4 ms·

How are we to describe reproduction without reference to reproductive strategies?

belorn 2y ago
Reproduction is the outcome of a reproductive strategy, but we don't normally define sex as the result of which reproductive strategy an individual takes. Even calling it masculine or feminine is a bit strange outside of humans. For example, there are fish where it is the male that exclusively protect and manage the eggs. As such, the male expends more energy than females, or to use similar terminology as I did before, the males in that situation expends more energy on their reproductive strategy during reproduction than females. All that the females do is produce the eggs and then leave. It not unreasonable to predict, using tournament species theory, that the female is physically larger than the males, and the male being the one that choose which female they accept. This also happen to be what we generally can observe with such fish. So what sex should we describe them as? Should we then call the males as Juliets, and females as Romeos? Should we describe the males as being feminine and the females as masculine? Different schools and cultures will find different way to look at things. The article focused on genes, and specifically those defined by sex chromosomes and those that were not. The words they use are sex-related traits and genes associated with sex, in order to describe how traits and genes can then go and provide a variability in sex, while acknowledging that most of those genes are not associated with sex chromosomes. In the end it is multiple people looking a the same thing finding different theories and producing tests and predictions to test them. I personally view the article as being a bit too liberal in their anthropomorphism, attributing human behavior to that of animals in order to make connections between the two. I would not use the word masculine to describe a fish or a bird, or to describe it as sex variability in order to explain why their behavior is different from the expected human male or human female. Sex identification of animals is diffused enough that its only a rough approximation to what kind of gonads that they have, and in some cases that is not meaningful distinction and we can't actually make an identification.
- brigandish 2y ago
  > So what sex should we describe them as? Females, they produce large gametes as part of their reproduction strategy. You have twice argued for secondary characteristics to determine sex when reproduction strategy more than adequately describes the reproduction process, and we can then rely on our understanding of secondary sex characteristics (which can include behaviours) and their distribution (bimodal in humans) to apply them to things like whether mum or dad raise the children and oh, my, how interesting that is. > The words they use are sex-related traits and genes associated with sex, in order to describe how traits and genes can then go and provide a variability in sex They do not produce a variability in sex but in traits and behaviours associated with sex. Reproduction strategy, basically, gamete size, determines sex. That's that. > I would not use the word masculine to describe a fish or a bird And? > Sex identification of animals is diffused enough that its only a rough approximation to what kind of gonads that they have I will repeat, reproduction strategy is the determiner, for 95%+ (probably 98%+) of animals - that means gamete size. Gonads are a very good determiner, but they are still a trait and that means that in a small number of cases (around 0.018%[1]) they are ambiguous. That does not, in any way, contradict their actual sex as determined by gamete production, the fruits of emerged *reproduction strategy*. I suggest you stop looking for a way to get around reality, whether that be by sophistry or ignorance. [1] https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/ https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response...

Reproduction is the outcome of a reproductive strategy, but we don't normally define sex as the result of which reproductive strategy an individual takes. Even calling it masculine or feminine is a bit strange outside of humans. For example, there are fish where it is the male that exclusively protect and manage the eggs. As such, the male expends more energy than females, or to use similar terminology as I did before, the males in that situation expends more energy on their reproductive strategy during reproduction than females. All that the females do is produce the eggs and then leave. It not unreasonable to predict, using tournament species theory, that the female is physically larger than the males, and the male being the one that choose which female they accept. This also happen to be what we generally can observe with such fish. So what sex should we describe them as? Should we then call the males as Juliets, and females as Romeos? Should we describe the males as being feminine and the females as masculine? Different schools and cultures will find different way to look at things. The article focused on genes, and specifically those defined by sex chromosomes and those that were not. The words they use are sex-related traits and genes associated with sex, in order to describe how traits and genes can then go and provide a variability in sex, while acknowledging that most of those genes are not associated with sex chromosomes. In the end it is multiple people looking a the same thing finding different theories and producing tests and predictions to test them. I personally view the article as being a bit too liberal in their anthropomorphism, attributing human behavior to that of animals in order to make connections between the two. I would not use the word masculine to describe a fish or a bird, or to describe it as sex variability in order to explain why their behavior is different from the expected human male or human female. Sex identification of animals is diffused enough that its only a rough approximation to what kind of gonads that they have, and in some cases that is not meaningful distinction and we can't actually make an identification.

brigandish 2y ago
> So what sex should we describe them as? Females, they produce large gametes as part of their reproduction strategy. You have twice argued for secondary characteristics to determine sex when reproduction strategy more than adequately describes the reproduction process, and we can then rely on our understanding of secondary sex characteristics (which can include behaviours) and their distribution (bimodal in humans) to apply them to things like whether mum or dad raise the children and oh, my, how interesting that is. > The words they use are sex-related traits and genes associated with sex, in order to describe how traits and genes can then go and provide a variability in sex They do not produce a variability in sex but in traits and behaviours associated with sex. Reproduction strategy, basically, gamete size, determines sex. That's that. > I would not use the word masculine to describe a fish or a bird And? > Sex identification of animals is diffused enough that its only a rough approximation to what kind of gonads that they have I will repeat, reproduction strategy is the determiner, for 95%+ (probably 98%+) of animals - that means gamete size. Gonads are a very good determiner, but they are still a trait and that means that in a small number of cases (around 0.018%[1]) they are ambiguous. That does not, in any way, contradict their actual sex as determined by gamete production, the fruits of emerged *reproduction strategy*. I suggest you stop looking for a way to get around reality, whether that be by sophistry or ignorance. [1] https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/ https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response...