Sex

Sexual Dimorphism

This is a picture of two angler fish. The big one is the female; the small one hanging off her underside is her mate - the male of the same species.

Females can grow to 1.2 m in length, while the males are generally fully grown at about 1.5 cm. As well as the size difference, they are structurally quite different too. The males lack a proper digestive system. When they find a female, they fuse to her for life and depend on her for nutrition. They provide sperm for reproduction without really bothering the female. The males don't need much of a brain either.

This is an extreme example of sexual dimorphism (difference between males and females of the same species). Many spiders, mantises etc. also display marked sexual dimorphism. Here are some other species more closely related to us.

Humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, though to a lesser extent than some other animals. Men tend to be taller and more muscular with more body hair, and of course the reproductive organs are quite different and only women have mammaries.

The sexes of most animal species tend to be different in their behaviour as well as their form. In general this is instinct rather than learned behaviour. Cows tend to be fairly docile, whereas bulls are much more likely to be aggressive and dangerous. This difference is built into the DNA and has evolved because males and females taking on different roles turns out often to be advantageous to the survival of the species. Cows take on the role of raising calves while bulls take on the role of protecting the herd from predators.

Sex-related Characteristics in Humans

Males and females of all species share most of their DNA and, as a result, most of their physiology and biochemistry is the same. But, in placental mammals at least, there is one pair of chromosomes that carries the code that detrmines sexual characteristics that are not shared. In humans, males get the Y-chromosome of the pair, whereas females get the X-chromosome. These chromosomes carry the information which determines differences in both physical form and behaviour.

The Y-chromosome results in males tending to be bigger, more muscular and more hairy than females who get the X-chromosome. But it also results in behavioural differences. Males tend to be more aggressive, more competitive and more willing to use violence against anyone who crosses them; they will more willingly engage in risky and dangerous behaviour and will get more of a thrill out of it.

Women are generally more likely to work to maintain good relations amongst their social group, family or tribe. They are more likely to want children and to be willing to take day-to-day care of children, theirs and others'. They are more likely to put effort into keeping their surroundings in good order and in a manner that promotes good health.

In the days that humans were hunters and gatherers, these difference led to family and tribal units that worked well and had the best chance of survival. Men would hunt wild animals and fight off other tribes. Both of these were challenging and dangerous activities that benefitted from extra size, extra strength, extra aggressiveness, a tendency to violence, and, importantly, a willingness to take risks and not shy away from danger.

Men who didn't have these characteristics were less likely to eat and to prevail in competition for resources with other tribes, and thus they were less likely to pass on their genes.

Women would keep the camp in order, raise and care for the young and generally maintain good relations within the tribal group. Also, if young children were to grow up, the survival of their mother was fairly essential. Thus the females who were less inclined to engage in risky behaviour were the ones most likely to pass on their genes.

These differences were passed down from the australopithecines and other primates from whom we descended. This adaptation had many millions of years to develop through evolutionary selective pressures.

Modern Society

Nowadays, most of us don't need to engage in hand-to-hand combat with wild animals or people from other tribes. Thus, these innate male characteristics have become somewhat redundant. In fact, violence, tendency to get in fights, agressiveness, risk taking behaviour like base jumping, hooning etc. (especially if it endangers others) are generally frowned upon, and these tendencies in men largely account for the fact that there are more than 10 times as many men in jail as there are women.

On the other hand, the traditionally feminine characteristics are as valued now as they ever were and men who are more like women in their behaviour are better adapted to modern life.

Thus, while women are generally free to live and behave in line with their inherited nature, men are not and have to be educated/socialised into behaviour that is more traditionally feminine. The success of this education/socialisation varies a lot, largely depending on the job the boy's parents do in bringing him up.

As a teacher, it has always been my experience, that girls are more likely to do what they are asked, get the work done and learn what they need to for success, wheras many boys are more interested in creating a disturbance.

Women

Through most of history, men have dominated women, as one would expect given their sex-related characteristics. They have generally asserted that women are less intelligent, less rational and less capable of making decisions that would guide their fellow humans in a beneficial direction.

But in the last century, most people have come to realise that women are no less intelligent than men, no less rational and no less capable of making good decisions. In fact, the inherited female behavioural characteristics should actually lead women to make decision more in line with peace and harmony than men's natural more confrontational charcteristics do.

A female Russian president probably wouldn't have invaded Ukraine and, even if she had, probably wouldn't continue to fight a war that has cost half a million Russian lives and a similar number of Ukrainian lives. In the same way, a female US president probably wouldn't have attacked Iran or declared economic war on the rest of the world. And a female head of state in Iran probably wouldn't have ordered tens of thousands to be shot for protesting against government policies on things like wearing hijabs.

It might well be expected that the world would be a better place if leadership was predominantly female rather than predominantly male. Female leadership is becoming more common, but bigotted male attitudes will require a lot more erosion before even equality of the sexes in that respect is achieved.

Reason will eventually prevail.