If you’re a normal person who was doing normal things this past weekend, maybe going to the beach or watching a baseball game, you undoubtedly missed the bizarre, short-lived and fraudulent JD Vance sperm cup scandal. Good for you; you’re making excellent decisions. But as one of the deranged mole people who watched the fiasco unfold in real time on X, I believe this extremely online moment can teach us two lessons. First, be careful about falling for rumors you find on the internet, especially those that confirm stereotypes about your political opponents. And second, sperm could play a key role in the 2024 election.

The gist (excuse me) of the dubious claim was that supporters of Donald Trump and JD Vance attended rallies with small plastic containers of… something… labeled with the vice presidential candidate’s face and the words “JD Vance Full Family Kit.” The implication was that rally attendees were mocking Tim Walz for using fertility treatments to conceive his child, as opposed to the more virile Trump and Vance, who presumably conceived their children the old-fashioned way. As a form of protest, this was simultaneously cruel, disgusting, and confusing, so I was relieved when later reports cast quite a bit of doubt on the idea that “wearing a Vance sperm cup to a Trump rally” was an organically evolved MAGA trend. The possibly fake cups, however, tap into a real issue. This election is, among other things, about what it means to be a man – and one thing that defines masculinity is (literally) balls.

As commentators across the political spectrum have noted, this election will reveal the widest partisan gender divide in history. Other elections have been defined by age or racial differences, but 2024 is polarized along gender lines. Feminist commentators have been excited by the emerging “Big Dad energy” of Walz and Doug Emhoff, while other pundits have defended the “neotraditional” masculinity represented by Vance and Republicans like Josh Hawley. But what everyone has noticed is that two different visions of what it means to be a man are on display here.

This is a challenge for the candidate, but also an opportunity. Although Kamala Harris has done an impressive job of winning Democratic support during her meteoric rise, this election is still extremely close, essentially a 50-50 contest with seven swing states virtually tied. To win, she must do everything she can to increase her appeal to the skeptics without losing those who are already on board.

And that’s why she should talk about sperm.

You may be wondering why I, a person without testicles, am so concerned with this stuff. I am just saying that as a former writer for the TV series The Handmaid’s TaleI am well aware of how environmentally induced fertility decline can be exploited to impose a reactionary patriarchal authoritarian regime, and I would rather avoid that outcome. What happens to sperm is what happens to all of us. And sperm is in need.

Shanna Swan, one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists, wrote to me in an email: “Sperm count (and concentration) has declined by 1% per year worldwide for the past 50 years. And since 2000, the decline has twice as steep than after 1970.” Conclusion: Sperm concentration is decreasing faster and faster worldwide.

Whether this is a current problem causing fertility problems in men today or a threatening harbinger of eventual doom is hotly debated in the scientific community. But it is true that there is something wrong with sperm worldwide – and the causes may include chemical exposure to hormone-altering substances, climate change and diet.

If you watch a lot of Fox News, you’ve probably heard all this before. This story is very popular in right-wing media. Tucker Carlson once suggested that men should shine red lights on their genitals as a solution, while Joe Rogan hosted Swan herself on his podcast to talk about her research. Alex Jones, for his part, touts a nutritional supplement called Super Male Vitality, which he says is designed to combat testosterone decline. Men on the right lament the feminization of culture and politics in general, but also talk about the biological effects of the modern environment on their bodies.

Harris may have limited options for assuaging the cultural concerns of members of the manosphere—I can’t imagine her promising mandatory partnerships with incels, claiming that men are naturally better leaders, or getting Walz interested in looksmaxxing—but her biological concerns are real and should be politically permissible. The solutions currently being offered by right-wing gurus may be snake oil, but at least they suggest something to those who are concerned. Why not try to do better? Taking the time to talk T-levels with a few bros doesn’t have to mean backtracking on equality. It just means meeting voters where they are (by exposing their private parts to ultraviolet light).

After all, politics is about steering the conversation toward the issues you want to discuss. Talking about sperm and testosterone decline would be a way for Harris to reach male voters without compromising her campaign platform. At its core, this is a health and an environmental issue—two issues that the public already trusts Democrats more to handle. Using sperm as bait, Harris could argue for the policies she already wants: a strong Environmental Protection Agency to enforce environmental protection policies and a transition to a green economy to combat climate change. She could organize a panel of endocrinologists, ecologists, and doctors to get serious about what’s going on with sperm and what can be done about it. They wouldn’t all have to agree on what exactly is happening, but just the conversation would be a sign of their open-mindedness. SpermCon (any name but that one, please) would be an opportunity to explain that men do indeed suffer from toxic masculinity—when their masculinity is compromised by toxins.

Another good reason to care about sperm is RFK Jr. His numbers may have declined since before, but they’re not down to zero, and he’s reportedly going to get out and endorse Trump at a planned press conference on Friday. What we also know about RFK Jr. fans is that they really like hearing about how their bodies are being poisoned by corporations. Talking about sperm declines would be one way to welcome them without having to throw out common-sense programs like mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren. In a very close election, every vote counts, including those of people who still stick with RFK Jr. after the bear story.

Looking at interviews about their political preferences, it’s clear that young men are leaning right in part because they feel ignored and like second-class citizens. You can tell them they’re wrong and the patriarchy is actually still very powerful, or you can say, “I see you, I hear your concerns, and I’ll look out for you.” One of these approaches seems much more likely to win votes to me.

If someone asks, “Why would Harris do anything to reach out to people she doesn’t already like?” I’d say, “Well, that’s just how elections work in polarized, first-past-the-post nations.” And nobody knows that better than Donald Trump. After winning in 2016 in a racially polarized environment thanks to his strength among white voters, he could have rested on his demographic laurels. Instead, he invested considerable time and resources into reaching out to voters of color—with great success, closing the racial polarization gap significantly both in 2020 and so far in 2024.

With a historic gender divide this fall, Harris and Walz should find innovative ways to woo men without compromising their stance on women’s rights. Hosting a roundtable on declining sperm counts, addressing the issue in speeches, or sending a campaign representative to Rogan with some graphics would all be ways to show men that Harris is listening and that she cares about solving their problems. It also fits the campaign’s theme of freedom. What is freer than being able to use your own body as you see fit? That’s a powerful message for women, and it could be for men too. Or in slogan form: Donald Trump wants to make it difficult for you to have an abortion. I want to make it easy for you to have a child.

Carrying around little cups of sperm as a political protest to make fun of infertile people is most likely a fabricated scandal, but not being able to have children easily is tough. In vitro fertilization is expensive, time-consuming, painful, and often heartbreaking. Of course, fertility treatments should be legal and covered by insurance, but wouldn’t it be great to avoid them if you could? Reproductive rights, maternal health care, a child tax credit, and a government that looks after your testicles are a coherent, compelling agenda for all.