Deep reprotech seems to be emerging. Come learn & build at Reproductive Frontiers 2026, June 16-18, Berkeley. Tickets⬇️

We can agree/disagree about whether women are going to "catch up" to their desired fertility; I think it's extremely unlikely and we will have high levels of undesired childlessness but I imagine some will say "that's just because the reprotech hasn't gotten good enough."

It's about selling endocrine disruptors & surgery to remove children's sex response & fertility. It's corporate sexual/reproductive slavery. Reprotech is the future! x.com/Sidewalk_Steve/status/… youtube.com/watch?v=dY6s_wID…

Dr. Amato @PaolaAmato has advanced frontier reprotech, including the first non-mosaic gene-edited human embryo in vitro, as well as the first maternal spindle transfer in human oocytes (an MRT method). She'll speak at Reproductive Frontiers 2026, June 16-18, Berkeley. Tickets ⬇️

What do novel reprotech and reprogenetics mean for our future? Prof. Greely @HankGreelyLSJU (Stanford Law) is a leading expert on how biomedical technology relates to law and society. He'll speak at Reproductive Frontiers Summit 2026 in Berkeley, June 16-18. Tickets ⬇️

So I agree that being against trans laws and illiberalism can be used as a foil for other political ambitions, when there is a purer matter at hand that should be dealt with without partisan politics involved - namely the reprioritisation of safeguarding. However, I don’t think we can fully separate the matter from wider politics wrt to understanding how this ideology came about and took hold so rapidly and comprehensively, if we want to properly undo it. And in all my research, I find this general pattern: The original activists, academics and ‘authors’ who create the contagious ideology are Queer Marxists. This goes back a century and beyond in universities, psychiatry and radical political movements. The recent conservative propagators (eg Tory govts, elements of the sympathetic church etc) are mostly infiltrated/groomed cowardly incompetents, who don’t understand the original project but forward it on a ‘be kind’ basis and for popularity. However, the chief exploiters and international funders of this grassroots Queer Marxist trend are big Pharma/surgery in US, Reprotech businesses, big porn and NGOs employing the Queer Marxist narrative as an anti-democratic foil to aid international technocratic govt, to serve the interests of global capital. These forces have worked corruptly hand in hand with the prior, morally bankrupt Democrat administration, putting trans at the forefront of their liberal-establishment politics. However, peppered amongst both left and right, and from grass roots to establishment alike, are of course the hidden abusers and fetishists who develop or green light these projects for entirely selfish personal gratification, in order to normalise their fetish, or gain access to kids. Amongst all of this, the most significant element that we can unpick and discard is the Queer Marxist academic justifications. These are the arguments that can wake up conservatives from their blind support, as well as stimulate trad labour/left rejection, and it removes one of the foils behind which big corporate technocratic government hides.

won't someone please make a reprotech-focused primate research center? pretty please. low low price of $30MM

I don't expect anyone to just plunk down $500 million or even $5 million. Many of the relevant projects don't exist and would take a bunch of organizing to set up, and there are probably several key talent gaps. What I do hope for, what I would ask of major funders, is to make some sort of legible statement like: > Over the next 5 years, I'd be willing to put at least $100 million towards worthy science projects that my biologist expert friend agrees would accelerate strong reprogenetics. That way scientists would know that this is the case, and view it as worthwhile to organize the relevant projects (because they might actually get funded); and junior scientists would know they could make a career in advanced reprotech / reprogenetics. This is why I want people to understand that there's a good chance we're not that far off from this technology working. That seems like something that's worth a try, in order to get out of gridlock around this research. x.com/BerkeleyGenomic/status…

You should come to the Reproductive Frontiers Conference! We are bringing together the best and the brightest in reprotech. There will be many people worth funding there reproductivefrontiers.org

A good place to meet people creating advanced reprotech and reprogenetics: reproductivefrontiers.org/ Visual roadmap to strong reprogenetics: berkeleygenomics.org/article… Full analysis: berkeleygenomics.org/article…

Most DAOs talk about changing science. AthenaBIO is actually doing it. Here's what 3 years of showing up looks like: → $1.5M deployed into women's health research → Ovarian aging compound A2 now at pharmacokinetic profiling stage at WuXi AppTec → Composition of matter patents filed at the European Patent Office → Featured in TIME Magazine's Longevity Issue → Sponsored the British Fertility Society's Clinical Frontiers conference → Hosted IVG pioneer Dr. Paula Amato — featured in Nature, BBC, and CNN → DD'd over 400 assets across ovarian aging, ReproTech, AI, and diagnostics While the mainstream world is just waking up to women's health as an investment opportunity — AthenaBIO already has the science, the deal flow, the network, and the pipeline. We didn't wait for permission. We built the infrastructure. 🧬 Proud to be part of this community every single day. @athena_DAO_ 💛

IVF likely had a negative impact because the idea of IVF existing likely delayed decision making in most families. That's the issue with a lot of reprotech. That being said, freeing women from being out of work for 1-2 years would likely increase TFR

I mean IVF itself has no impact, and in fact it’s not clear *any* Reprotech has any impact

Reprotech and EngagedMD Partner to Digitize Off-Site Storage Consents for Fertility Clinics femtechinsider.com/reprotech…

Graph from: hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publica… Other graphs I've glanced at (e.g. total number of IVF cycles) are also gradually increasing. (This is part of me wondering under what circumstances reprotech will stay expensive for a long time by default: lesswrong.com/posts/uPSMqjzG… )

I am very supportive of solo parenthood via reprotech, but c'mon - obviously having two parents is better than having just one. All else equal, I highly doubt this wouldn't have an measurable impact on life outcomes

So I watched Drokova's interview with @ShawnRyan762, which some assure me reflects badly on her. How so?! Competent description of cryonics and valid points about tension between moonshot tech and public acceptance (e.g. with Worldcoin, reprotech, etc).

Without a properly openminded debate about the abject failure of liberal policies with regard to family and child safeguarding, and without revisiting the necessary and protective elements of s.28, we are not going to be able to oppose the encroaching, ultimate abuse of women by the Reprotech industry. So we need leftist radical feminists and conservative women to work together on this - because new, non-prejudiced prohibitions of indoctrination and sexualisation of children in schools are desperately needed and we shouldn’t let a politicised aversion to s.28 put us off finding a contemporary answer.

Yes, so I’ve heard that said. And perhaps these are her opinions. But I judge all matters by the arguments and evidence before me, not by whatever is thought to be the meta position of a person. Otherwise we end up with cancel culture, whereby we cannot find common cause with anyone, nor advance their good ideas, unless we agree with every single thing they propose. On this specific matter re Genspect and advocating understanding the market behind trans, I believe Bilek is correct and she has valuable research to support this view. It’s arguable she overplays a Marxist type market analysis as the only way of looking at it, and underplays the more naturally contagious elements, including the original motives of fetish (which have nothing to do with profiting) and the medium of dumb socialism, plus the political use of trans as a sort of emasculating psyops to dissuade from right wing thought/votes - but fundamentally, she is right that if we don’t bring this row back to the mundane observation of cashflows and corruption, we’ll never get pragmatic enough to switch this off and will be caught in endless ideological debates. With regard to Rothblatt - I don’t see how she can have overplayed his role and that of other similar promoters. He’s an exceeding rich, powerful bloke pretending to be a woman who is selling transhumanism… including trying to clone his own wife into a robot! The transhumanist tech developers are driving us rapidly towards dystopian Reprotech products and genetic engineering, and it’s an incredibly significant movement that should be better regulated, and urgently too. But if you have specific concern that she is using this argument for some other negative purpose, then please do explain.