We do not need a male to get pregnant.

Virgin Mary story is a myth. But virgin-snake-mom story is real. Pit vipers reproduced without a male.

We know that only captive species can reproduce. The process is called facultative Parthenogenesis. Parthenogenesis is a process in which the females produce eggs that can develop without fertilization. Recently captive domestic chicken, pythons, sharks, komodo dragons, lizards, and birds reproduced with no sex involved. It can happen in aphids, bees and ants. It is extremely rare that a normally sexual vertebrate reproduce asexually. Now that virgin births have been discovered in wild vertebrates, we can assume reproducing without the need for a male may not be so rare in the animal kingdom. Offspring only have their mother’s genetic material; no male contribution is required. It is amazing to see sexual vertebrates switched from sexual to asexual reproduction.

Kaguya the mouse does not have a father. Kaguya has two parents of the same sex. Cells were used from two different female mice and combined them to make a single unique animal, there was no problem of genomic imprinting. Not only a mouse, a female shark got pregnant on her own, no male was required.

Humans are mammals and sexual vertebrates. Will human females be able to reproduce with no male or no sex? Parthenogenetic reproduction can happen in human females. But do we have to produce only females because we do not have Y choromosome? Not necessarily if someone is a genetic mosaic whose body is built of a mixture of cells of two or more different genotypes! Yes, then we may even reproduce a male without a male.


  1. Kilian Hekhuis says

    Technically, Kaguya is not born through parthenogenesis, as the researches modified one of the egg cells to act like sperm.

    “if we have testicular feminization syndrome (…) we can reproduce a male without a male.” – No, “we” cannot. As the article you linked to clearly states (besides it being called “complete androgen insensitivity syndrome” nowadays): “Internally, there is a short blind-pouch vagina and no uterus, fallopian tubes or ovaries (…) They are sterile and cannot bear children.”

    I’m not sure why you wrote this article, but you better keep away from biology and focus on other issues (which imho you’re much better at).

  2. Nepenthe says

    Heh. Not only does the Desert Grassland Whiptail (Cnemidophorus uniparens) reproduce without males, it has lesbian sex. (See Jerry Coyne’s post thereon.)

    Reptiles are awesome.

        • kevinalexander says

          “Why bizarre?”

          Good question. Maybe Nepenthe is thinking that women become lesbian because they hate men when in fact they are just born liking women. There’s no reason why they might not want a son.

        • Nepenthe says

          kevinalexander, I’m well aware of why women like myself are attracted to women. I can see how my wording was ambiguous though.

          Paying an obscene amount and going through invasive medical machinations in order to produce a child when there are any number of less costly ways to do so is a strange way to spend one’s time, effort, and money. The only reasons I can see for actually going through a “parthenogenic” procedure is if the couple believes that a child is only “really” theirs if its DNA is a recombination of their DNA, which is a bizarre and regressive concept that denies the reality and love of families whose members are not related genetically, or if they want the child to “look like them”, in which case heaven protect the child if he fails to have Mum’s nose and Mommy’s chin after they shelled out a million dollars for the privilege of making him in their image.

          Shorter: It’s not the “son” part I find bizarre, it’s the “biological” part.

          • kevinalexander says

            Well said, thank you. I know what you mean. None of my ‘grandchildren’ are biologically related to me but I can’t see how I could love them more if they were.

  3. says

    Sisters are doin’ it for themselves!

    But Ms Nasreen, it’s good to have us around because men are nice to look at and we make life more interesting. It’s OK if you disagree, that means more men for me. 😉

  4. says

    The problem with this blog is that it’s written by a homosexual, and homosexuals forget that most women love men and love being submissive to men. These dispositions are hardwired into us, and it just so happens that a society structured around these dispositions is the most advanced society on the earth.

    Your shudder at the thought of parents wanting their children to look like them is misguides — again, because you are gay. Most healthy, normal heterosexuals want their children to look like them.

    I found this ‘queer’ little blog from a youtube video, and was surprised that the strawman of the dumb leftist i had been constructing in my mind actually existed! You’re all here,fools.

  5. Kumbaya says

    “Oh look, there is artifical sperm. Men are obsolute!!!!”

    Thanks for ruining the image of feminism even more.

    But… do you realize that there is artifical wombs? If we use your own “logic” (emotional reactionary proccess, femitheist thing) – can we say “women are obsolute for making children”?

  6. bitphr3ak says

    Yes, articles like this really encourage a loving, caring, educated man like myself to support women who feel it necessary to ‘attack’ a whole group of people because some of the members of that group are thugs and idiots.

    Are you suggesting it’d be better to eliminate a group of people, as opposed to learning how to better understand them?

    Just because they are not ‘necessary’ to you and your ‘goals’ does that render their existence as useless?

    This theme of: Do we really need [insert skin color here] people? Do we really need [insert sexual orientation here] people? I’m sure there are ways we could eliminate these people…

    Where does this come from? What makes an individual so focused on a specific group of people that they are willing to make character generalizations about other individuals based on group stereotypes?

    Do you think this paradigm will be an effective tool when it comes to communicating with, and empathizing with said group?

    As a man, I’m more likely to have a meaningful conversation with a woman who would like to better understand me, and me understand her.

    If we enter our discussions with the idea that we don’t really need each other, then what is the point of even bothering to talk?

    If this is the lens thought which you have decided to view the world then yes, you don’t need men like myself; and that is fun, because men like myself have reasonable women who want to have a loving and meaningful relationship, not based on concepts and jargon.

    …but thanks for free thinking!

    • fork says

      If you need encouragement to support women, if that support is contingent on women behaving properly, if you would consider withdrawing support because A Woman Said Something!, then, no, you are not a loving, caring educated man.

    • thetalkingstove says

      Yes, articles like this really encourage a loving, caring, educated man like myself to support women who feel it necessary to ‘attack’ a whole group of people because some of the members of that group are thugs and idiots.

      An article reporting on the phenomenon of parthenogenesis and just mentioning the possibility of it occuring in humans one day.

      No attack on men at all, unless you’re an absurdly paranoid individual. Did you read this as “AHAHAHA! PARTHENOGESIS FTW! I HATE MEN AND CAN’T WAIT TO BE RID OF THEM!”
      Because that is not what it says. At all.

  7. lpetrich says

    There are a variety of sex-determination systems.

    XY (f = XX, m = XY) is the familiar mammalian one.
    ZW (f = ZW, m = ZZ) is used by birds and snakes, and independently invented by their ancestors
    XO (f = XX, m = X) is used by some insects; hymenopterans use a genome-scale version (haplodiploidy)
    ZO (f = Z, m = ZZ) is also sometimes used

    Turtles and crocodilians use temperature. Some fish change their sex as they grow: clownfish are male-to-female, while wrasses are female-to-male.

    This is why female snakes can have male ones by parthenogenesis.

  8. macmarine says

    Well … f pit vipers and sharks can reproduce without a male there’s hope for the RadFems of this world at last!

  9. John Doe says

    You people are severely broken and have my pity. You should seek therapy. You can only wish this was spoken with anger and not with sympathy (you’re like wounded little puppies X3 )


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *