It’s a little unclear if you are asking for resources about the diversity of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual selection strategies in nature, OR about the ways in which they are misconstrued by society-- either by ignoring the diversity of nature to favor a heternormative and gender essentialist narrative, or by too closely feeling that what is natural is what should be considered good and just (the naturalistic fallacy).
I, myself, am authoring studies on the latter topic, but the field is so small that by sharing specific examples, I seriously risk doxxing myself (and others with whom I work closely on a politically fraught topic).
One also needs to understand the former before meaningfully engaging with the latter anyway, so I highly recommend the book Evolution’s Rainbow by Stanford ecologist Joan Roughgarden. The book is written in plain language (intended for a wider audience than just biology researchers) and details the (at the time-- 2009, with an updated edition from 2016) present summary of known ecological examples of organisms behaving in ways that counter the human social norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. She goes on to discuss the molecular basis of sex and gender in humans, including what is know about difference in brain structures and gene regulation, and then she contextualizes these examples in sociological terms. I think the book is a little dated at this point, and there was some conflict amongst biologists about aspects of the book that aren’t related to what we’re discussing (related to her modification of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection), so it isn’t perfect, but it’s basically the first thing any junior scholar is asked to read regarding this discussion topic. I think it will provide you with what you are looking for, seeing as it cites hundreds of studies in tens of fields of biological sciences relating to sex, gender, and sexual orientation in humans and other organisms.
Some key facts (mostly covered in the book) that you or others might find interesting:
Homosexual behavior (same sex mating behavior) has been documented in fish, insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, Invertibrates, and over 100 species of mammals
Intersex bodies are common in nature, with many organisms either having characteristics of both sexes at one time or changing sex over the course of their lifetime. This is commonly found in “higher order” animals as well, and some populations of large mammals (like deer or bears) have been documented to have MOSTLY intersex individuals.
Heterosexual mating is not required for reproduction, with documented examples of two sperm, two eggs, or just a single sperm or egg being enough to produce viable offspring in some circumstances. When homosexual mating is observed, it often increases the reproductive fitness of the participants
The “sex roles” (unfortunate terminology, imo) of organisms are not a fixed norm, and we have many examples where the expectations you might have based on human societies for division of labor and activities are inverted or ignored entirely (such as birds where the males stay home and incubate eggs while the females compete with each other using displays of dominance and promiscuity)
Although it doesn’t make sense to describe animals as having gender identities (due to those terms being intended for self-description among human social groups), it is worth pointing out that we do have many examples among animals where individuals of the same sex may have distinct categorical social dynamics, morphologies, and social roles (and that human gender identity does appear to have some underlying biological basis, although I will emphasize that it is non-deterministic and non-essentialist). There’s a discussion happening in the field about whether it is worth the potential downsides to describe these animals as having multiple genders within a single sex, so as to normalize and explain to non-biologists that human gender identities are mirrored by other organisms and are valid according to biological science
documented examples of two sperm, two eggs, or just a single sperm or egg being enough to produce viable offspring in some circumstances. When homosexual mating is observed, it often increases the reproductive fitness of the participants
Do you have a link for this? Never heard about this before
Booth et al. (2014). “New insights on facultative parthenogensis in pythons”. Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 112(3)461-468
Two sperm:
Tinti, F. and Scali, V. (1992). “Genome exclusion and gametic DAPI-DNA content in the hybridogenetic Bacillus rossius-- grandii benazzii complex (Insecta Phasmatodea)”. Molecular reproduction and development, 33(3)235-242
One egg:
Ryder et al. (2021). “Facultative parthenogensis in California Condors”. Journal of Heredity, 112(7)569-574
One sperm (surprised me too!):
Heesch et al. (2021). Evolution of life cycles and reproductive traits: insights from the brown algae." Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 34(7)992-1009
These examples are non-exhaustive (so many parthenogensis examples!) so if you want to know more, or if you’re interested in learning about the increased reproductive fitness post-homosexual mating activities, no one primary publication will give you a complete picture. I recommended reading the book I mentioned-- Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden-- because it details this in ways I can’t summarize in a social media comment.
Those who carefully read my previous replies will notice that I absolutely did not step over this question. The book I recommended details more than just animal and ecological examples, it also addresses physiological differences people of different sexes, sexual orientations, and gender identities.
Here’s the truth: the binary categories of male and female are not simple biological ones. Organisms cannot be neatly categorized as male or female, including humans. To put humans into these boxes is to ignore huge grey areas in our understanding of the biology underlying these traits. Even among XX or XY individuals, sex characteristics are polygenic and vary continuously, meaning that even looking at a person’s karyotype (which, you should understand, we hardly ever do) you could not reliably predict the appearance of external genitalia, the presence or absence of other sex characteristics like body hair or breasts, or the identity or orientation of a person.
Although I do not personally believe that having an underlying biological justification is necessary for a trans woman to be a valid woman, there definitely are physiological and biological realities that validate her experiences. Moreover, I don’t think we determine womanhood by biology at all-- for example, a XY human with complete androgen insensitivity would likely not even know HERSELF that she had a Y-chromosome, perhaps for her whole life, and you-- a random person on the street-- would be absolutely unable to tell.
If the question is, then, is there natural precedent for an organism’s sex chromosomes to be unpredictive of their sex characteristics or social roles? The answer is YES, unequivocally. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to be able to intentionally change their sex? The answer is YES, absolutely. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to have a social role that does not match the standard for individuals of their sex? The answer is also YES, 100%, certainly.
Thus, if the question is, are trans people representative of the norms of nature and the biological sciences? The answer is: You fucken BET.
Anyone who claims that trans women are somehow categorically distinct from other women is ignoring how loose the boundaries of womanhood already are. They are trying to twist the facts present under close examination of the biological world to fit their own human social narrative of gender essentialism. The facts of biology are absolutely on the side of trans individuals, this is the consensus among researchers-- and it is being ignored for political purposes in the same way the consensus among researchers on climate change is being ignored.
Like I said, I don’t have all day to engage on this, especially since almost everyone talking about trans people in relation to biological essentialism is not engaging in the discussion in good faith. The take home message is this: if you are earnestly wanting to understand what biological science says about trans people, go read that book, and listen to myself and other experts that trans women have every right and every fact on their side to support their identities.
I just want to be clear (not to this person but to anyone reading) that they are wrong.
They are assuming what they will read as evidence in books and literature. It’s frankly kind of astonishing that I can say “I’m an expert, I’m a biologist, and trans women are women with tons of biological evidence for that validity” and then have this person say “AH but the SCIENCE says I’m right, you just have FEELINGS!”
To be clear, the science says I’m right, the feelings are irrelevant. Toodles!
Wtf are you talking about? They didn’t get emotional, they cited sources, they explained clearly that you’re wrong. But you can’t see past your desire to invalidate trans people to even bring yourself to attempt to refute any of the points they laid out, calling the actual research scientist immature and emotional. Once again, every accusation is a confession.
Not everyone appreciates the acquisition of knowledge
You certainly don’t.
It has been explained to you that XX doesn’t always equal female and XY doesn’t always equal male and yet you ignore this as you can’t make an argument against it.
It has been explained to you that biological sex is a separate thing to gender, yet again you ignore it as this flies in the face of your argument.
It has been explained to you that sexual dimorphism has so many exceptions that it can’t be a rule, but once again, no refutation because you lack any knowledge beyond your desire to feel superior in your belief that you are right.
You say you’re not transphobic, but I believe words are cheap, actions are important, and your actions are very telling.
Can I ask why you want science to validate someone’s lived experience? Isn’t the happiness of an individual when you call them their preferred name or gender more important than some sanctity that can be derived through the scientific method?
It just so happens that science has found repeatedly that trans people live better lives when their identities are affirmed, but why should you need that when you could just be nice to people without it causing you any issues whatsoever?
It’s a little unclear if you are asking for resources about the diversity of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual selection strategies in nature, OR about the ways in which they are misconstrued by society-- either by ignoring the diversity of nature to favor a heternormative and gender essentialist narrative, or by too closely feeling that what is natural is what should be considered good and just (the naturalistic fallacy).
I, myself, am authoring studies on the latter topic, but the field is so small that by sharing specific examples, I seriously risk doxxing myself (and others with whom I work closely on a politically fraught topic).
One also needs to understand the former before meaningfully engaging with the latter anyway, so I highly recommend the book Evolution’s Rainbow by Stanford ecologist Joan Roughgarden. The book is written in plain language (intended for a wider audience than just biology researchers) and details the (at the time-- 2009, with an updated edition from 2016) present summary of known ecological examples of organisms behaving in ways that counter the human social norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. She goes on to discuss the molecular basis of sex and gender in humans, including what is know about difference in brain structures and gene regulation, and then she contextualizes these examples in sociological terms. I think the book is a little dated at this point, and there was some conflict amongst biologists about aspects of the book that aren’t related to what we’re discussing (related to her modification of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection), so it isn’t perfect, but it’s basically the first thing any junior scholar is asked to read regarding this discussion topic. I think it will provide you with what you are looking for, seeing as it cites hundreds of studies in tens of fields of biological sciences relating to sex, gender, and sexual orientation in humans and other organisms.
Some key facts (mostly covered in the book) that you or others might find interesting:
Do you have a link for this? Never heard about this before
Absolutely!
Two eggs:
Booth et al. (2014). “New insights on facultative parthenogensis in pythons”. Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 112(3)461-468
Two sperm:
Tinti, F. and Scali, V. (1992). “Genome exclusion and gametic DAPI-DNA content in the hybridogenetic Bacillus rossius-- grandii benazzii complex (Insecta Phasmatodea)”. Molecular reproduction and development, 33(3)235-242
One egg:
Ryder et al. (2021). “Facultative parthenogensis in California Condors”. Journal of Heredity, 112(7)569-574
One sperm (surprised me too!):
Heesch et al. (2021). Evolution of life cycles and reproductive traits: insights from the brown algae." Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 34(7)992-1009
These examples are non-exhaustive (so many parthenogensis examples!) so if you want to know more, or if you’re interested in learning about the increased reproductive fitness post-homosexual mating activities, no one primary publication will give you a complete picture. I recommended reading the book I mentioned-- Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden-- because it details this in ways I can’t summarize in a social media comment.
Removed by mod
This is the last comment I will make to you.
Those who carefully read my previous replies will notice that I absolutely did not step over this question. The book I recommended details more than just animal and ecological examples, it also addresses physiological differences people of different sexes, sexual orientations, and gender identities.
Here’s the truth: the binary categories of male and female are not simple biological ones. Organisms cannot be neatly categorized as male or female, including humans. To put humans into these boxes is to ignore huge grey areas in our understanding of the biology underlying these traits. Even among XX or XY individuals, sex characteristics are polygenic and vary continuously, meaning that even looking at a person’s karyotype (which, you should understand, we hardly ever do) you could not reliably predict the appearance of external genitalia, the presence or absence of other sex characteristics like body hair or breasts, or the identity or orientation of a person.
Although I do not personally believe that having an underlying biological justification is necessary for a trans woman to be a valid woman, there definitely are physiological and biological realities that validate her experiences. Moreover, I don’t think we determine womanhood by biology at all-- for example, a XY human with complete androgen insensitivity would likely not even know HERSELF that she had a Y-chromosome, perhaps for her whole life, and you-- a random person on the street-- would be absolutely unable to tell.
If the question is, then, is there natural precedent for an organism’s sex chromosomes to be unpredictive of their sex characteristics or social roles? The answer is YES, unequivocally. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to be able to intentionally change their sex? The answer is YES, absolutely. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to have a social role that does not match the standard for individuals of their sex? The answer is also YES, 100%, certainly.
Thus, if the question is, are trans people representative of the norms of nature and the biological sciences? The answer is: You fucken BET.
Anyone who claims that trans women are somehow categorically distinct from other women is ignoring how loose the boundaries of womanhood already are. They are trying to twist the facts present under close examination of the biological world to fit their own human social narrative of gender essentialism. The facts of biology are absolutely on the side of trans individuals, this is the consensus among researchers-- and it is being ignored for political purposes in the same way the consensus among researchers on climate change is being ignored.
Like I said, I don’t have all day to engage on this, especially since almost everyone talking about trans people in relation to biological essentialism is not engaging in the discussion in good faith. The take home message is this: if you are earnestly wanting to understand what biological science says about trans people, go read that book, and listen to myself and other experts that trans women have every right and every fact on their side to support their identities.
Just wanna say, I really appreciate your in depth responses! ❤️
Removed by mod
I just want to be clear (not to this person but to anyone reading) that they are wrong.
They are assuming what they will read as evidence in books and literature. It’s frankly kind of astonishing that I can say “I’m an expert, I’m a biologist, and trans women are women with tons of biological evidence for that validity” and then have this person say “AH but the SCIENCE says I’m right, you just have FEELINGS!”
To be clear, the science says I’m right, the feelings are irrelevant. Toodles!
Removed by mod
Wtf are you talking about? They didn’t get emotional, they cited sources, they explained clearly that you’re wrong. But you can’t see past your desire to invalidate trans people to even bring yourself to attempt to refute any of the points they laid out, calling the actual research scientist immature and emotional. Once again, every accusation is a confession.
Removed by mod
You certainly don’t.
It has been explained to you that XX doesn’t always equal female and XY doesn’t always equal male and yet you ignore this as you can’t make an argument against it.
It has been explained to you that biological sex is a separate thing to gender, yet again you ignore it as this flies in the face of your argument.
It has been explained to you that sexual dimorphism has so many exceptions that it can’t be a rule, but once again, no refutation because you lack any knowledge beyond your desire to feel superior in your belief that you are right.
You say you’re not transphobic, but I believe words are cheap, actions are important, and your actions are very telling.
Can I ask why you want science to validate someone’s lived experience? Isn’t the happiness of an individual when you call them their preferred name or gender more important than some sanctity that can be derived through the scientific method?
It just so happens that science has found repeatedly that trans people live better lives when their identities are affirmed, but why should you need that when you could just be nice to people without it causing you any issues whatsoever?
She’s a woman. Next question?
Removed by mod