7 ms·

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 constr

by kleiba 4y ago

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.

mseepgood 4y ago
> animals do not have socially constructed genders. How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?
- krona 4y ago
  Their behaviour could be grouped in ways not derived primarily by sex?
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  The article links to another one[1], which might be boiled down to > [...] 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/ https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
- rsynnott 4y ago
  If you define socially constructed to mean a _human_ sort of society (which is probably how most people will read this, and the most reasonable way to read it), then they don't by definition. I suspect to some extent you could argue this either way for social insects, however; is their 'society' so biologically programmed in that the pseudo-gender identities it _appears_ to create don't count? There are also some primates which have, if not societies, things which look suspiciously like societies, of course. Still, the statement is probably basically true, with a little fuzziness around the edges.
- burnished 4y ago
  Probably just simple observation - if culture was an element then we would expect to see diverging behaviors in different groups. Wouldnt require communicating.
ben_w 4y ago
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 biology fact: the males get pregnant!" See also: "There's no such thing as a fish", and "how many moons does the Earth have?"
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  Back when I was taught Biology in school, “female“ meant “having the larger gamete”.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    Huh, is this actually universal? I'd have guessed there'd be at least one or two exceptions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - krisoft 4y ago
      There are no exceptions to it if you make it the definition. Which is what the comment of BuyMyBitcoins says was taught to them.
      - rsynnott 4y ago
        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.
        4y ago
cantSpellSober 4y ago
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 1966, when a French zoologist discovered that the rainbow agama lizard did, in fact, rely on an environmental factor to determine sex ...no need to regurgitate the "anti-woke" talking points on this one.
- rayiner 4y ago
  The assertion that gender is “socially constructed” does merit the anti-woke talking point. Mammals have social roles based on biological sex: female penguins do one thing, male penguins do a different thing. Gender in humans isn’t fundamentally different. Like everything else, humans have layered social and cultural constructs on top of sex and gender. For example, cultures have different ways of marking the transition from childhood to adulthood. But the fact that e.g. a bar mitzvah is a cultural construct doesn’t mean that the behavioral and social changes accompanying puberty aren’t rooted in biology.
  - cantSpellSober 4y ago
    Gendered behavior in humans is different; it's wildly different across cultures. > The assertion that gender is “socially constructed” Who asserted this? A straw man?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RajT88 4y ago
    > 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 nature. Human cultures like to ascribe gender roles to most of these things, but in reality most of what people do doesn't have any implicit gender role associated with it, since it's pretty far removed from biological functions at this point. Even in nature, the things people and animals do doesn't always neatly align with gender roles. For example, child rearing or even bearing live young is sometimes done by the male, even though it's usually a female gender role. What's different between us and animals (as is usually the case) is our big thinky brains, and the things which follow on from that.
iagooar 4y ago
> animals do not have socially constructed genders Do people do?
- lenlorijn 4y ago
  Yes
- burnished 4y ago
  Consider the various expected roles of men and women across time and culture, specifically where those expectations change as a consequence of the culture changing. If people did not then you wouldnt really expect any differences that could not be better accounted for by environmental factors.
garte 4y ago
I'm impressed: the article is about the rich diversity of different sexes in nature (it does not even go into gender) but all you are getting out of it is some anti-woke sentiment? Could you please re-read the article and at least absorb the complexity of sex and biology in nature in general? At least be a bit amazed how little we seem to grasp about reproductive processes even on a biological level. And then maybe even feel the need a little to reflect how the article might mean that you're not living in such "sad times" but (maybe) the opposite.
- prepend 4y ago
  I think my biggest complaint about culture war topics is that it makes perfectly normal discussions (“let’s talk about this article”) turn into long back and forth on an unimportant topic like sex vs gender. I think it’s just a shiri’s scissor [0] to draw energy away from productivity. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
pron 4y ago
That gender and sex overlap yet aren't identical is a relatively recent scientific discovery that many people haven't yet learned. It's helpful, therefore, to mention gender when discussing the related subject of sex.
msm_ 4y ago
This is not a disclaimer, this is a prompt to click a link to their another article [0]. [0]: https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/ https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/

by kleiba 4y ago

mseepgood 4y ago

> animals do not have socially constructed genders. How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?

krona 4y ago
Their behaviour could be grouped in ways not derived primarily by sex?
red_trumpet 4y ago
The article links to another one[1], which might be boiled down to > [...] 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/ https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
rsynnott 4y ago
If you define socially constructed to mean a _human_ sort of society (which is probably how most people will read this, and the most reasonable way to read it), then they don't by definition. I suspect to some extent you could argue this either way for social insects, however; is their 'society' so biologically programmed in that the pseudo-gender identities it _appears_ to create don't count? There are also some primates which have, if not societies, things which look suspiciously like societies, of course. Still, the statement is probably basically true, with a little fuzziness around the edges.
burnished 4y ago
Probably just simple observation - if culture was an element then we would expect to see diverging behaviors in different groups. Wouldnt require communicating.

ben_w 4y ago

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 biology fact: the males get pregnant!" See also: "There's no such thing as a fish", and "how many moons does the Earth have?"

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
Back when I was taught Biology in school, “female“ meant “having the larger gamete”.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  Huh, is this actually universal? I'd have guessed there'd be at least one or two exceptions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - krisoft 4y ago
    There are no exceptions to it if you make it the definition. Which is what the comment of BuyMyBitcoins says was taught to them.
    - rsynnott 4y ago
      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.
      - 4y ago

cantSpellSober 4y ago

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 1966, when a French zoologist discovered that the rainbow agama lizard did, in fact, rely on an environmental factor to determine sex ...no need to regurgitate the "anti-woke" talking points on this one.

rayiner 4y ago
The assertion that gender is “socially constructed” does merit the anti-woke talking point. Mammals have social roles based on biological sex: female penguins do one thing, male penguins do a different thing. Gender in humans isn’t fundamentally different. Like everything else, humans have layered social and cultural constructs on top of sex and gender. For example, cultures have different ways of marking the transition from childhood to adulthood. But the fact that e.g. a bar mitzvah is a cultural construct doesn’t mean that the behavioral and social changes accompanying puberty aren’t rooted in biology.
- cantSpellSober 4y ago
  Gendered behavior in humans is different; it's wildly different across cultures. > The assertion that gender is “socially constructed” Who asserted this? A straw man?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RajT88 4y ago
  > 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 nature. Human cultures like to ascribe gender roles to most of these things, but in reality most of what people do doesn't have any implicit gender role associated with it, since it's pretty far removed from biological functions at this point. Even in nature, the things people and animals do doesn't always neatly align with gender roles. For example, child rearing or even bearing live young is sometimes done by the male, even though it's usually a female gender role. What's different between us and animals (as is usually the case) is our big thinky brains, and the things which follow on from that.

iagooar 4y ago

> animals do not have socially constructed genders Do people do?

lenlorijn 4y ago
Yes
burnished 4y ago
Consider the various expected roles of men and women across time and culture, specifically where those expectations change as a consequence of the culture changing. If people did not then you wouldnt really expect any differences that could not be better accounted for by environmental factors.

garte 4y ago

I'm impressed: the article is about the rich diversity of different sexes in nature (it does not even go into gender) but all you are getting out of it is some anti-woke sentiment? Could you please re-read the article and at least absorb the complexity of sex and biology in nature in general? At least be a bit amazed how little we seem to grasp about reproductive processes even on a biological level. And then maybe even feel the need a little to reflect how the article might mean that you're not living in such "sad times" but (maybe) the opposite.

prepend 4y ago
I think my biggest complaint about culture war topics is that it makes perfectly normal discussions (“let’s talk about this article”) turn into long back and forth on an unimportant topic like sex vs gender. I think it’s just a shiri’s scissor [0] to draw energy away from productivity. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

pron 4y ago

That gender and sex overlap yet aren't identical is a relatively recent scientific discovery that many people haven't yet learned. It's helpful, therefore, to mention gender when discussing the related subject of sex.

msm_ 4y ago

This is not a disclaimer, this is a prompt to click a link to their another article [0]. [0]: https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/ https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/