Ruff Sex and Sneaky Fuɔkers
In other species "genderbending" is a deceptive heterosexual mating strategy. It needs to be explored as such amongst LGBTQ+ radicals, who demand access to female spaces.
The Ruff (Calidris pugnax) is a bird of the sandpiper family originating from Finland. Their generic name comes from the male birds ornamental feather “ruff” which he uses to display in reproductive contests. David Lank is a biologist and evolutionary ecologist studying the reproductive strategies of birds at Simon Fraser University in Canada. The males of this species are highly unique as they appear to have three different “genders” which, unlike other species, do not appear to be triggered by environmental inputs. They are genetic. Lank calls these three morphs
the Territorial aka Independent
the Wingman aka Satellite
the female mimics aka Faeder
Crucially, these ‘genders’ are all heterosexual males who use differing strategies to reproduce with females. The female mimics are not trans lesbians. They are small, low status, low testosterone heterosexual males, tricking females to get sex. They are sneaky fuckers (SN’s).1The scientific name for the SN reproductive strategy is kleptogamy, meaning stolen mating.
In most species, males compete for mating opportunities in a variety of overt ways: they fight other males, or show off beautiful plumage, using respectively, weapons or ornaments.
The male Ruff reproductive strategy generally follows the normal case with 85% using overt territorial defence. The second most common is the strategy of “wingman” is where a male of lesser condition feigns friendship with the superior, until a female approaches when he suddenly becomes a rival. We can recognise in these two strategies a variety of human literature and movie plots, my personal favourite being in Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo.
Then we have the mimic which represents just 1% of the Ruff male population. Not the normal case. Mimic males are not ornamented unlike the other two morphs, instead resembling unornamented females. Here, Lank states,
“Unable to attract females themselves, they lie in wait by the other males, and try to jump on an approaching female.”
Though research is scant, I do believe we have a version of the mimic reproductive strategy in humans where male criminals feign the opposite gender in order to gain access to a captive population of females in women’s prisons. It’s clear policy makers could use the advice of evolutionary ecologists before allowing sexual predators masquerading as transwomen into women’s spaces.
Unlike other species which can switch sex or ‘gender’ depending on environmental inputs, the Ruff strategies are not facultative (unlike in humans): It is inherited genetically. Not biologically — many people confuse genetic causation with biological. Biology is influenced by environmental factors and the leading hypothesis regarding human male homosexuality is a developmental one regarding hormonal anomalies in the female womb.
So this is not the gotcha many trans activists will think it is.
If we can find genetic markers for this fixed reproductive strategy in birds, we can also find it in humans. We haven’t. Also, these “gender” polymorphisms exist to aid heterosexual reproductive success and are not linked to sexuality. Note also, that bird species have differently categorised sex chromosomes of ZZ and ZW, with the males being the homomorphic sex (ZZ) whereas in humans it is the females (XX). Generally, it is thought that the sex expressing homomorphic chromosomes is the “default” sex: meaning all embryos begin as the sex with homomorphic chromosomes. The homomorphic sex continues, unmolested by hormones, to mature into that sex. Those embryos with the heteromorphic sex however (ZW or XY), go though either de-masculinization by exposure to oestrogens (as in female birds) or de-feminisation by exposure to androgens (as in human males). This is why in biology, chromosomes are not the defining characteristic of an organisms sex.
Other species in which males use the SF mating strategy are cuttlefish.
Again, this is a heterosexual mating strategy, not an expression of individual cuttlefish identity, and this is the normal case amongst all species of sexually reproducing species, whether they change sex or, supposedly, “gender.”
This model of sexual opportunism most definitely needs to be explored amongst LGBTQ+ radicals.
Origin of the term is unknown but “sneaky fucker strategy” has been used in evolutionary scientific literature since the 1970s. Best bet is John Maynard Smith (1920 – 2004) a British theoretical and mathematical evolutionary biologist and geneticist.
I'm sure you've read about the side-blotched lizards?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-blotched_lizard
They have three mating strategies with a rock-paper-scissors outcome. Basically, the big 'alpha male' orange blotches can chase off the 'beta male' blue blotches, who can chase off the 'sneaky' yellow blotches...who pick off the lizard ladies at the margin of the orange blotches' big territories.
“... they appear to have three different ‘genders’ ...”
Interesting use of “gender” to denote different “morphs”, though probably somewhat non-standard which is probably the reason for quoting the term.
But probably quite justified, at least to the extent that we might say gender is any set of sexually dimorphic traits, and those sandpiper morphs would certainly seem to qualify as such. Following suit, we might also say that heights in humans is also a gender – at least a trait in a multi-dimensional gender spectrum – since men are, on average, some four inches taller than women. You might have some interest in my elaboration on that theme:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
But looking at your bio, I see that your Supervisor is David Schmitt who, if it’s the same fellow, was front and center at the Santa Fe Boys’ “Big Conversation ... on the origins, mechanisms, and meaning of sex/gender differences" last October. Did you perchance attend? I only attended via the Zoom meetings which were still informative.
But I had hoped, many people had hoped -- all being somewhat disappointed -- that it might come to a consensus as to what "sex" and "gender" actually referred to and denoted. The closest they came to that was the closing "Round Table (2) Discussion", Schmitt being a panelist -- which was still somewhat illuminating:
https://santafeboys.org/recordings-of-the-big-conversation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRW_II_-iFY&t=758s
Something of a major problem that there are so many conflicting definitions for both sex and gender.
But curious about your “dysmemics”, a rather uncommon word, and one I hadn’t run across before. About the only illuminating search result is a definition on Tim Tyler’s “On Memetics” which defines it as “the study of bad memes”:
https://on-memetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/dysmemics.html
More or less accurate? But no shortage of those I guess