Ectogenesis and gender inequality: Two pathways converge.

Abstract

Debate on whether ectogenesis is a morally desirable solution to gender inequality often starts by analyzing whether gender inequality has been caused by (i) reproductive differences between the sexes or (ii) social structures. I term these two sides the biological model and the social model. Without taking either side, this article contends that both models provide a fragile foundation for assessing the moral desirability of ectogenesis. I draw on Ronald Dworkin's luck egalitarian theory and Ron Amundson's perspective to demonstrate that both models are inherently interactionist and share the view that society's inadequate response to female reproductive traits is crucial in gender oppression. Actions on either biological or social factors are prima facie valid. Meanwhile, neither model can conclusively determine whether ectogenesis is morally desirable.