Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tippit said:
I think it boils down to male physical strength, cunning, and to a certain degree ruthlessness. Women, throughout history, have basically been unable to compete favorably in warfare, hand-to-hand combat, and as a consequence, military strategy (with some exceptions, notably Joan of Arc, et al.) This necessitated women to seek protection from other men, and being prized for their beauty. While women are undoubtedly capable of excellence in most non-athletic circles of competence, they still rely on protection from men, whether it's a spouse, boyfriend, or, more commonly the state in 2020.
Click to expand...

Concealed Carry: The Greatest Equalizer

Just sayin'
 
theprestige said:
Male peacocks preen because they have a biological imperative to preen, that is not shared by female peacocks. Men and women have different social imperatives in different times and places in human history. In some societies, in some time periods, men do a lot more preening and women a lot less. It's not like peacocks, which are fully constrained by their biology.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm fully following you. We might be saying the same thing with different words.

It's only a "biological imperative" because it's what peahens select mates on. And since the females of the species are the ones doing the selecting, the non-survival attributes that they select for end up being passed down through generations.

To some extent, that's also true for humans. Generally speaking, men select for perceived reproductive capability - youth, lack of physical defect, indicators of health, etc. Make-up is one of the ways that women signal their sexual fitness - even if it's an artificial signal, because we're smart enough to game the system. Make-up mimics some of the signals of reproductive capability and receptivity.

So, to a degree, there's still a biological drive to demonstrate fitness for sexual selection (rather than survivability). But in a complex social system with tool-makers, there's a social overlay that influences how we go about creating those signals.

Same is true for men. There's a biological component to signal reliability, status, ability to provide and protect, etc. But the trappings, the social elements that are used to create those signals, vary from culture to culture and over time.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not sure I'm fully following you. We might be saying the same thing with different words.

It's only a "biological imperative" because it's what peahens select mates on. And since the females of the species are the ones doing the selecting, the non-survival attributes that they select for end up being passed down through generations.

To some extent, that's also true for humans. Generally speaking, men select for perceived reproductive capability - youth, lack of physical defect, indicators of health, etc. Make-up is one of the ways that women signal their sexual fitness - even if it's an artificial signal, because we're smart enough to game the system. Make-up mimics some of the signals of reproductive capability and receptivity.

So, to a degree, there's still a biological drive to demonstrate fitness for sexual selection (rather than survivability). But in a complex social system with tool-makers, there's a social overlay that influences how we go about creating those signals.

Same is true for men. There's a biological component to signal reliability, status, ability to provide and protect, etc. But the trappings, the social elements that are used to create those signals, vary from culture to culture and over time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

You said:

"One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate."

Which seemed to me to be saying that it is always only ever the female human who preens. Kind of like it is always only ever the male peacock who preens. I don't agree with this.

But it seems like you're actually saying that it's not always only ever the female human who preens. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I do agree with this.

What exactly did you mean by that statement?
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

You said:

"One of the challenges here is that humans are one of the only species where the female is the one who preens and displays to attract a mate."

Which seemed to me to be saying that it is always only ever the female human who preens. Kind of like it is always only ever the male peacock who preens. I don't agree with this.

But it seems like you're actually saying that it's not always only ever the female human who preens. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I do agree with this.

What exactly did you mean by that statement?
Click to expand...

The majority of the visual "preening" - coloring, prettifying, etc - is done by females. Not universal, but much more so than in most other species. In most other species the males are the visually stimulating variants, and the females are the "blend in with the background" variants.

It wasn't intended as a universal truth, just an observation of a different selection pattern among humans.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes, men preen as well, but the bulk of the display behaviors are presented by women. It's a bit different from most other species, where generally the female is the plain-jane, and the male is the one with exorbitant eye-catching displays.
Click to expand...

Have you ever observed the human teenaged Male attempt to attract a mate?
 
I’ve gone over ~30 pages of the thread. People here have made some good points (e.g. Emily’s Cat); my apologies if I reiterate some of these. I think I bring a slightly different perspective than what I’ve seen here: I have a long background as an academic biologist (~21 years post PhD) with research foci in genetics/epigenetics, developmental/repro bio and comparative/ evolutionary bio + teaching in those areas. I moved to clinical genetics several years ago.

For definitional purposes, I’m going to start with the traditional definition of woman = adult human female. I had not thought much about these issues until earlier this year when the JKR controversy erupted. I was disturbed to see people on Twitter referring to sex as a spectrum and/or mutable within an individual, often in concert with the TWAW mantra. These folks often pointing to opinion pieces in Nature and Scientific American to justify these beliefs. Diving into it, I saw that people were conflating primary sex with sex development/secondary characteristics as well as sexuality and sexual identity.

I (foolishly) tried to point this out to some and came to realize that many were not interested in a discussion but apparently just to ‘pwn’ the TERFs and what they believe to be bigots. While there were certainly some of the latter (typically right-wing), there also appeared to be plenty of people with well-reasoned positions - Specifically a lot frustrated/angry women (I noted the prominent presence of lesbians - who seem to be particular target of trans-activist vitriol - and anti-female genital mutilation activists).


Among the oft repeated claims was that ‘female’ can’t be rigorously defined - the unspoken argument often being that if they could find a single exception to the definition I was using, then anyone could be female. I saw a well-put rejoinder on medium entitled An Open Letter to the Guy on Twitter Who Wonders if Biological Sex is Real (the gist being that these claims are disingenuous).


Most these folks are missing the bigger picture: Sex is originally and fundamentally about reproduction. Moreover, there is an obligate binary in mammalian reproduction: one oocyte and one sperm are required for normal development. It’s accepted that sex is the preferred mode of reproduction due to its ability to generate genetic diversity via novel allelic combinations.

I (& many other biologists) define the two reproductive classes that produce these two gamete types as the (only) two sexes. Note that this definition works across species, which is necessary to understand biology in a comparative and historical framework. This definition also makes extrapolation from other species to humans possible. For example, the identification of the SRY locus that triggers mammalian male development was discovered via pain-staking experiments in lab mice, and can illuminate sex differences in other areas where human experiments are not feasible.

There is overwhelming evidence that the process of human development into two sexes is homologous with the process that occurs in all other mammals. I bring this up to make the point that if one wishes to change the definition of what constitutes one of these classes in humans without extending it to other mammals, it is by definition special pleading.

Unfortunately, I think denial of the biology is real, and not a fringe position any more - e.g. the prominent ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio saying: "biological sex" was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people. Some of the trans-activists do a ‘motte and bailey’ on this, but it seems to me to be an intensifying pattern to claim that biological sex is fuzzy/can be changed/unimportant (see the dubious phrase: sex ‘assigned’ at birth).

The bigger point that seems to me to be ignored is why females have been nearly ubiquitously oppressed: Females are the limiting factor in mammalian reproduction. They produce far fewer gametes and bear nearly all of the reproductive costs, including all of the prenatal expenditure (where embryos develop essentially as parasites). Evolutionary theory would suggest this is why males try to control female bodies and maximize female expenditure for their own offspring (see work on this by noted theorists Bob Trivers, David Haig, WD Hamilton et al.). For aficionados - the genes I studied for many years - so-called imprinted genes - are thought to have had their unique expression patterns emerge as a direct result of these parental conflicts.

Note that if females are relatively plentiful, it makes sense (short term) to have more male offspring to maximize reproductive fitness. I (not uniquely) think this is a likely hypothesis as to why sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect have led to ~100 million ‘missing women’ across Asia. Regardless, I agree with the many women who suggest that these large biological disparities in energy expenditure/commitment related to reproduction are intrinsic to their treatment. In fact, the only other group I can think of that likely will face intrinsic unfair treatment due to evolutionary pressures are certain groups of the disabled.

I understand that words may change meaning. However, changing the definition of word with a precise definition (women) that applies to the largest oppressed class of people (females) to a circular version against the wishes of those already involved seems ill-advised. I’d like a future where we try harder (worldwide) to equalize treatment of females (acknowledging intrinsic the female-male behavioral differences that lead to rape and violence by the latter) and reduce gender stereotypes/expectations.

I feel they (females) should have their own spaces, sports, and that positions should be set aside in areas where they are under-represented. To be clear, we (obviously) should not discriminate against anyone, but reconciling that with the push of (some) trans-activists that trans-women should be considered as identical to adult human females will be difficult. I hope there will be a more wide-spread nuanced discussion - changing the current tenor seems a prerequisite for such talks.

PS - as I was typing I this I see the focus shifting to sexual selection, which I agree is key.
 
Welcome to the forum. Quite an impressive post number 1.

I want to make just one comment about your post. There's plenty of noteworthy things, but I'm just going to comment on one.


Louden Wilde said:
but it seems to me to be an intensifying pattern to claim that biological sex is fuzzy/can be changed/unimportant (see the dubious phrase: sex ‘assigned’ at birth).
Click to expand...


This is one of the things that truly makes my head spin. I get how people can say that biological sex isn't important. I disagree, but I can grasp the idea. However, as you note, there's a trend among some people to say that it isn't even real. It's invented. It's "fuzzy". It "can be changed". I can get that someone might identify, whatever that means, as someone of the opposite sex, but I can't grasp the concept that maybe there is no such thing as an opposite sex, or that sex is just some sort of social construct.
 
Meadmaker said:
This is one of the things that truly makes my head spin. I get how people can say that biological sex isn't important. I disagree, but I can grasp the idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks !- agreed- that is well put. I honestly don't know where to start when I see those kinds of claims:confused:
 
The others also are puzzling to me, but I think I agree that biological sex is not important in certain respects.

It is not important for how anyone should present or behave, or for how we are supposed to feel, nor important for how we should dress, walk or speak and so on and so forth
 
Louden Wilde said:
Note that if females are relatively plentiful, it makes sense (short term) to have more male offspring to maximize reproductive fitness. I (not uniquely) think this is a likely hypothesis as to why sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect have led to ~100 million ‘missing women’ across Asia. Regardless, I agree with the many women who suggest that these large biological disparities in energy expenditure/commitment related to reproduction are intrinsic to their treatment. In fact, the only other group I can think of that likely will face intrinsic unfair treatment due to evolutionary pressures are certain groups of the disabled.
Click to expand...

Sorry but need to call you on this as it is crap.

The basic role of females and males is to create more of them.

Which would mean more females is better
 
It is true that in some societies neither of us live in if you are a dude you get more rights, but this is secondary to the basics.

Male sperm mixed with female makes more people.
 
cullennz said:
Sorry but need to call you on this as it is crap.

The basic role of females and males is to create more of them.

Which would mean more females is better
Click to expand...

You are disagreeing with a very well qualified biologist posting facts? Really?
 
Welcome Louden. An excellent factual post which will inevitably result in you being called a TERF and bigot.
 
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out if one side can make off spring and one side can make millions of sperm,animals would go to get more of the former,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom