I'd like to create a sci-fi story with a country or planet where only men are allowed to live and they use in vitro gametogenesis and ectogenesis (artificial womb) to have children without any woman.

If new reproductive technologies like in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) and artificial womb s(ectogenesis) become possible and accessible in the future, single men or/and gay male couples could reproduce alone without any women involved. Men could make eggs and sperm with their stem cells through in vitro gametogenesis and the fetus could grow in an artificial womb. Motherless babies will become possible. So men could have also more reproductive rights (the same or even more reproductive rights than women). Men could begin to think that women will lose their reproductive value and become unnecessary in a reproductive point of view. In the more distant future all male society may exist. And also all female societies.

Sterile women who cannot get pregnant at all (like women with CAIS) could also use the technology to reproduce. In fact anyone could reproduce with these things. Even old women.

These technologies may also help to decrease the social differences between men and women and make women do things they didn't do in most of humanity's history like for example fight and die in wars like men do.

Realize that I don't want to be sexist and I'm not against women at all, it's just a curiosity and I want to see other people's opinions.


The short answer to your question is Yes, such a society is possible, but I suspect that the question behind the question is what such a society would look like, so I'm going to answer that in more detail.

I'm of the view that focusing on the nature of reproduction and extrapolating a culture fails to take into account the far more energy intensive aspect of reproduction; raising the child. This is (arguably) why marriage evolved from an anthropological perspective; raising a child (or children) takes a massive amount of effort and energy; women struggle to do it by themselves, but men want some surety that the effort they put into the raising of children is going to directly benefit themselves, genetically speaking. So, a contract is made whereby the man agrees to pool resources with the woman to raise her children, and the woman agrees that in return, all the children he's helping to support are his. If this contract is ubiquitously in place for all couples who procreate, then the discussion of reproductive rights of both the man AND the woman become redundant but we know we don't live in such a world and as far as the scope of the question is concerned, I digress.

In a culture where children are basically all vat grown (I'm going to use that term to differentiate between the artificial womb and a normal biological pregnancy; no offence is intended), the energy cost to the woman of gestation is negated. But, what about raising the child? Providing it with food, protection, and guidance? This is where the real cost of children is, as any parent, male or female, will tell you.

So, who ultimately raises the child?

Well, the answer is more or less the same as it has always been - the biological parents. In this case though, that could be any mix of gender really and as such, it's entirely possible that you'd see pairings that look suspiciously like marriage pop up even in a single gender society because the effort involved in raising a child will still be borne by those who contribute to the genetic heritage of the child in question because they are the ones to benefit from raising the child in the first place.

But, a note on some of your other comments - Yes, in a wartime situation historically it has been men and not women who have fought as soldiers. But, that fact doesn't justify the perpetuation of the myth of the violent male. In my experience, women can be (and often are) just as aggressive (if not more so) than men in many cases. The stereotype of a caring mother and indifferent father just isn't true and needs to be challenged at every level.

Men (on average) are larger and stronger than women, and that means that they tend to manifest their aggression physically. But, women can be just as violent, often inflicting emotional violence where they are not in a position to inflict physical violence due to a mismatch of physique.

By the same token, fathers (in my experience) love their children every bit as much as mothers do, again more so in some cases. The reason why this is not expressed the same way is that society sees the responsibility of providing for the family as belonging to the father, thus forcing him to distract himself from the effort of child raising with the effort of providing for the family as well.

This, ironically, is what is retarding modern feminism's advancement; the focus on rights has put those rights out of equilibrium with gender based responsibilities and expectations meaning that until the women's rights movements become women's responsibilities movements, they will struggle to make further progress, but again I digress.

The point of all this is that a child having two fathers, especially in a single gender environment, will in no way retard the development of the child. In point of fact, because having children is a conscious choice in such an environment, and can't occur by accident, children raised by two fathers in your world are probably subjected to even better levels of nurturing and guidance than modern children are.

Put even more simply, it is a mistake to confuse gender stereotypes and cultural expectations with gender based capabilities. Fathers are every bit as capable at being parents as mothers, and in your world, away from the current gender based expectations and responsibilities, would be more than capable of demonstrating that.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Yes, and did you know that a single father can breastfeed a bbay if given the necessary hormones like prolactin? $\endgroup$ – Sabrine Crystal Santos Jun 13 '19 at 3:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SabrineCrystalSantos yes I have heard that and read a lot of the literature on the matter (especially related to anti-psychotic medications like Risperadone) but I'd also say that breastfeeding isn't necessarily a function of child raising any more than biological gestation is in your world. Breastfeeding (IMHO) promotes attachment for the mother more than it does for the child, certainly based on my reading of what research I've come across on the topic in the past. $\endgroup$ – Tim B II Jun 13 '19 at 3:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I do wonder about the emergence of new gender roles/stereotypes, for example the Samoan fa’afafine is a recognised third (genetically Male) gender role that explicitly encompasses what would be considered feminine traits and roles in a more westernised culture. It might be (depending on the social constructs in place) that new genders emerge to represent the caregiver/provider dynamic we see now. Or maybe not. It’s an interesting train of thought. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Jun 13 '19 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ Always find digs on feminists being against men's issues super confusing - modern feminism does care about men's liberation, and has had a long history of caring about it in the past: reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/3tn9kc/… $\endgroup$ – elstevenson Jun 13 '19 at 17:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elstevenson firstly, this is not a dig, merely an observation. Secondly, while there are some elements of feminism that may care about men's rights, that's not the public face that is presented, especially in Australia where a lot of men feel genuinely under siege and are publicly castigated for saying so. And finally, you don't solve the imbalance in rights by asking for more rights, even for the other side. You solve it by changing public perception about expectations and responsibilities. My point is that equal rights are achieved by balancing responsibilities and rights in concert. $\endgroup$ – Tim B II Jun 13 '19 at 23:22

Yes, but there are some genetic issues...


DNA is packaged in Chromosomes. Each human (generally) has 46 Chromosomes arranged in 23 pairs. The two chromosomes in a pair provide the same biological utility but are not genetically identical.

In Humans gender is heavily influenced by a pair of chromosomes. They are generally refereed to as X and Y chromosomes, and they usually exist in pairs of: XX (female), and XY (male). YX is the same as saying XY. I'll use the alphabetical ordering as the standard.

There are other combinations of sex chromosomes but these are Rare, and my point is made with the common combinations.

The problem here is that a purely male population consists of individuals holding XY chromosomes. This means that a purely male population can produce: XX, XY, YX, and YY combinations.

This means that without intervention roughly 50% of the offspring made will be male, 25% will be female, and the other 25% would probably die.

Genetically speaking a male-only population is unstable. Without constant intervention, and murder of any female baby that accidentally survived, the population will eventual evolve into a female/male society.

Hormones and defective Ys

Even with such provisions in place to ensure that all individuals posses exactly one X and one Y chromosome, it is still possible for society to develop females. This occurs due to either a genetic failure in the Y-chromosome or an altered hormonal chemistry that deactivates the Y-chromosome. These things can happen entirely naturally, and can most definitely be induced via certain drugs.

These genetically male, but observable female individuals cannot be avoided without serious genetic modification to the populace. This is because to be (a human) Male means to contain all the genetic information to be (a human) Female.

Birds and the bees

Now if human gender operated like birds the story would be different. A male Bird contains ZZ sex chromosomes, and a female bird contains WZ sex chromosomes. A pure male bird society would be stable. It would only ever produce males.

It would be a female only bird society that would eventually produce a male/female society if left unchecked.


What this would suggest is that a pure (human) male society, or a pure (avian) female society would have a draconian edge to it. Population scale genetic engineering, genetic reproductive controls, and even biological evaluations as individuals grew up with some form of enforcement (death, sterilisation, etc...) would need to occur to keep the society purely that gender.

Aside from that, chances are that such a society would be more likely to cherish their offspring. The simple fact is that purchasing, maintaining, and operating such external reproductive equipment would require wealth, and skill. This would raise a barrier to entry not found in our modern society. In fact the barrier operates in the other direction as couples in our modern society must invest in not having children.

Alternately such a society could organise along collective lines lowering the entry barrier by collaborating in a larger group. Think clan, community, or state birthing facilities. However these systems tend to raise artificial barriers to impede overuse...

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This issue goes away if the reproduction isn’t sexual. A race of all Male clones could, given good initial stock and careful genetic caretaking, last indefinitely. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Jun 13 '19 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ The men in my story would not all have only xy chromossomes. They could have XX choromossoes but they would all have to be physiologically male. $\endgroup$ – Sabrine Crystal Santos Jun 13 '19 at 14:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoeBloggs yes it could indeed last indefinitely - By a massive genetic rewrite to bring human male dna inline with an avian sexual chromosomal pattern, or by rather horrific social institutions that select, and engineer reproductive conditions, along with draconian measures to prevent unauthorised reproduction, and the socially sanctioned murder of anomalies (aka females). $\endgroup$ – Kain0_0 Jun 14 '19 at 2:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SabrineCrystalSantos You can of course write your story however you like. Statistics point out that roughly 1 in 25000 males have XX. Just be aware that a society that is advanced enough and sufficiently without qualms to genetically engineer children to be strictly male, would also like to avoid the numerous developmental conditions that XX males tend to suffer from. As an aside, while observably male, they tend to have pronounced feminine traits. As society appears to be averse to women, this may be a societal hot issue. $\endgroup$ – Kain0_0 Jun 14 '19 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ @KainO_O: I feel like you missed an important word in my comment. Cloned males will still be all XY, with no possibility of another chromosomal pairing because they’re.. well, they’re clones. Like father like son, quite literally. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Jun 14 '19 at 7:41

Assuming something went wrong with the nuclear bunker and most women died and the few that lived died of various reasons and all you have left is a similar idea I had when watching the first previews of death stranding were the men must deliver the babies in artificial wombs because there are not women the first issue is the eggs unless we have males turning female or else self reproducing with themselves which the egg then randomizes the genes present to make a new child that is removed from the last one it produced then its possible.

Your males aren't males they're different and could present as male or not they don't even require their junk in this scenario because its all internal and they decide when the time is right. Feeding is an issue your males must do this. The issues is delivering it are they vaginal-ish or does their stomach slowly open and allow it to fall out? You should think on that because before they ever made C-sections birth was the way to go. C-section just like the concept of wash your hands after handling a corpses doctor before you handle delivering the baby were not invented at one point.

Now women have always gone to war allowed or not see the civil war see before that so if women exist and everyone for reasons is choosing the artificial womb and not a human there is no change to the population there is no all men some people want daughters others want sons there is a reason China is kidnapping women from other countries too many men and not enough women so when your population gets that way people will auto begin to make more women to avoid kidnappings or to sell off their made daughters (or sons if it goes in the reverse) You'd have to delete make females button on the machine and kill off women in any number of ways and this then assumes the men left will want to keep the male thing going this also changes love, relationships, sex your normal people still have a need for sex banging a machine ones will do so much for some of them. Your culture also changes say you get to the all male utopia you want no mention of women is present and also no idea of what one is after a point especially if the woman is suppressed from culture as they die off for good so its all male all the time to fill all roles a society would require. Their vocabulary and what they find sexy changes substantially. The other issue is feeding of children in the AW world must be done these men must do it via themselves (possible) or invention and if the bulk choose invention is not feeding or harming the food source of a child a crime?


A warrior society

A society of warriors who's sole purpose is warfare. Children are made from the edited DNA from the most successful warriors. Death is no hindrance and in fact a glorious death in battle increases your chances of children as your genes are in storage and your heroics are you more likely to get you selected.

Scientists take the genes of the best warriors to produce the next generation and that generation proves itself in battle to produce the next and so on so each generation evolves into a better soldier.

Children are raised by society in a militaristic fashion by the wounded or the less successful members or lower classes. Each generation studies the feats, tactics and skills of the previous to better their own.

Societies like this exist in the Clans of Battletech Mechwarrior though not limited to males only


An all-male sci-fi society could theoretically exist provided that we have a way to prevent females from ever being created. One solution, which addresses the issues in Kain0_0's answer, is to make everyone have just a Y chromosome, but no X chromosome. Then, anyone's Y chromosome will pass down to his sons, and he won't ever have a daughter.

The reason is simply because a typical human being has one X chromosome from his or her mother and either an X chromosome from her father (if she is female) or a Y chromosome from his father (if he is male). Without females, the X chromosome would become redundant.

  • $\begingroup$ And we won't miss any information contained in that chromosome? $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica Sep 24 '19 at 14:58

Doomed to Failure.

You focus solely on the mechanics of reproduction but fail to comprehend the fundamental nature of the human person and human society. We were made female and male for a reason: not just to reproduce but to balance and compliment one another within the context of a mixed society. A group that lacks one or the other of its two natural sexes & genders, that can not form even the most fundamental of human societies, the family, will eventually die of natural causes or else drive itself crazy or turn utterly savage.

It's an interesting premise, and, as you might suspect has been considered in literature before. You might be interested in reading Cordwainer Smith's The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal (Amazing Stories, 1964; Galactic Empires, vol. 1, 1976) which deals exactly with this problem.


It is not only possible, but it existed in many places, including monasteries, army service, prisons, mines, polar stations, etc, except reproduction.

How this society would look like?

Most likely it would involve heavy use of the hormone replacement therapy to make some males look feminine to satisfy the sexual needs. So, the society would look like normal society with men and women for an outsider.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.