3 ms·
From the article: > Within each gender, white-striped birds are more aggressive while tan-striped birds are more nurturing. That seemingly simple generalizatio
by bko 2y ago
From the article:
> Within each gender, white-striped birds are more aggressive while tan-striped birds are more nurturing. That seemingly simple generalization is based on a vast amount of research. For many years, Falls and his students at the University of Toronto carried out highly detailed studies of White-throated Sparrows, showing how behavioral differences between the morphs touched every aspect of these birds’ lives.
Why would you define this variation that's associated with behavior "gender"? Isn't the whole distinction between gender and sex is one is biological and the other societal? If there is a hereditary biological indicator that determines this behavior, shouldn't it fall outside of the gender concept? I don't know how useful it is to add these human constructs to the biological world when it could be easily observed and discussed without the confusion
- mandmandam 2y ago> Why would you define this variation that's associated with behavior "gender"? People use imperfect analogies all the time. Also words can have multiple meanings, especially across different fields. No one is complaining that their electrical 'resistors' are confusing their understanding of non-violent resistance. > Isn't the whole distinction between gender and sex is one is biological and the other societal? In people. These are birds. See above about words having multiple meanings. > If there is a hereditary biological indicator that determines this behavior, shouldn't it fall outside of the gender concept? Why would it. A, applying the "gender concept" of humans to birds is silly. B, "hereditary biological indicators" and gender can overlap in humans too. > it could be easily observed and discussed without the confusion I don't see at all why it would be confusing, and no one else seems confused. The English language does this literally all the time.
- empthought 2y agoThe "genders" analogy is a conceit of this article's author alone. It is not what any researcher uses. The remarkable feature of these birds is not the behavioral divergence but the underlying genetic factors driving dissortative mating. If any analogy is appropriate, it's "sex" not "gender." https://www.nature.com/articles/539482a https://www.nature.com/articles/539482a
- notgoodrobot 2y agoI find the whole discussion of gender here distracting from the science. I don't see how using gender makes the point more clear.
- cauch 2y agoOn top of what is said in the other comment (indeed, "gender" is perfectly fine, there is no real confusion), it's also worth noting that the "more aggressive" and "more nurturing" sparrows have a different color, and color is a biological trait. I think that the distinction between "biological" and "cultural" is a bit of a non-issue for the professionals. They don't know if it's cultural or biological, but it does not matter, and in fact, the reality is probably that untangling cultural from biological is impossible (not in the sense that the culture is a direct result of the biology, but in the sense that biological development does not care to make the distinction if the conditions that shape its direction are biological or cultural, and that a final trait is therefore the result of a complicated mix of the two).
- beowulfey 2y agoGender is being used here as "trait arising from genetic sex + behavior". It's not the same as the human social construct, but it is analogous. It's also not commonly used in biology in this way from what I've seen, for what that's worth.
- empthought 2y agoIt's never used in biology in this way. It is political activism.
- mandmandam 2y agoYou think using the word 'gender' while describing the mating preferences of white-throated sparrows is "political activism"? Good grief. ... But I have to ask: to what end? What political group is massively benefiting from this insidious ornithological analogy?