Uh, it’s been done. Multiple times.
First was this one back in 2016, but the caveat was that it had the same number of side effects as women’s birth control. Since the patient being prescribed isn’t the one who will experience negative health outcomes without the medications, the harm of those side effects was deemed by researchers (not the patients themselves) to be greater than the risk of impregnating someone else.
Other hornonal options have come out since then, though not on the consumer market, like this hormonal gel and this pill.
More recently its been done without hormones by blocking a vitamin A metabolite that signals the production of sperm.
You’re the one “politicising biology” by using it to dismiss this out of hand without even the most basic level of research or respect for the complexity of the topic.
jali67@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Yeah they try to make this sound like an intelligent argument or that they designed birth control for women out of misogyny. It’s much easier to get one or two eggs terminated in a cycle vs eliminating millions of sperm without causing infertility. I don’t think the people that spew this understand.