11–20 of 182 posts
Please don't take this the wrong way, this is a genuine question. Is there an explaination somewhere of what purpose gender identities serve and what benefits that provides (ie why don't animals need them)? Aside from reproduction, I don't see how gender would really influence anything.
Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?
Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
No, it is just a consequence of complex reality butting up against a "common sense" (including the quote marks) derived from incorrectly assuming that words accurately and unambiguously carve up reality.
If biologists instead used a different common definition such as "female == able to get pregnant, otherwise male" then birds would be all be male, and seahorses wouldn't be associated with the sentence "weird biology fact: the males get pregnant!"
See also: "There's no such thing as a fish", and "how many moons does the Earth have?"
Richard Dawkins wrote in the Selfish Gene that across the animal kingdom, females and males can be distinguished by the fact that females always have larger sex cells. (E.g. eggs versus sperm) This could be slightly off-topic since I can’t read the article.
It's not a conclusion, it's by fiat.
Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
> animals do not have socially constructed genders. How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?
Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
> animals do not have socially constructed genders. How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?
> [...] peacocks still do not have genders. And the reason is that peacocks do not have culture.
[1] https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
"(a system that’s distinct from our diverse gender identities)" Please don't take this the wrong way, this is a genuine question. Is there an explaination somewhere of what purpose gender identities serve and what benefits that provides (ie why don't animals need them)? Aside from reproduction, I don't see how gender would really influence anything.
Is there a reason to believe it doesn't exists in animals as well? Homosexuality is common in many species, are some individual animals in those species more prone to homosexual "relationships" than others? If so, maybe those animals are feeling some sort of expression by their gender identity based on their preference.
I'm guessing gender identities serve the same purpose as individual expression, just to be self-expressive.
Important differences in biology exist at every level of description, from molecular pathways to large scale brain morphology, and yet! The differences by sex are often subtle, and heterogenous, and not consistent across species. Nevertheless, while the sex chromosomes have far-reaching effects on development, starting at the very beginning of the neurodevelopmental timeline of cell proliferation and migration, the formation and structure of synapses, and so on, its not the whole story.
A too common way people differentiate sex from gender is to say that there is, on the one hand, biological sex, which they’ll add is both real, binary, and unchangeable, and then there is gender, the infinitely mind-bending social construct. This framework is often draped with an aura of scientific impartiality. I want to stress to you that this framework is not scientifically justified. Not at all. Further it is patently harmful and trivialized the very real phenomenon of gender diversity.
First, biological sex is not the same thing as chromosomal sex. The sex chromosomes only partially, and only indirectly influence physiological and brain development. Development is fundamentally a multilevel process integrating genetic, epigenetic, environmental, and experiential factors, all of which can lead to qualitative and quantitative differences in the expression of the sex phenotype. Differences in the timing and dosage of steroid exposures within an individual, can lead to any particular feature being more stereotypically masculine, feminine, androgenous, or other phenotype altogether. The result is a mosaic of features with high degree of overlap in those with XX and XY chromosomes.
Sometimes this kind of effect pushes someone's actual attributes to be not as typical of their chromosomal sex. These traits in turn will influence the gender identity they feel most in tune with, and how they incorporate and react to the socialization of gender norms.
"(a system that’s distinct from our diverse gender identities)" Please don't take this the wrong way, this is a genuine question. Is there an explaination somewhere of what purpose gender identities serve and what benefits that provides (ie why don't animals need them)? Aside from reproduction, I don't see how gender would really influence anything.
Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
Sad? No, it is just a consequence of complex reality butting up against a "common sense" (including the quote marks) derived from incorrectly assuming that words accurately and unambiguously carve up reality. If biologists instead used a different common definition such as "female == able to get pregnant, otherwise male" then birds would be all be male, and seahorses wouldn't be associated with the sentence "weird bi…