Why is having separate male and female bodies in the human species a good or even a bad thing?

[JohnDBarrow]

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up?  I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. 

She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. 

As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women are looked upon as naturally weaker and less competent. We still have a Girl Scouts for absolutely females only but there is no longer a male-only Boys Scouts. It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant. 

 

[iNow]

First, there more than just male and female. Second, it’s neither good or bad. It just is. Sex differentiation began long before humans existed. Perhaps on some other planet in some other galaxy there are no sexes, but on earth there are. Also, don’t conflate cultural norms and nurture teachings with something inherent in X versus Y chromosomes.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up?  I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. 

She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. 

As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women are looked upon as naturally weaker and less competent. We still have a Girl Scouts for absolutely females only but there is no longer a male-only Boys Scouts. It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant. 

 

The biological aspect of your question has already been addressed in your previous thread, hasn’t it?

The social observations you now make seem on the face of it a bit ridiculous. If you really think the way the scout movement is organised shows the male of our species is becoming irrelevant,  it looks as if you are getting things out of perspective. But I note the reference to your mother.  Are you a Boy Scout, or something? 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

First, there more than just male and female.

Considering that the context seems to be reproduction, that is a reasonable limitation (i.e. large and small gamete producers). But then it does indeed make no sense to focus on the human species for the rest of the, I am not sure what to call it. Argument?

[JohnDBarrow]

I'm not here to argue anything. I came to ask questions. I want to know what YOU think the answers might be. If you don't honestly know the answers then please say you don't know. I'm only seeking opinions. I focus on the human species because there is a cultural aspect of the sexes not possessed by other animals. Female dogs don't wear lipstick. 

Edited April 18 by JohnDBarrow

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up?

The only answer to that question is, it work's for humans among other's.

What's the point of the question?

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I'm not here to argue anything. I came to ask questions. I want to know what YOU think the answers might be. If you don't honestly know the answers then please say you don't know. I'm only seeking opinions. I focus on the human species because there is a cultural aspect of the sexes not possessed by other animals. Female dogs don't wear lipstick. 

But you are not only asking questions. You are making contentious assertions - or at least advancing contentious opinions -  too.

You say it seems that the male of the human species is becoming less relevant. You cannot expect us all to go along with this without challenging it, because it is patently ridiculous. The human male has dominated human societies for millennia and a quick glance at the sex of those occupying positions of power and influence in modern societies will show you they are still predominantly male.

We can't just answer your questions, if your questions start from a false premise. Surely you must understand that? 

[TheVat]

Thread seems real similar to another thread started Sunday by same poster, with some of the same questions raised.  Just curious why two threads needed.

 

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Thread seems real similar to another thread started Sunday by same poster, with some of the same questions raised.  Just curious why two threads needed.

 

Suspect the biological question was to open the door to these dubious social ideas now being advanced. We shall see.

 

[Peterkin]

15 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant. 

Male humans may be losing some of the excess power they have had, simply due to their apparent gender, since urban civilizations began. In tribal societies, there was not always such disparity between the roles assigned to people according to sex. As enlightened societies realize that the unequal arrangement relegated half the creative, intelligent population to drudgery and servitude, and thus wasting half of the nation's potential productivity, while numbers increased faster than the economy could support. Thence the trend toward equal votes, education and employment opportunity for both sexes. 

It's not a question of relevance; merely of visibility.   

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I focus on the human species because there is a cultural aspect of the sexes not possessed by other animals. Female dogs don't wear lipstick. 

You call them "cultural" aspects, but other animals do have them. Is there much difference between lipstick and some of the stuff crabs and birds and insects decorate themselves with? 

I also disagree that gender roles have become "confused". I think they've changed and adapted the way animals are supposed to. Our society needs to move past the horrible Abrahamic patriarchy that continues to stifle so many intellectual and creative pursuits. I think the answer has always been to cooperate more with each other in every role, and compete less amongst ourselves overall. That should go double for how men and women work together. Having both masculine and feminine perspectives to draw from seems like brainy, human behavior.

[CharonY]

Conflating cultural and biological aspects generally makes poor arguments as it pre-supposes some natural order that folks should adhere to. While I am not (yet) saying that this is the case here, it is often a tactic used to push a narrative under the guise of "just asking questions", as we have seen in the past. So far OP seems to continue to ignore clarifications and counter arguments, though.

[Peterkin]

Social organization among other species, as well as early editions of humankind, is about what works - what best supports the survival and welfare of the community. In more recent editions, with entrenched elites and non-welfare directed agendas, the social organizations of humans tended toward imbalance of various kinds.

War-like nations built their social structure around the needs of the military: produce replacement soldiers as efficiently as the generals could get them killed; indoctrinate the population with patriotic zeal, a habit of obedience and the virtues of self-sacrifice. Agrarian societies valued manual labour, humility and reverence for the landowner class. Each kind of social organization serves a discernible purpose; when it's no longer serviceable, it adapts - but not without strenuous resistance by those who benefit from the status quo.   

[iNow]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

So far OP seems to continue to ignore clarifications and counter arguments

[julius2]

I approach this discussion more about how did male and female come about?

In this world we need both male and female for reproduction and furthering the species. It could be animals (lions, tigers etc) or humans.

But is this generally a requirement overall? Is it possible that reproduction can occur with non-sex entities? (Not found, but a thought question).

Did the first micro-organisms have male / female. If not, how did male / female develop? Does nature find it advantageous to have a male / female setup?

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, julius2 said:

In this world we need both male and female for reproduction and furthering the species.

Except of course where it is not needed in this world.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

But is this generally a requirement overall? Is it possible that reproduction can occur with non-sex entities? (Not found, but a thought question).

Many organisms reproduce asexually (basically all prokaryotes, a range of animals, plants and fungi). Then there is sexual reproduction among hermaphrodites, and I feel I forgot another method for some reasons.

The development of sexual reproduction is a bit perplexing from a genetics perspective as instead of inheriting all your genes to the next generation, you now only provide half. This is referred to as the two-fold cost of sex.