this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
28 points (78.0% liked)

science

16090 readers
937 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Issues remain

This process is still not without problems. As the study’s authors acknowledge, the mice created by this process are not fertile, and can only be reproduced through cloning.

Additionally, more than half of the mice born to two fathers either do not survive, die young, fail to mature properly, or fail to reach adulthood.

In a previous study from 2018, the same research team had shown that mice born to two mothers were fertile and survived longer than those born to two fathers, all of whom died shortly after birth. In their new study, published last month, the results have improved, though only partially.

As I suspected, XY + XY is way worse than XX + XX. Former isn't even fertile. Neither really work, but it's promising research.

Science marches forwards.

tldr Same-sex moms might be able to have children sooner than same-sex dads.

[–] SolidShake@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago
[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I know how to reproduce with one father, but unfortunately he's my wife's father and if she ever finds out we've been trying for a baby she'll kill me

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago
[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You know in the current climate that if there was ever a custody dispute, neither father would get custody or access.

Just sayin'.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Systemic oppression sucks, doesn't it.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe in your country.

The UK has had three female PMs (?) and more female party leaders beginning almost fifty years ago.

We've also had multiple female heads of state (Mary I in 1553; Elizabeth I in 1559 etc ). You might argue that those are an accident of birth, but I might remind you that England has never been shy about removing less than adequate heads of state.

Tell me about your leaders who you say subjugate women.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Don't forget that the British monarch was a woman for 134 years of the last 200.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yeah, thought I'd covered that.

Female monarchs weren't always British. 1707 was the Inception of Great Britain. Corrections welcome, my history isn't always ideal.