dimorphism

Down with the sexists who believe that humans exhibit sexual dimorphism!

Keywords were variations of "early late risers dimorphism predators". I will look a little more later.

I thought Unix greybeards were like Tolkien's dwarves in exhibiting little sex-based dimorphism.

An uncontroversial case of sexual dimorphism is a male spider which is three times smaller than its female counterpart.

Sexual dimorphism has large and powerful effects in most sexually reproducing species, including humans. Hair color, as far as we know, is just about pigment.

Yes, we have significant gender dimorphism in our hormones and neurotransmitters. It's very likely that at some level, that's relevant.

But what if modern liberal ideology is wrong and human beings do exhibit sexual dimorphism? Will we ever stop firing researchers who hypothesize this long enough to find out?

This provides lodestars of only one sex, and their interplay cannot as effectively teach children to interact with peers of both sexes because there is no sexual dimorphism among the parents. >Shall we also ban divorce?

But for a biologist, humans as a species are not known for and do not stand out for their sexual dimorphism, compared to other species. Which leads me to conjecture that the differences and problems with sexism are more related to the social construct of gender.

It's very hard for us to overlook sexual dimorphism in everything we do, and it's not even clear we should. It's however very trendy nowadays to pretend that it doesn't exist, probably for political correctness reasons.

In a perfectly fair world, men and women would behave differently due to comparative advantage and specialization based on sexual dimorphism. Feminism, in seeking an equal world, denies reality and quite a bit of science.

There is evidence for gender dimorphism in humans, but he takes that evidence and does a Forrest Gump run with it all the way off the field and into the bleachers. He also ignores huge numbers of counter-examples to his thesis and mistakes statistical means for universal laws.

Sexual dimorphism is incredibly common in the animal kingdom, and humans are not an exception. You are setting up a non-falsifiable belief system that asserts that men and women cannot be different above the neck.

Our understanding of sexual dimorphism, intersexual conflict, and behavioral patterns based upon divergent mating strategies is quite sound and cohesive. The real question is, why do people take these "social scientists" seriously regarding subjects in which they have no expertise?

It's clear that sexual dimorphism in humans is profound in some respects and superficial in others. Since the Y chromosome regulates sexual development, and since males do get some metabolic modifications, saying the Y influences protein synthesis in vital tissues is mostly a truism.

Also, there is solid biological reasons for believing a species like ours with modest amounts of sexual dimorphism will have substantial behavioral differences between sexes. I have severe doubts about the perfect equality hypothesis, which seems to be the default assumption of liberals.

I'm not closed to the idea of sexual dimorphism - but I think the significant variance between specimen of either gender possibly makes a strong argument for designing systems not to necessarily differentiate based on gender, so that they not ill-serve the individual. I do think it's silly to say that being educated and career-oriented is in conflict with central "womanly qualities" or that such women automatically exhibit masculine traits, though.

But the biology underlying sexual dimorphism of the visual system is definitely real and the fact that a sex hormone is involved may not be surprising since if, for example, an androgen receptor is expressed in a certain cell type in the retina and that cell type is in the circuit for parallax depth perception and that receptor enhances the response to differential parallax by say, depolarizing that specific cell type, then only males will have that enhancement.