Darwin on sex and dimorphism

Useful quotes in case the thought police come calling about a poem.

“Individuals of the same species often present, as is known
to every one, great differences of structure, independently
of variation, as in the two sexes of various animals”


“Nevertheless these cases
are only exaggerations of the common fact that the female
produces offspring of two sexes which sometimes differ from
each other in a wonderful manner.”
“In some instances the males
alone, in other instances both males and females, have been
observed thus to differ in a slight degree. When the differ-
ences are rather more strongly marked, and when both
sexes and all ages are affected, the forms are ranked by all
entomologists as good species.”

SEXUAL SELECTION 101 If the numbers be wholly kept down by the causes just indi- cated, as will often have been the case, natural selection will be powerless in certain beneficial directions; but this is no valid objection to its efficiency at other times and in other ways; for we are far from having any reason to suppose that many species ever undergo modification and improvement at the same time in the same area. SEXUAL SELECTION. Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestica- tion in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature. Thus it is rendered pos- sible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selec- tion in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case ; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs. This leads me to say a few words on what I have called Sexual Selection. This form of selec- tion depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural se- lection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory depends not so much on general vigour, as on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving numerous offspring. Sexual selection, by always allowing the victor to breed, might surely give in- domitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the wing to strike in the spurred leg, in nearly the same manner as does the brutal cockfighter by the careful selection of his best cocks.

Among other mentions throughout and in other books of his.

Female sexual selection is good for the species, according to Darwin, as you can plainly see.

Americans butcher the English ‘gender’, a psychological CONCEPT (i.e. not reality) to mean ‘sex’, a biological term from Darwinian theory and sexual dimorphism. That’s a false equivalence.

Discussing biological realities of sex is a distraction from the biological realities of race.

200 Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start)

This gallery contains 16 photos.

Originally posted on JayMan's Blog:
At long last, I reach my 200th blog post. It’s been a quite a ride! Blogging on human biodiversity – or simply humanity – has taught me a great deal. Since the start, I hoped that I could offer some meager contribution to mankind with this blog. I will…

Millennial women rejecting feminism, long for hearth and home


…The increasing conservatism of the younger generation is not something that has gone unnoticed by the left and right-wing alike. Guardian columnist John Harris reacted with utter horror after meeting real young people all across Britain as part of the Guardian’sAnywhere But Westminster exercise in trying to find “real politics”, and finding them to be remarkably conservative – even if they didn’t self-identify as ‘big-C’ Conservatives. He said:

“I was reminded of another very modern syndrome: the fact that as you progress down the age range, opinions about the job market and welfare state tend to harden, to the point that droves of twentysomethings sound like devout Thatcherites… this has become almost a given. Quiz people under 30, in short, and you’re more than likely to hear echoes of the kind of on-yer-bike, sink-or-swim values that decisively embedded themselves in British life when they were mere toddlers”….

Like I said in Best Post, we aren’t falling for it. We’re women, not workhorses.

We’ve seen all the divorced, the spinsters and the bitter and gone –

Yet the Left don’t see these people weren’t brainwashed, they grew up in a time of Leftist dominance. They know they’ll be on the target list eventually, useful pawns for their ideology. They refuse to be further used. What has the Left done for us? Replaced our jobs with immigrants, shut down our lolz on social media, nixed our hobbies for imaginary offences, crashed our parties with people who refuse to grow up and we can’t get a decent savings account, let alone a car (insurance, all those safety regulations) or a house.

The best proof of human sex differences yet (neuroscience ftw)

PDF at: http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2014_Ruigrok_Meta_Sex_Differences.pdf

It’s a meta-analysis, the highest possible standard.
This is irrefutable.
It deserves a full-read.

clapping well done you tony

I want to bask in awe at this paper.

Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

Page at: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823

PDF at: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823.full.pdf

The connectome is important. There are blood flow differences, electrical signalling differences and these are now proof of pathway differences. Literally, observable (spatial) differences in the neural network.

Under significance;

Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species. [DS: worth reminding] This work is highly significant because it studies a very large population of 949 youths (8–22 y, 428 males and 521 females) using the diffusion-based structural connectome of the brain, identifying novel sex differences. The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.

This supports the ideas of the masculine and feminine brains as separate evolved developments a la Baron-Cohen. I doubt the people selling “we’re the same” would like these results, and it explains why they haven’t got better publicity because Narrative sells.
claudia boleyn baby impression crying
Biological proof of gender (psyche) differences too (the “gender binary” is based in biology!). And since the connectome informs function and behaviour, gender roles too!

Want to see the best proof in this study?

Tell a feminist today. Smugly.




I mean, come on. The caps let you know it’s serious academic work… Do you have any excuse? If you pretend to care about this stuff. It’s a desperate attempt to make the “gender binary” disappear while using the exact genetics which prove it beyond a doubt. As well as your eyes, I mean. It’s a 200+ page lesson in doublethink. I literally don’t have enough words to mock this.


I mean, Exeter. Bottom of the rung.

Abstract; [bold mine]

Genetic sex -the apparent fundamental biological cause of the two male and female
human varieties– is a 20th century construct. Looking down the microscope, the stained
chromosomes are concrete countable entities and lend themselves easily to genetic
determinism. As the chromosome composition of a person is generally fixed at the time
of conception, when a Y- or X-bearing sperm is united with the X-bearing egg, a
person’s genetic sex is taken as permanent and unchanging throughout their life.
Drawing upon gender theory as well as science and technology studies this thesis
explores how our particular construction of the concept of ‘genetic sex’ relies on four
features of biological sex (binary, fixed, spanning nature, and found throughout the
body) and in addition proposes one unique feature, inheritance.
The empirical research is based on an analysis of popular science books as well as two
case studies of how genes relate to sex determination and development. The analysis of
the metaphors used in these books and journal articles reveals how now, with genomic
efforts to explore gene expression profiles, there is a shift away from seeing genes as
having ‘responsibilities’ for determining phenotypes towards seeing them play a role
along with other genes in genetic cascades where other factors such as timing can be
incorporated. The analysis of genomic features such as imprinting and X-chromosome
inactivation also provide evidence that such a change should be recognised.
Those are diseases. They are recognised. As diseases.
Rather than seeing sex in terms of fixed and static differences and similarities, current research
offers new ways of conceptualising similarities and differences as dynamic and
responsive to environment. This supports wider understandings of ‘biology’ as relying
on the interactions between genetic processes, cellular environment, and tissue
environment – in which the social physicality of bodies is important in forming and
maintaining a person’s biology and genetic processes. Yet as the historical analysis of
the shift between the one sex to two sex model indicates, it remains to be seen whether
the social sphere will respond by incorporating this new evidence into the tacit,
everyday understandings of sex or seek to maintain the binary and fixed relationship(s)
between men and women by governing them as males and females.