#7 Men, Masculinities, and Reproduction: Ectogenesis - A new pathway to parenthood for men and queer individuals?

Traditionally, human reproduction has been intrinsically connected to the female body, as pregnancy happens exclusively inside the uterus. The role of male counterparts has been mainly thought to be limited to the provision of sperm and fertilization of the egg. However, recent scientific developments in neonatal technology have incited speculation around future possibilities for carrying ‘pregnancies’ outside the human body, with potential repercussions on the role of men in the reproductive process. 

In 2017, a team of researchers in the USA unveiled what they described as a womb-like device that could replicate some aspects of the uterine environment outside of the human body. Their prototype – so far only tested in animal trials with premature lambs – has been designed with the aim of keeping extremely preterm infants submerged in artificial amniotic fluid for a few weeks before transfer to conventional neonatal care (Partridge et al., 2017). This kind of technology –also referred to as partial ectogenesis– is still in the phase of animal trials, and its developers have clarified that it is currently impossible to envision the use of this system to sustain gestation from conception to delivery. However, some see this development as the first, long-awaited step towards achieving gestation outside of the human body. This envisioned technology, called (full) ectogenesis, would allow for a fertilized embryo to be implanted directly in an artificial womb device, where it would be gestated (Räsänen & Smajdor, 2020). Once gestation is completed, a fully grown, healthy baby will be delivered. 

Speculation around the future possibilities of ectogenesis has identified a wide variety of benefits and challenges for reproductive health and autonomy. Some authors have recognized the emancipatory, or even disruptive, potential of artificial wombs to liberate women and people with a uterus from the injustices related to bearing the burden and risks of pregnancy and childbirth (Cavaliere, 2020; Kendal, 2015; MacKay, 2020). In their view, ectogenesis could sever the link between femaleness and reproductive capability, paving the way towards equality between gestating and non-gestating individuals, both in reproduction and in the social sphere, while simultaneously opening new pathways to parenthood. Others believe that assigning an intrinsic function of the female body to ectogenesis, instead of achieving meaningful equality, further commits pregnant people to the male standard, undermining the significance of motherhood (Browne et al., 2023; Buturovic, 2020; Gavina et al., 2023).

Nevertheless, ectogenesis could potentially offer an alternative course of action for high-risk pregnancies and the treatment of prematurely born infants. At the same time, it would expand the spectrum of reproductive options available to all prospective parents, especially those who cannot physically be pregnant. Those wishing to bring a genetic child into this world, but who cannot or do not want to be physically pregnant, could use an artificial womb. Infertile individuals, single cisgender men, gay couples, trans women, non-binary individuals, or trans men without a uterus would now have a new alternative path to genetic parenthood (Browne et al., 2023; Räsänen, 2022; 2025).

Until now, the only way for the above groups to become genetic parents has been through surrogacy –a practice that is subject to diverse domestic legal regulation and has sparked significant controversy (IFFS, 2022; Lewis, 2019). However, getting access to surrogacy arrangements, apart from the significant costs that it usually entails (Smietana, 2025), can prove to be a challenge, especially for queer individuals and non-heterosexual couples. For example, in some countries, like Switzerland, surrogacy is banned (IFFS, 2022). In others, like Greece, while gestational surrogacy (i.e., surrogacy where the fertilized egg is derived from the prospective parents or from a donor, not from the surrogate) is allowed and commonly used, access is limited only to women who are affected by “medically proven inability” to become pregnant (IFFS, 2022; Nomiki Bibliothiki Daily, 2025). This approach leaves men and people who produce sperm, as well as socially infertile individuals (i.e., individuals who, due to their sexuality or relationship status, cannot/do not want to engage in vaginal-penile intercourse), in a disadvantaged position when pursuing parenthood (Kendal, 2015; Lo & Campo-Engelstein, 2018). Their reproductive options are limited to either adopting (nationally or cross-border, depending on the regulations in each country, and if possible at all) or resorting to surrogacy abroad, which requires an immense amount of resources and, even when accessible, entails a series of legal and practical hurdles. Therefore, factors such as socioeconomic status, geographical location, and financial ability, as well as underlying systemic stigma towards less conventional family-making practices, play a significant role in shaping the experience of pursuing parenthood for men, people who produce sperm, and queer individuals (DeVault & Miller, 2019; Smietana, 2025). Ectogenesis could, in this context, offer them an alternative that might entail fewer hurdles and reduced scrutiny and judgment towards their lifestyles, potentially placing them on a more equal footing with cisgender heterosexual couples. 

In the same way that full ectogenesis would help infertile women who are unable to carry a pregnancy in their womb, it would also help trans men who have a uterus but might find it extremely difficult (or otherwise might not wish) to pause their hormonal treatment for the duration of their pregnancy. As pausing gender affirming therapy to become pregnant and carry the pregnancy to term can lead to severe gender dysphoria (Kimberly et al., 2020; Van Amesfoort et al., 2023), ectogenesis could offer an avenue to genetic parenthood that does not force trans people who wish to bring a child into this world to choose between becoming a (genetic) parent and being themselves. Ectogenesis might also offer an alternative for trans men who might want to get pregnant but currently choose not to because of the stigma and intense societal and structural disapproval and discrimination towards pregnant men (Fernández-Basanta et al., 2024). In a (healthcare) system that is not properly equipped to provide care and support throughout male pregnancy and childbirth (Van Amesfoort et al., 2023), ectogenesis might offer a more comfortable and safer alternative by eliminating the need for a visible pregnancy. Eventually, ectogenesis could contribute to cultivating a more trans-inclusive mindset – both towards trans men and non-binary individuals who gestate, and towards trans women – by further decoupling gestation from womanhood and motherhood (Lee et al., 2023).

Despite the exciting opportunities ectogenesis could offer to men, people who produce sperm, and queer people, we must keep in mind that important challenges remain. Currently, access and eligibility for the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) depend heavily on domestic legal regulation and have been historically guided by heteronormative family ideals (IFFS, 2022). If ectogenesis is introduced for public use, there is no reason to expect a departure from existing approaches. So, for example, whether ectogenesis will be available to non-heterosexual couples and individuals, as well as whether the costs of using this technology will be covered by public funds, would most likely depend on the place of residence of the interested parties. Current inequalities in accessing ARTs would probably be transferred to the realm of ectogenesis, widening the gap between those who can afford and enjoy a variety of procreative methods and those who do not have this privilege. This approach would further marginalize those who do not conform to the traditional heteronormative family model (Kimberly et al., 2020). At the same time, unless major changes in societal attitudes towards reproduction and contemporary family-making take place, people and institutions in charge of distributing access to ectogestative services will inherit the systemic prejudice against non - or less conventional family structures (Kimberly et al., 2020).

Another potential pitfall, despite the promising potential of ectogenesis, lies in the risk of idolizing genetic parenthood and indirectly denying value to or at least downgrading family structures that rely on social parenthood (Browne et al., 2023). As Kimberly et al. (2020) note, the availability of ectogenesis for sexual and gender minorities could challenge the notion of ‘family of choice’, thereby reinforcing the attribution of a privileged status to bio-genetic ties with one’s children. This could further exacerbate stigma related to adoption and may have serious consequences for existing children who would remain under the care of the state (Browne et al., 2023).

The wide availability of ectogenesis could eventually lead to condescending attitudes towards gestational preferences (natural or ectogestative), based on changing perceptions of ‘good gestation’ (Buturovic, 2020; Lee et al., 2023). Similar to current debates surrounding breast versus formula feeding, parents could be divided into two opposing groups based on their gestational preferences, which could hinder the equality-enhancing potential of ectogenesis for men and queer individuals, particularly if natural pregnancy comes to be perceived as superior. 

Overall, it seems that, in order to unlock the full potential of ectogenesis for men, people who produce sperm and queer individuals, major changes in social and legal attitudes towards parenthood, kinship, and ARTs need to take place with the view of ensuring more equitable access to all available reproductive options (Kimberly et al., 2020). Biogenetic procreation should not be subject to gatekeeping based on conformity with outdated, heteronormative ideals of family-making that are ignorant of the diversity of contemporary family structures. Nor should it become a goal in and of itself. Access to services that enable parenthood, including ectogenesis, should be responsive to the lived realities and needs of prospective parents, whilst embracing and supporting the diversity of reproductive journeys that people choose. However, caution and rigorous ethical reflection are necessary to guide meaningful social change and to avoid the emergence of an elitist hierarchy between different family-making practices in view of emerging reproductive technologies (Lee et al., 2023).

Bibliography

• Browne, T. K., Kendal, E., & Sudenkaarne, T. (2023). Feminist Concerns About Artificial Womb Technology. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 97–99. doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191036
• Buturovic, Z. (2020). Formula feeding can help illuminate long‐term consequences of full ectogenesis. Bioethics, 34(4), 331–337. doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12687
• Cavaliere, G. (2020). Gestation, equality and freedom: Ectogenesis as a political perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 76–82. doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105691
• DeVault, A., & Miller, M. K. (2019). Justification-Suppression and Normative Window of Prejudice as Determinants of Bias Toward Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexual Adoption Applicants. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(4), 465–486. doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1414497
• Fernández-Basanta, S., López-Queijo, J.-C., Rodríguez-Maseda, E., & Movilla-Fernández, M.-J. (2024). Conception, pregnancy, and childbirth from the perspective of transgender men: A meta-ethnography. Women and Birth, 37(5), 101659. doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101659
• Gavina, T., Gastmans, C., & Cavolo, A. (2023). Artificial Wombs or Artificial Feminism: What Is Wrong With Being Pregnant? The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 104–106. doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191024
• International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS) 2022: Global Trends in Reproductive Policy and Practice, 9th Edition. (2022). Global Reproductive Health, 7(3), e58–e58. doi.org/10.1097/GRH.0000000000000058
• Kendal, E. (2015). Promoting Equal Opportunity through Ectogenesis. In E. Kendal, Equal Opportunity and the Case for State Sponsored Ectogenesis (pp. 43–61). Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi.org/10.1057/9781137549877_3
• Kimberly, L. L., Sutter, M. E., & Quinn, G. P. (2020). Equitable access to ectogenesis for sexual and gender minorities. Bioethics, 34(4), 338–345. doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12723
• Lee, J. Y., Bidoli, A., & Di Nucci, E. (2023). Does ectogestation have oppressive potential? Journal of Social Philosophy, 56(1), 133–144. doi.org/10.1111/josp.12512
• Lewis, S. (2019). Full surrogacy now: Feminism against family. Verso.
• Lo, W., & Campo-Engelstein, L. (2018). Expanding the Clinical Definition of Infertility to Include Socially Infertile Individuals and Couples. In L. Campo-Engelstein & P. Burcher (Eds.), Reproductive Ethics II (pp. 71–83). Springer International Publishing. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_6
• MacKay, K. (2020). The ‘tyranny of reproduction’: Could ectogenesis further women’s liberation? Bioethics, 34(4), 346–353. doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12706 
• Nomiki Bibliothiki Daily (2025). Παρένθετη μητρότητα: Ποιες αλλαγές φέρνει ο ν. 5197/2025; [Surrogacy: What changes does Law 5197/2025 bring?]  Retrieved from daily.nb.org/nomothesia-nomologia/nomothesia/parentheti-mitrotita-poies-allages-fernei-o-n-5197-2025/  [Last accessed: February 27, 2026]
• Partridge, E. A., Davey, M. G., Hornick, M. A., McGovern, P. E., Mejaddam, A. Y., Vrecenak, J. D., Mesas-Burgos, C., Olive, A., Caskey, R. C., Weiland, T. R., Han, J., Schupper, A. J., Connelly, J. T., Dysart, K. C., Rychik, J., Hedrick, H. L., Peranteau, W. H., & Flake, A. W. (2017). An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. Nature Communications, 8(1), 15112–15112. doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112
• Räsänen, J. (2022). Who should have access to assisted gestative technologies? Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(7), 447–447. doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2022-108409 
• Räsänen, J. (2025). Ectogestation for men: Why aren’t we talking about it? Journal of Medical Ethics, 51(4), 294–294. doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110128
• Räsänen, J. & Smajdor, A. (2020), The ethics of ectogenesis. Bioethics, 34: 328-330. doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12745
• Smietana, M. (2025). 5 Queer Calculations: Spreadsheet Fertility and British Gay Men’s Reproductive Projects. In S. Franklin & M. C. Inhorn (Eds.), The New Reproductive Order (pp. 103–122). New York University Press. doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479832668.003.0009 
• Van Amesfoort, J. E., Van Rooij, F. B., Painter, R. C., Valkenburg-van Den Berg, A. W., Kreukels, B. P. C., Steensma, T. D., Huirne, J. A. F., De Groot, C. J. M., & Van Mello, N. M. (2023). The barriers and needs of transgender men in pregnancy and childbirth: A qualitative interview study. Midwifery, 120, 103620. doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2023.103620