Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 182 posts

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#71

Post by rsynnott »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #68
rsynnott wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, fair enough, if it's a strict definition. You could potentially then have weird edge cases in the other direction, though; if the same sex chromosome layout in related species X and Y leads to different sexes due to the size of the gametes (especially if the size of the gametes was pretty similar to start with), that seems very odd/confusing.

It looks like there are cases where the size of the gametes are identical. But when this happens they don’t refer the organism’s sex as “male/female” and instead use “+/-“. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isogamy Going a step further I found this: >Depending on the group, different mating types are often referred to by numbers, letters, or simply "+" and "−" instead of "male" and "female", which refer to "sexes" or d…

Here's a fun edge case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indotyphlops_braminus#Reproduc...

All individuals of this snake are female (presumably 'female' here is defined relative to other snakes) and reproduce parthenogenetically (sic?). By your definition, these wouldn't have a sex at all, presumably.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#72

Post by bluGill »

giantg2 wrote: post #11

"(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.

Sexual dimorphism means that the two different sexes can specialize on their niche. What the niche is can be very different (male seahorses give live birth) between species, but the one that doesn't have to do something can focus more one something else. You can have one guard the young and thus get more camouflage or other defense - while the other parent will hunt food and thus get more hunting abilities. There are many other examples in nature where the differences in behavior are and advantage to both (even if one clearly has the worse life overall it is an advantage to the species)

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#74

Post by ben_w »

flippinburgers wrote: post #33
ben_w wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Birds are not mammals. Fish are not mammals. Mammals on the other hand have males that impregnate the females.

Producing a more complicated definition with a special case for mammals vs. not mammals doesn't really add anything, even if it weren't for the platypus or the echidna being further examples of things not working like that.

Biology is messy, the boundaries are messy, the words we use are merely for our own benefit to simplify a messy and complex reality.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#75

Post by mantas »

cantSpellSober wrote: post #22
kleiba wrote: post #9

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.

They're describing a difference in sex vs gender. From the linked article: > Gender [...] involves a set of behaviors and norms that shape how men and women act, prescribe how they ought to be, and specify what it means to be a man or a woman > ... Unlike in any other animal, gendered behavior in humans is wildly different across cultures Sex needs a definition too: > Sex appeared to be purely, simply genetic—until 1…

It's funny that many languages don't have this „gender vs sex“ separation. For example in my native language there's just one word to describe man/woman option. Some people try to bend over and invent new terms. That doesn't play well with claiming that somehow this „gender vs sex“ separation is not a new cultural phenomena.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#76

Post by RajT88 »

31337Logic wrote: post #54
RajT88 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gender in humans isn’t fundamentally different. It is fundamentally different. The range of behaviors that Humans have is fundamentally far, far more broad than animals, because we are much more intelligent creatures. Example from a few thousand years ago: Farming, Cooking food. More recent examples: Fixing cars, doing taxes. Most of what Humans spend their time doing these days are things that animals don't do in…

It is at this point, I believe, that it is entirely worth reminding ourselves that humans are, in fact, animals.

It's usually worth reminding ourselves of. I'm not sure what you're getting at here though.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#77

Post by ben_w »

circlefavshape wrote: post #65
ben_w wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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!" "Common definition"? I don't think so. If it was my post-menopausal wife would now be a man I very much doubt that common-sense folks "assum[e] that words accurately and…

> "Common definition"? I don't think so. If it was my post-menopausal wife would now be a man

I didn't say it was a good definition :)

In fact, the very point you're making here is also commonly brought up whenever someone uses this common definition to try to argue against trans issues, which is how I know it's commonly used.

I rather hopped that me saying "birds would be all be male" would be a hint that I didn't hold this definition in high regard.

> whether something is a fruit or vegetable?

Tom-ah-to, to-may-to, but either way I really need to figure out how to use it in a fruit salad.

Sure, almost everyone has had such an argument; but I've noticed many tend to say "it's common sense" and stop listening from then on.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#78

Post by cantSpellSober »

mantas wrote: post #75
cantSpellSober wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're describing a difference in sex vs gender. From the linked article: > Gender [...] involves a set of behaviors and norms that shape how men and women act, prescribe how they ought to be, and specify what it means to be a man or a woman > ... Unlike in any other animal, gendered behavior in humans is wildly different across cultures Sex needs a definition too: > Sex appeared to be purely, simply genetic—until 1…

It's funny that many languages don't have this „gender vs sex“ separation. For example in my native language there's just one word to describe man/woman option. Some people try to bend over and invent new terms. That doesn't play well with claiming that somehow this „gender vs sex“ separation is not a new cultural phenomena.

Is Lithuanian your native language? Does this word not fit the defintion? https://www.techdico.com/translation/english-lithuanian/tran...

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#79

Post by giantg2 »

rsynnott wrote: post #36
giantg2 wrote: post #11

"(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.

Do you mean biological purpose? This may be the wrong question to ask; gender is arguably to a large extent part of _culture_, which is more or less the stuff that we've built on top of biology. There's no _biological_ reason that ancient Celtic women were allowed own property while contemporary ancient Roman women were a literal possession of their father or husband and ancient Greek women weren't really allowed lea…

I understand that historically. However, I would argue that those restrictions were actually by sex as changing gender was not really an option back then. Even if one tried, I assume most cultures would still enforce those ideas based on sex.

We have very few restrictions on gender today, and the ones we do have still tend to exclude transgender individuals (combat roles, some levels of some sports, some bathrooms). So I'm having trouble understanding in general what a tangible benefit would be. For example, what changes for a man that dresses to look like a woman if they say they are a man vs they say they are a woman (or some other identity)? Are all the physical attributes and actions the same? If someone wants to be a specific gender that's fine, but does that actually change anything they could or couldn't do as their prior gender in today's world?

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#80

Post by jonnycomputer »

lordloki wrote: post #48
SubiculumCode wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, I am a scientist that studies sex and gender in autism.

You're a quack who's using very rare anomalies in sex to falsely conflate sex and gender. You are doing harm.

Looking over the comments associated with your account, I'd say you're just a troll.
Post reply on HN