Yeah but they still need to make sure they can have them.
Which means more females and being pickier about the blokes
Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4
- Thread starter Boudicca90
- Start date
- Status
Yeah but they still need to make sure they can have them.
Which means more females and being pickier about the blokes
Embarrassing.
Put it this way
Dice
The one is a female
The two and rest are dudes.
Only the one can make another dice
2 - 6 can get 1 to create one.
2 = Great guy
3 = bit of a git
4 = Uber git
5 = Far out
6 = Oh my god!
2 - 6 can all make 1 have another dice if they hang out
To keep going, if that were animals which would want to make sure you had enough of?
Dice
The one is a female
The two and rest are dudes.
Only the one can make another dice
2 - 6 can get 1 to create one.
2 = Great guy
3 = bit of a git
4 = Uber git
5 = Far out
6 = Oh my god!
2 - 6 can all make 1 have another dice if they hang out
To keep going, if that were animals which would want to make sure you had enough of?
You do realise in most western countries there are more females than males?
Not at birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
Average 1.07 males to female
but India and China are 1.11?
It is almost like I might as well not bothered typing the word western
Last edited:
Among humans that would mean many lone mothers raising children that remain dependent for many years, unlike - say - cattle or sheep where the young need a mother's care for a much shorter time.
It's marginal in Europe, hovering around 1:1 in the overall population, but:
"Differences in birth rate are insignificant in Europe (the sex ratio at birth falls between 1.05 and 1.07 in virtually all European countries; i.e. there are around 6% more boys born than girls on average)."
Longer female life expectancy presumably explains the slightly higher ratio of females:males in the overall population.
link
Last edited:
My point was it is hardly countries killing female babies end masse
Ffs. Just read the paragraph I questioned.
And argue against my point and for the paragrapgh
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
i read the paragraph. I'm not quite sure what exactly in that paragraph you are disagreeing with.
That females have somehow been driven down. When there are more of them than males in western society
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
The paragraph refers to "sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect". Which of those do you think is not happening?
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
The problem with that is that it doesn't fit. Several societies still exist today which do not follow these prescriptions and patriarchy didn't become the norm until the advent of agriculture and private property. Until then hunter-gatherer groups had a wide variety of social structures, with sex equality being the most common. The common ascent of private property (and inheritance of it) along with patriarchy makes a social explanation of patriarchy more likely than an evolutionary one.
Not only does this not explain why we'd specifically see this in Asia, but it is contradicted by the fact that China - the main country involved - has a highly skewed sex ratio against females. The places where this sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect are occurring are exactly the places where females are relatively rare.
And yet they didn't, as shown by the burial sites of disabled people demonstrating they were cared for and no less highly regarded socially. Don't you just love it when people refuse to follow the prescriptions of evolutionary theorists?
Louden Wilde
Muse
This. Yes - long term populations of mammals tend to approach 1:1 But there can ( & are) fluctuations. "More females is better" is not necessarily good for you passing on your genes (though it's safer). Males are greater risk , but potentially have greater reward.
Louden Wilde
Muse
Agreed it's great when people don't behave this way, but they often have (and do), unfortunately. There are many forces that could influence that behavior - genotype, environment (food and water abundance, maybe?, completion for resources - intra & inter-specifically).
What you're saying about China ( also evidence in India, as I recall) agrees with what I was saying- that those forces (sex-selective abortion, infanticide, neglect of female children) caused the skew. I'm not allowed to link, but ratio is getting closer to 1:1 recently.
My bigger point being that I think it's naïve to think that evolutionary pressures have played little/no role in how humans treat each other and particularly how this has impacted females. My thought is that is easier to minimize the effects of something you acknowledge.
Last edited:
Louden Wilde
Muse
Completely agree. One interesting thought experiment (apologies if this has been discussed) is if we achieve this (greatly reduced societal stereotypic sex behaviors), do we predict there will be more, less or about the same number of people declaring themselves trans?
To pass on your genes specifically, as opposed to the genes of the overall population, males offspring are more advantageous for mammals*. Your daughter can have 1 1/3 pregnancies per year while your son can be a participant in 365 per year (or more), assuming they are Dr. J.
So yes, the overall population would benefit by more females, but the individual parents looking to pass on their genes would get more ..um... bang for the buck with male children. Of course, for this to work, you need your neighbors to have lots of female children. You have to be remember because individual reproductive strategies are not necessarily the most effective for the population as a whole. So while you are making male babies and hoping your neighbors all have girls, your neighbor is doing the same thing.
That said, I think there are sociological issues in play in Asia. Whether those have origins in biology is an whole other question.
*Note that this doesn't apply to, for example, fish where a single female may lay or scatter hundreds or even thousands of eggs in a single spawning.
So yes, the overall population would benefit by more females, but the individual parents looking to pass on their genes would get more ..um... bang for the buck with male children. Of course, for this to work, you need your neighbors to have lots of female children. You have to be remember because individual reproductive strategies are not necessarily the most effective for the population as a whole. So while you are making male babies and hoping your neighbors all have girls, your neighbor is doing the same thing.
That said, I think there are sociological issues in play in Asia. Whether those have origins in biology is an whole other question.
*Note that this doesn't apply to, for example, fish where a single female may lay or scatter hundreds or even thousands of eggs in a single spawning.
That entirely depends on where the trans condition originates from. If it is biological/genetic in origin, then the number of trans people would be the same. If it's environmentally produced, then it's a more complicated question.
to set up a hypothetical society (Brave New World) where male and female people dress the same, have the same hairstyles, pursue the same career opportunities, etc. to the point where there are no gendered behavioral or presentation differences other than those dictated by biology, what would that look like? Essentially, a gender-free society. (But not sex-free.)
I guess first we would have to figure out what behaviors are biologically induced. I seriously doubt that there is a "wear dresses and makeup" gene, but there may be an "instinct to nurture children" gene or a gene that influences the decision to fight vs flight. So even in a perfectly egalitarian society in terms of opportunity and expectation, there may be some statistical gravitation towards certain activities related to sex. (Not gender.) Also, suppose there are no gendered pronouns. We don't really need them now, so we certainly wouldn't need them in Utopia.
The need for sex-segregated sports would not go away, unless we stopped considering females to be a separate group. In which case being female would just be another genetic characteristic that predisposed one to being uncompetitive in sports, similar to being short or frail.
Would separate changing areas be needed? Depends. If the danger to females from males is a biological thing, then perhaps. If it's because of social roles that we've eliminated in our Utopia, maybe not.
So lets say the trans-condition is biological in origin. There would be just as many trans people. But given that everyone presents and is treated the same, there would be no way to "present as..." or be "treated as..." so would a trans person even realize that they were trans if there was no difference in treatment, expectation, or presentation?
Actually, this leads to another question: suppose a trans-gene were located and could be tested for. And suppose that once detected in early childhood (or even before birth) a "gene therapy" or something could be given to a child that would align their mental development with their physical development. If doing so would eliminate a great deal of stress for the child, would parents be correct to do so?
- Status