If your weekend involved typical activities like beach trips or sports games, you might have missed the strange, fleeting, and ultimately debunked saga of the J.D. Vance sperm cups. Congratulations on your excellent life choices. However, for those of us online, witnessing this unfold on X (formerly Twitter) offered a couple of key takeaways. First, exercise caution when encountering internet rumors, especially those reinforcing pre-existing biases about political adversaries. Second, the topic of sperm – and male fertility – may unexpectedly become a talking point in the 2024 election cycle.
The core of this unsubstantiated claim revolved around the notion that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance supporters were showing up at rallies holding small, transparent containers labeled “JD Vance Full Family Kit.” These containers supposedly held… something… and were adorned with Vance’s image. The implication was a crude jab at Tim Walz, suggesting that his use of fertility treatments to conceive his child was somehow less “manly” compared to Trump and Vance, who presumably had children “naturally.” This form of protest, if genuine, would have been simultaneously offensive, bizarre, and perplexing. Fortunately, subsequent fact-checking cast significant doubt on whether “JD Vance sperm cup” was ever an actual organic MAGA trend. Nevertheless, the very idea of these potentially fake cups touches upon a real and relevant issue: this election is, in part, about defining modern masculinity – and discussions around virility and fertility are surfacing in unexpected ways.
This election is shaping up to highlight a historically significant partisan gender divide, as many commentators have pointed out. While past elections have been defined by age or racial gaps, gender is taking center stage in 2024. Some feminist voices have celebrated the “big dad energy” projected by figures like Walz and Doug Emhoff. Conversely, others have championed the “neotraditional” masculinity embodied by Vance and other Republicans like Josh Hawley. Regardless of political leaning, it’s clear that contrasting visions of manhood are being presented and debated in the public sphere.
This gendered political landscape presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the female candidate, Kamala Harris. Despite building strong Democratic support, the election remains incredibly tight, a near dead heat in crucial swing states. To secure victory, Harris must broaden her appeal to undecided voters without alienating her existing base.
This is where the conversation about sperm comes in.
</center>Why should a topic like sperm, seemingly niche, be politically relevant? As someone with a background in exploring societal trends – including, as a former writer for The Handmaid’s Tale, the potential for fertility decline to contribute to authoritarian regimes – it’s clear that reproductive health and related anxieties are deeply connected to broader societal concerns. Sperm health, or the lack thereof, can be seen as a barometer of wider environmental and societal well-being. And current data suggests cause for concern.
As Dr. Shanna Swan, a leading expert in environmental and reproductive epidemiology, explained, “Sperm counts and concentration have been declining at a rate of 1% per year globally over the last half-century. Alarmingly, since 2000, this decline has doubled compared to the rate observed post-1970.” The data paints a clear picture: sperm concentration is decreasing worldwide, and at an accelerating pace.
The immediate implications of this sperm decline are subject to ongoing scientific debate. Experts are still investigating whether this is primarily a current health crisis impacting male fertility today, or a more ominous sign of future reproductive challenges. However, the trend is undeniable – something is impacting sperm health globally, and potential culprits include hormone-disrupting chemicals, climate change, and dietary factors.
Intriguingly, this issue has already gained traction in right-wing media circles. Figures like Tucker Carlson have, at times, offered unconventional “solutions,” such as suggesting red light exposure for male genitalia. Joe Rogan featured Dr. Swan on his popular podcast to discuss her research. Even Alex Jones promotes supplements like “Super Male Vitality” claiming to combat testosterone decline. While often framed within a narrative of cultural “feminization,” these voices are tapping into genuine anxieties about men’s biological well-being in the modern world.
</center>While Harris may not find common ground with the “manosphere” on all cultural issues – promises of mandatory female companionship or assertions of male superiority are unlikely – the underlying biological concerns about men’s health are legitimate and politically addressable. Right-wing figures may offer questionable remedies, but they are at least acknowledging these concerns. Democrats have an opportunity to offer more credible and effective solutions. Engaging in conversations about men’s health, including testosterone levels and sperm health, doesn’t require abandoning commitments to gender equality. It simply means addressing voters where they are – even if “where they are” involves unconventional self-care practices.
Politics is about shaping the narrative around key issues. By addressing sperm health and testosterone decline, Harris could connect with male voters without compromising core Democratic values. Framing this as a healthcare and environmental issue aligns perfectly with areas where public trust in Democrats is already stronger, particularly on environmental protection and healthcare access. Using sperm health as a focal point, Harris can advocate for existing Democratic priorities: a robust Environmental Protection Agency to enforce pollution regulations and a transition to a green economy to combat climate change. Convening a roundtable of endocrinologists, ecologists, and physicians to examine sperm decline would signal open-mindedness and a willingness to address men’s health concerns seriously. A “SpermCon” (perhaps a better name is needed) could serve as a platform to highlight how “toxic masculinity” can manifest literally – when masculinity is impacted by environmental toxins.
Another compelling reason for Harris to engage with this topic is RFK Jr.’s voter base. While his support may have waned, it’s not negligible, and some reports suggest a potential endorsement of Trump. RFK Jr.’s supporters are notably receptive to narratives about corporate poisoning and environmental health risks. Addressing sperm decline could be a way to appeal to these voters without abandoning core Democratic principles, such as vaccine mandates for schoolchildren. In a close election, every vote matters, even those from individuals who once supported RFK Jr.
</center>Interviews reveal that young men are increasingly leaning rightward, partly due to feelings of being overlooked and marginalized. While one approach is to dismiss these feelings as unfounded in a patriarchal society, a more effective strategy might be to say, “I see you, I hear your concerns, and I will address them.” The latter approach is far more likely to resonate with and win over voters.
For those questioning the need to reach out to those not already supportive, the reality of polarized, first-past-the-post elections necessitates broadening appeal. Donald Trump understood this in 2016. Despite winning with a strong base of white voters, he invested in outreach to voters of color, successfully narrowing the racial polarization gap in both 2020 and 2024.
Facing a significant gender gap this election, the Harris-Walz ticket should explore innovative ways to appeal to male voters without compromising on women’s rights. Hosting a roundtable on sperm decline, addressing the issue in campaign speeches, or even sending a surrogate onto a platform like Rogan’s with relevant data – these are all potential ways to signal to men that Harris is listening and cares about their concerns. This approach also aligns with the campaign’s broader theme of freedom. After all, what is more fundamental to freedom than bodily autonomy? This message resonates powerfully with women and could resonate with men too. Perhaps a campaign tagline could be: “Donald Trump wants to control women’s bodies. Kamala Harris wants to help you have a healthy family.”
The “Jd Vance Family Kit” sperm cup incident was likely a fabricated scandal, but the underlying anxieties about fertility and male health are very real. Infertility is a difficult experience, and fertility treatments are often costly, time-consuming, emotionally draining, and not always successful. While ensuring access to affordable fertility treatments is essential, wouldn’t it be even better to address the root causes of declining fertility, where possible? Reproductive rights, maternal healthcare, child tax credits, and a government that cares about men’s health – including their sperm – form a coherent and persuasive agenda for everyone.
