known and “imprinting”, where for roughly 100 genes, only the copy that comes from the mother or only the copy that comes from the father ever becomes “switched on”. In human embryos, the male genes make up for the females ones that are not switched on and visa versa. It means an embryo made up of same-sex genes will effectively have some missing.

To overcome this barrier, the scientists obtained some embryonic stem cells from a female mouse and used the gene-editing Crispr-Cas9, which has been likened to a genetic pair of scissors, and were able to remove maternal imprinting by “snipping” out a single letter of genetic code from three crucial regions. The edited stem cells were then injected into the egg of a second female mouse, which successfully formed an embryo. Two-hundred-and-ten embryos were created to yield the 29 live mice.

Co-senior author Qi Zhou said: "This research shows us what's possible. We saw that the defects in bimaternal mice can be eliminated and that bipaternal reproduction barriers in mammals can also be crossed through imprinting modification."
Dr Teresa Holm, from the University of Auckland, said there is a chance in the long run that the technique could be developed to apply to humans. "[The research] may even lead to the development of ways for same-sex couples to reproduce healthy children of their own,” she said, although she pointed to “significant ethical and safety concerns that would need to be overcome”.

The researchers also produced 12 full-term mice with two genetic fathers, using a similar but more complicated procedure. These were transferred, along with placental material, into surrogate mothers. The bipaternal mice pups only survived for 48 hours after birth.

A spokesman for the Progress Educational Trust, a charity concerned with the ethics and law of genetic-assisted reproduction, said: "Creating a genetic offspring from two mice of the same sex is an exciting achievement. The scientific challenges and legal barriers that would need to be to overcome to make this possible in humans are huge and so make this unlikely to happen any time soon. That said, we should start discussing whether this is a noble endeavour."
SOURCE: UK Daily Telegraph - 11/10/2018

The legal and scientific 'barriers' this spokesman speaks of are so much moonmist and hot air. In the Anglosphere, the law is a feminist plaything. It has ensured that virtually all reproductive  rights and decisions are now firmly in female hands, with fathers little more than disposable sperm-donors and ATM machines. As we also know, the whole essence of the Anglosphere is gyneocratic misandry, an inevitable expression of its residual puritanism and attendant anti-life agendas. This culture detests masculinity, originality, virility and other masculine virtues; it prefers men to be desexualized pseudo-women, hence the endless support for the 'trans' subculture emanating from every orifice of 'mainstream' Anglo-American society.

In sum, this scientific news must have sent the Anglo elites into paroxyms of joy: their dream of a man-free society bereft of dissent, honour, reason and progress is at last in sight.



  1. Of course Rookh, one must consider that mice are not humans. The article is correct in inferring that human female parents of the same sex giving birth is very different from female mice of the same sex doing it. For example, we can clone sheep but not human beings.

    I think that by the time such technology is perfected, the misandrist/feminist types who might actually use such technology would probably have at least somewhat selected themselves out of the wider population (since misandry tends to select itself out of populations).

    On that note, this article vaguely reminds me of that article about Bayer you posted many years ago, when we had a discussion about this topic.

    1. Misandry would tend to be selected out of populations built on pair bonding and conventional methods of reproduction. However, many elite uber-feminists (for example, Jodie Foster) have already obviated these things via sperm-banks. Being at root a form of acute narcissism, Anglo-feminists will certainly be delighted that a completely 'man-free' method of reproduction now theoretically exists: their puritanical vision is an all-female world without any men at all. They will also take comfort from the fact that women alone can reproduce this way, viewing it as some kind of Divine Providence.

    2. Rookh,

      I don't doubt that many Anglo feminists would be salivating at the thought of removing men from any reproductive/relational equation. Yes, I also recall Jodie Foster (and I recall writing that she was not representative of your average Anglo female).

      However, one thing that might make this practice less appealing is if children born from this practice die prematurely (I don't mean as soon as they are born; I mean far sooner than regular human beings). The long-term prognosis of the mice born via this method is not made clear.

    3. Jodie Foster...bleech!

  2. I get the feeling that all these stories popped up in the 70s. Cloning sheep, females popping out babies without sex etc... I just can't seem to find them...

  3. Dear Anglo, i can't help but to be skeptical about what passes for news these days. For one thing, can the 29 (out of 230 embryos) heather-mice live outside a lab? Can they find food, escape mr.hawk? And in the field out back - or in someone's kitchen - find a female mate? Or would the potential mate (male or female) consider any of these 29 heathers to be weird. From what i understand, animals are a lot more sensible about mating than are humans.

    1. I guess all that would hold true for the mice that have been developed (assuming they actually were developed). However, engineered female humans would not be similarly dependent on natural resources or processes in order to survive or replicate: such considerations would be obviated in a controlled artificial environment.

  4. Hi fellow Male Sexualist. My blog was just shut down by Wordpress, possibly for Male Sexualist content. Can you show me a site that has no freedom of speech or could you possibly blog about my case? Thank you!


    There can not be more obvious.. That we really need those smart sex dolls, as a weapon in this sex war..