#evolution >**Gender**, then, was invented as a means of resolving the conflict between the cytoplasmic genes of the two parents. Rather than let such conflict destroy the offspring, a sensible agreement was reached: All the cytoplasmic genes would come from the mother, none from the father. Since this made the father’s gametes smaller, they could specialize in being more numerous and mobile, the better to find eggs. **Gender** is a bureaucratic solution to an antisocial habit. ~ [[Matt Ridley]] #game-theory Specialization, as in [[Business 🔨]], worked well in nature. [[Feminism]] still want man & woman to do the exact same thing, not understanding we are different animals, one specialized for some tasks, the other for another, that does not mean women should do the kitchen and raise the child, it means maybe women are better at, say, [[Mathematic]] while men are better at [[Physic]] (purely random, probably false). # Males are not necessary >But the scientists did notice that vaccinating the fowl against fowl pox with a live virus increased the proportion of eggs likely to begin developing without sperm, from 1-2 percent to 3-16 percent. By selective breeding and the use of three live viruses they were able to produce a strain of Pozo Gray turkeys nearly half of whose eggs would begin to develop without sperm.' ~ [[Biology/Matt Ridley|Ridley]] Rip brothers we might create humans without males? 😭 # High rank individuals are more likely to produce males >The most intriguing results, however, were those that con cerned social status. Tim Clutton-Brock of Cambridge University studied red deer on the island of Rhum off coast. He found that the mother's condition had little effect on the gender of her calves, but her rank within the social group did have an effect. Dominant females were slightly more likely to have sons than daughters.** >Clutton-Brock's result alerted primatologists, who had long suspected biased sex ratios in various species of monkey. In the Peruvian spider monkeys studied by Meg Symington, there was a clear association between rank and gender of offspring. Of twenty one offspring born to lowest-ranked females, twenty-one were female; of eight born to highest-ranked females, six were male: those in the middle ranks had an equal sex ratio." ~ [[Biology/Matt Ridley|Ridley]] # How to artificially create males https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23415540_Hoechst_33342_The_dye_that_enabled_differentiation_of_living_X-and_Y-chromosome_bearing_mammalian_sperm # Let's not have gender >This implies that a cheap technology allowing people to choose the **gender** of their children would indeed unbalance the population sex ratio. Choosing the gender of your baby is an individual decision of no consequence to anybody else. Why, then, is the idea inherently unpopular? It is a [[Tragedy of the common|tragedy of the commons]]-a collective harm that results from the rational pursuit of self-interest by individuals. Similar topic links: [[Gender]] [[Biology/Sex]] [[Feminism]] [[Evolutionary psychology]] [[Matt Ridley - The Red Queen Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature]]