Field Report: Two Alien Observers Attempt to Understand Human Reproduction

Two trained observers. Every official US government source. No sperm anywhere

Two alien observers visited earth to learn how humans reproduce. They found moms.gov and concluded the male is not biologically involved. They were not entirely wrong about the policy.

 The following is a field report filed by two observers from the Galactic Census Bureau, assigned to document human reproductive biology for the 2025 intergalactic population survey. Their methodology was rigorous. They consulted only official government sources. This is what they found.

Day One: The Official Resource

The observers began where any responsible researcher begins: with the government. The United States of America maintains a website called moms.gov, operated by its Department of Health and Human Services and launched, with considerable ceremony, on the holiday this species has designated for honoring its maternal units.

The observers spent several hours with this resource. They took detailed notes.

According to moms.gov, human reproduction requires the following: a female who tracks her basal body temperature each morning before speaking or moving;

a female who monitors changes in her cervical secretions across a 28-to-35-day cycle;

a female who charts this data across eight to twelve months to establish her personal fertile window;

a female who takes 400 micrograms of folic acid daily;

a female who avoids alcohol, maintains a healthy weight, and manages stress.

The observers reviewed these instructions carefully. They cross-referenced them with their training in basic xenobiology.

Something appeared to be missing.

They searched the resource for any mention of the male of the species. They found references to the male in the context of emotional support during pregnancy. They did not find the male in the context of conception. The word sperm does not appear on moms.gov's fertility guidance pages. The word semen does not appear. The phrase male factor does not appear.

Observer One filed the following preliminary note: "Human reproduction may be parthenogenic. Recommend further investigation before filing census report."

Day Two: The Fertilization President

The observers were thorough. They did not stop at one source.

Further research revealed that the leader of this nation had, in February 2025, signed an executive order to expand access to a procedure called in vitro fertilization, or IVF. He had referred to himself, in public, as the "fertilization president." The observers noted this title with interest. They hoped it would clarify the male's role.

In October 2025, the fertilization president announced a landmark agreement with a pharmaceutical company called EMD Serono. The agreement would reduce the cost of three injectable medications — Gonal-F, Ovidrel, and Cetrotide — by 84% through a government platform called TrumpRx.gov. The president stood in his Oval Office. Officials stood beside him. The announcement was covered extensively.

The observers examined all three medications. Gonal-F stimulates the female's ovaries to produce multiple eggs. Ovidrel triggers the final maturation of those eggs. Cetrotide prevents premature ovulation.

All three act exclusively on the female reproductive system.

The observers searched the TrumpRx platform for any medication addressing male reproductive function. They found none. They searched the executive order for any mention of sperm. They found none. They searched the associated press releases, the White House fact sheet, and the Labor Department guidance on employer fertility benefits.

Observer Two updated the preliminary note: "Fertilization president appears to be fertilization-adjacent. The male's biological contribution remains unlocated in official documentation."

 

— — — PAYWALL BREAK — — —

 

Day Three: The $300 Question

On the third day, one of the observers made a discovery.

Buried in the National Library of Medicine's database — not on moms.gov, not on TrumpRx.gov, not in the executive order, not in any document carrying a .gov domain that addressed fertility directly — was a description of a diagnostic test called a semen analysis.

The observers read it carefully.

A semen analysis evaluates the male's reproductive contribution: sperm count, with a normal threshold of at least 15 million per milliliter; motility, with at least 40% of sperm required to move effectively; and morphology, with at least 4% required to be normally shaped. The test is non-invasive. It is conducted in a clinical laboratory. Results are typically returned within 24 to 48 hours. The cost, in the United States, is approximately $200 to $300.

The observers then consulted the peer-reviewed literature. They found that male factor is solely responsible for infertility in approximately 20% of couples and contributes to the problem in an additional 30% to 40%.(1,2) In total, male factor substantially contributes to approximately 50% of all cases in which human couples cannot conceive.(3)

Observer One sat quietly for a moment.

"So," Observer One said, "for roughly half the couples who cannot reproduce, the answer may be findable with a $300 test that takes one appointment and requires no injections, no surgical procedures, and no ovarian stimulation."

"That appears to be correct," said Observer Two.

"And the government's response was to discount the ovarian stimulation drugs."

"Yes."

"The drugs that cost $5,000 per cycle. That represent approximately 20% of the total cost of a treatment that runs $15,000 to $20,000."

"Correct."

Observer One made a note. Then crossed it out. Then made it again.

Day Four: The Experts

The observers had not given up. They had found the science. They had found the policy. What they had not yet found was any medical authority who had, on the record, told the government that its fertility program was missing half the biology.

This seemed like an important question. A country in which human reproduction is the subject of national policy has, presumably, professional societies whose function is to advise that policy. The observers were optimistic.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — the principal professional organization for the species’ reproductive specialists — maintains detailed guidance on infertility evaluation. The observers found it. It acknowledged, correctly, that a semen analysis should be part of any infertility workup. It noted that male factor is a significant contributor to infertility in couples seeking conception. It was, by the standards of the documentation reviewed thus far, complete.(4)

The observers then searched for any statement ACOG had issued about moms.gov. They searched for any public response to the government’s fertility initiative. They searched for any press release, letter, or formal communication noting that the national preconception website did not mention sperm.

They found nothing.

Then Observer One remembered something. There was a society whose sole professional focus is reproductive medicine — infertility, assisted reproduction, the entire clinical territory of human conception. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine. ASRM.

“This is it,” Observer One said. “If any organization on this planet would have noticed that the national fertility policy does not mention sperm, it would be the one that exists for no other reason.”

The observers found ASRM’s response to the government’s fertility initiative. It was enthusiastic. The society had praised the executive order on IVF access. It had welcomed the TrumpRx drug discount program. It had expressed gratitude for the administration’s attention to reproductive medicine. The press releases were warm. The quotes were complimentary.

The observers searched these statements for any mention of male factor. For any note that the drugs being discounted act exclusively on the female reproductive system. For any recommendation that a semen analysis precede ovarian stimulation in couples of unknown fertility status.

Nothing.

Observer Two stared at the screen. “The society whose entire reason for existing is infertility hailed a fertility initiative that ignores male factor.”

“Hailed it warmly,” Observer One confirmed. “With gratitude.”

“Without noting the omission.”

“Without noting the omission.”

They searched SMFM — the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Nothing directed at moms.gov. They searched the American Urological Association, whose members treat male infertility every day. Nothing. They searched RESOLVE, the national infertility patient advocacy organization, for any public statement about the omission of male factor from the government’s flagship fertility resource.

Nothing.

Observer Two, who had maintained composure through three days of increasingly confusing documentation, said: “Let me understand this. They know.”

“They know,” Observer One confirmed. “The knowledge exists. It is in the guidelines.”

“And the government launched a fertility resource for couples who want to conceive, and it does not mention half the relevant biology, and the professional societies that hold this knowledge —”

“No.”

“They said nothing.”

“Nothing that we could find.”

Observer Two looked at the field notes for a long time. “On our planet,” Observer Two said, “when an official document contains an error affecting half its intended beneficiaries, the professional bodies responsible for that subject area file a correction.”

“Yes,” said Observer One.

“We call it accountability.”

“I know.”

“They have a word for it here too, I believe.”

Observer One did not respond. Observer One was already writing in the field notes.

Preliminary finding, Day Four: The omission documented in Days One and Two is known to those in the best position to correct it. Whether this represents consensus, deference, institutional inertia, or political calculation falls outside the scope of this census survey. What is within scope: the gap between what the medical evidence says about male factor infertility and what official government fertility resources say about it is not an accident of ignorance. It has been seen. It has not been corrected.

The Filed Report

The observers submitted the following findings to the Galactic Census Bureau:

Human reproduction is a two-gamete process requiring both a female egg and a male sperm cell. This is not in dispute in the scientific literature. It appears, however, to be in dispute in American fertility policy.

The official government resource for preconception guidance addresses the female reproductive cycle in considerable detail. It does not address the male reproductive contribution. It promotes fertility awareness-based methods as a primary strategy for couples who cannot conceive. A fertility awareness method tracks the woman's ovulation. It does not evaluate sperm.

The national government has invested political capital in reducing the cost of medications that stimulate female ovarian function for IVF. IVF is an appropriate treatment for many causes of infertility. It is not the appropriate first step for a couple in which the male has a low sperm count, poor motility, or a varicocele — a surgically correctable condition present in up to 40% of men evaluated for male factor infertility, for which repair is often effective.(2) For these couples, IVF without a prior semen analysis is not a fertility treatment. It is an expensive procedure addressing the wrong partner.

We recommend that the species consider the following, in order: one semen analysis, before anything else. Its cost is $300. Its information content, for approximately half of infertile couples, is decisive.

We are returning to our home planet. We found the biology clear. The policy, less so.

The cervical mucus charts were especially confusing.

 

My Take

The satire is exact. Every number in this piece is real. Male factor contributes to 50% of infertility cases.(1,2,3) A semen analysis costs $200 to $300. The Trump administration's fertility initiative discounts drugs that act exclusively on the female reproductive system. moms.gov does not mention sperm. None of this is a caricature. It is the policy, described accurately, through a frame that makes its absurdity visible.

I am not dismissing the IVF cost initiative. Reducing the cost of fertility medications is a real benefit for real patients. For couples who need IVF — and many do — an 84% discount on stimulation drugs is meaningful. I do not minimize that.

What I am saying is that fertility policy which begins with the woman and ends with the woman, without pausing to evaluate the man, will send roughly half its intended beneficiaries in the wrong direction. Some of them will undergo months of ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, and embryo transfer before anyone thinks to order a semen analysis. Some of them will spend $20,000 on a cycle before anyone asks whether the problem was a varicocele that a urologist could have repaired for a fraction of that cost.

The semen analysis is the single most important test in the infertility workup. It is cheap, non-invasive, fast, and informative. Its absence from every government fertility resource launched in the past 12 months is not an oversight. It reflects a persistent cultural assumption — one this country's fertility policy has apparently not examined — that infertility is a female problem.

It is not. It is a couple problem. Half the time, it is a male problem. The $300 test that establishes which half you are in should be the first thing any couple struggling to conceive is told to do. It should be on moms.gov. It should be in the executive order. It should be the first slide in any government presentation about helping Americans have babies.

The aliens were confused. They had good reason to be.

Bottom Line

A fertility policy that ignores male factor is not a fertility policy. It is a preconception program for women. Those are not the same thing, and couples who need to know the difference are currently being failed by every official resource their government has built.

If you want the complete picture of infertility — what causes it, how to evaluate it, and what the evidence says about when to seek help — ObGyn Intelligence covers it without the ideological filter. Subscribe below.

 

References

1. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:37. doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0032-1. PMID: 25928197.

2. Leslie SW, Siref LE, Khan MAB. Male Infertility. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. PMID: 32965929.

3. Krausz C, Escamilla-Sanchez A. Male infertility. Lancet. 2021;397(10271):319-332. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32667-2. PMID: [VERIFY].

4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Evaluating Infertility [FAQ]. Washington (DC): ACOG; 2022. Available from: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/evaluating-infertility.