This method still required a female cell and would were it to proceed to gestation require a female mother.
As far as I can see, kicking a cell bundle off growing in vitro in ways other than the traditional egg meets sperm is the (relatively) easy part. The hard thing that we are nowhere near able to do yet is gestate a foetus outside the womb. Even with experiments that have sort-of approached a small degree of that like the male rat, behind the headlines there was a female rat frankensteined on to him delivering all the complex chemical signals that made the womb functional and the pregnancy viable.
All that said, theoretically I don't have an issue if we eventually find a way to reproduce that doesn't involve a woman undergoing pregnancy.
The problem is that humans have so far have a pretty poor track record at synthetically reproducing nature. We simplify it then realise all the stuff we thought wasn't needed was the stuff that made it work properly. UPF for example, or indeed gender reassignment treatments like cross sex hormones or surgery.
We split natural creatures or processes up into boxes to make it easier to reason about them but we forget the boxes aren't real, they are arbitrary divisions of a complete and interdependent system.
So sadly I suspect if we ever did grow babies outside the womb, it would look successful at first but over their lives those people would have higher than average incidents of something because the significance of whatever would have controlled that risk in the womb hadn't been appreciated and so hadn't been incorporated in the technology.