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.
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.
Haha, "sneaky fucker strategy" is not mincing words. In German we have the "Beischlafbettler" which describes the technique of aping feminist positions as "Frauenversteher" with the aim to gain sex.
ICYMI and maybe of some interest and relevance, my comment in a thread on gender versus gender identity -- objective versus subjective -- wherein I quote and link to this post of yours on kleptogamy:
“... 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:
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:
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”:
Yes. I'm using the term in "inverted commas" for a reason. Non-human animals don't have genders in the way humans do.
They are morphs because they are caused by polymorphisms.
I think height is both genetic and environmental. A child may have inherited tall genes but if he is starved and malnourished, he will not reach his full potential.
Are men on average 4 inches taller than women? That would strike me as being ecologically variable. There are differences of course, men are typically larger & heavier but I don't know if the average is 4 inches and if that's the global average, it doesn't tell us much as a descriptive statistic. It's actually very misleading to laymen.
David Buss asked me for some feedback on his last book BAD MEN (I'm in the acknowledgements) and I noted that he had done what most publishers insist on doing and use "gender" when they mean "sex". I advised him against doing this and he agreed but I don't have my library with me in Thailand and I cannot remember if he or his publisher won.
I dropped out of uni so Dave Schmitt is no longer my supervisor. He is quite sympathetic to the woke side these days.
I use dysmemics as you would dysgenics which is a term describing the selection of deleterious genes and traits in a population due to a decline in the reproductive fitness of individuals with higher levels of intelligence, education, or other desirable traits. Only with ideas in culture.
Paula: ".... morphs because they are caused by polymorphisms"
Hadn't realized the equivalence with "phenotype" which is of some relevance in other discussions I'm having, primarily on the definitions for the sexes: "... polymorphism is the occurrence of two or more clearly different morphs or forms, also referred to as alternative phenotypes ..."
Kind of the proverbial paradigmatic case of bimodal distributions.
Paula: "... what most publishers insist on doing and use 'gender' when they mean 'sex'. I advised him against doing this ..."
Good for you. You might be "amused" by this oldish case from a review of fisheries journals:
Usage of “Sex” and “Gender”; Ogle, & Schanning
Taylor & Francis: “We searched for gender in the main text … of all issues of all American Fisheries Society journals, the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, and Fisheries Research (FR) published before 2011 to assess the use of the word ‘gender’ in fisheries-related scientific publications. ‘Gender’ was used incorrectly in 308 of the 311 (99%) articles reviewed and was used correctly only once in a nongrammatical usage …”
Talk about bad ideas that threaten civilization. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this article on the Substack "TransAtlantic" on the Royal Society, gender identity, and the "scientific disposition":
TA: "Regardless of your take on Science with a capital S, and whatever might be your epistemological tastes, this ingrained skeptical disposition toward the word of others has been a keystone of modern reason for at least 364 years. .... The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
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.
Haha, "sneaky fucker strategy" is not mincing words. In German we have the "Beischlafbettler" which describes the technique of aping feminist positions as "Frauenversteher" with the aim to gain sex.
ICYMI and maybe of some interest and relevance, my comment in a thread on gender versus gender identity -- objective versus subjective -- wherein I quote and link to this post of yours on kleptogamy:
https://benryan.substack.com/p/trump-claimed-the-nih-spent-8-million/comment/98996390
“... 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
Yes. I'm using the term in "inverted commas" for a reason. Non-human animals don't have genders in the way humans do.
They are morphs because they are caused by polymorphisms.
I think height is both genetic and environmental. A child may have inherited tall genes but if he is starved and malnourished, he will not reach his full potential.
Are men on average 4 inches taller than women? That would strike me as being ecologically variable. There are differences of course, men are typically larger & heavier but I don't know if the average is 4 inches and if that's the global average, it doesn't tell us much as a descriptive statistic. It's actually very misleading to laymen.
David Buss asked me for some feedback on his last book BAD MEN (I'm in the acknowledgements) and I noted that he had done what most publishers insist on doing and use "gender" when they mean "sex". I advised him against doing this and he agreed but I don't have my library with me in Thailand and I cannot remember if he or his publisher won.
I dropped out of uni so Dave Schmitt is no longer my supervisor. He is quite sympathetic to the woke side these days.
I use dysmemics as you would dysgenics which is a term describing the selection of deleterious genes and traits in a population due to a decline in the reproductive fitness of individuals with higher levels of intelligence, education, or other desirable traits. Only with ideas in culture.
Paula: ".... morphs because they are caused by polymorphisms"
Hadn't realized the equivalence with "phenotype" which is of some relevance in other discussions I'm having, primarily on the definitions for the sexes: "... polymorphism is the occurrence of two or more clearly different morphs or forms, also referred to as alternative phenotypes ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)
Paula: "... Are men on average 4 inches taller than women?"
About 7% difference in global averages; significant differences depending on nutrition & living conditions, and by country:
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394004/
Kind of the proverbial paradigmatic case of bimodal distributions.
Paula: "... what most publishers insist on doing and use 'gender' when they mean 'sex'. I advised him against doing this ..."
Good for you. You might be "amused" by this oldish case from a review of fisheries journals:
Usage of “Sex” and “Gender”; Ogle, & Schanning
Taylor & Francis: “We searched for gender in the main text … of all issues of all American Fisheries Society journals, the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, and Fisheries Research (FR) published before 2011 to assess the use of the word ‘gender’ in fisheries-related scientific publications. ‘Gender’ was used incorrectly in 308 of the 311 (99%) articles reviewed and was used correctly only once in a nongrammatical usage …”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YSRoUyfKay7mjw9Rs_fffOLkybnuWfR/view?usp=drive_link
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03632415.2012.687265
Currently paywalled on Taylor & Francis, but I snagged a copy before then & uploaded it to Google Drive.
Paula: "He is quite sympathetic to the woke side these days."
A disconcerting sign of the times; "Invasion of the Pod People":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Pod_People
Talk about bad ideas that threaten civilization. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this article on the Substack "TransAtlantic" on the Royal Society, gender identity, and the "scientific disposition":
TA: "Regardless of your take on Science with a capital S, and whatever might be your epistemological tastes, this ingrained skeptical disposition toward the word of others has been a keystone of modern reason for at least 364 years. .... The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/self-id-or-nullius-in-verba-between