Something they didn’t tell us

Not so long ago, I discovered how literal men’s tapping on female energy was. Not just organised, political, social, but essential, constitutive of who they are. This finding takes me even further in the assumption that men’s organised system is a mirror structure that fits their elementary needs and biological constitution.

Mary Daly defines a plug as:

a male fitting used to make an electrical connection by insertion into a receptacle or body and having one or more contact making parts or blades that serve to close a circuit. (In Pure Lust, p. 24)

She then defines men as:

drainers of energy whose plugged-in fittings closed women’s circuits, sapping the flow of gynergetic currents so that these cannot circulate within / among women. (In Pure Lust, p. 24)

Well, it turns out that men are in fact plugged to female energy-makers.

Through mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

mtDNA are located in each and every cell and are separate from the nucleus (in which the nuclear DNA is located): there are always several of them in the cell. mtDNA, encoding 37 genes, are responsible for transforming the food given to the cell into energy – in other words, they are the unique source of energy for each cell. They are sometimes called the “engines” of the cell.  Reminds you something from biology lessons at school?

mitochondrial DNA

What teachers (male lie and bore-ducation) never told us in class is that mtDNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA, is transmitted only by the mother. That is, the DNA is purely female, and so the cell’s unique energy maker / energy transformer is female. It is transmitted generation after generation only by the mother. During conception, the mitochondries of the sperm, (located in the tail, which is what gives it the energy to propel itself) drop off before it enters in the ovula and it is the woman’s mitochondries that then give the energy for both nuclear DNA to fuse and duplicate, and it will thus be her mitochondries that she will transmit to her children, girls and boys alike.

This direct mother-to daughter lineage, with no or very little mutations from one generation to another, is why mtDNA is used in anthropology and biology to track the ancestry of species, as well as the orgins of different human ethnic groups, through female lineage.

Also, because there are several mitochondries in each cell as opposed to only one nucleus, they are usually better conserved, which means that the oldest human females have been dated back to 150,000 years, whereas males have not been traced back further than 50,000 years.

Another amazing fact is that all multicellular beings on earth  and some unicellular beings function with mitochondrial DNA (except with in vitro / lab fertilisation where the paternal mitochondria cannot be rejected !!!). Mitochondries are believed to be the ancestors or earliest cell forms on earth before being engulfed by today’s eukaryotic cells.

This also reinforces the claim that by default, all life is female, or that femaleness is the primary and elemental life form. Before men / maleness, there was only femaleness.

Men dependent on female energy to exist? Men visibly don’t like this fact.

I have not quoted any sources here because most provide selective, incomplete or misleading information or are in different languages: I’ve had to put the different pieces together myself. so I can’t be bothered to pile the sources up here but you can find it all on the internet very easily. So yes, in researching on mitochondrial DNA I noticed a pattern in the way the information was presented:

  • in sciencey / medical pages, the mtDNA was presented as the “engine or energy source of the cell” but they’d omit to say it was exclusively female and transmitted by the mother.
  • In anthropological sources, they would mention the female fact because this is what enables them to research on human lineage, but they’d omit to say that it represented the cell’s energy source.
  • If they mentioned both femaleness and energy-facts at the same time, they’d find ways to mitigate it: by saying it is mostly or usually  transmitted by the mother (instead of exclusively) or alternatively, by saying it is present in most  multicellular species (rather than in all multicellular species / species functioning with eukaryot cells).
  • Nowhere, of course, is there anything to be found about the significance of this fact on how men relate to women and on life matter in general. Or why this knowledge is generally kept unknown to the wider population,  and why we are prevented from making any connections between the different elements.

It was nonetheless surprisingly easy to put two and two together and read through men’s flimsy deceptions and bring the separate pieces together. The information is still out there and available. Maybe because they don’t expect us  to THINK about it?

Anyway I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears when I first discovered this fact. I did a happy dance and sang of joy all day.

Now i’d be interested in learning how and when maleness came about, whether it’s tied to the appearance of the eukaryot cell or if it came afterwoods, and whether it was always parasitic in nature or if it evolved that way over time. Or was it something that the mitochondries developed as a reproduction strategy, and it didn’t go as they wanted?  When did maleness begin to take the form of penis-into vagina for reproduction? Is maleness inherently oppressive to female life whichever the species, or is it, after all, only specific to human females and males? If so, is it specific to homo sapiens, or does it include all other previous human-cousin species? The research that shows evidence that the Y is a mutation and that is programmed to deteriorate to the point of extinction, seem to fit quite well with the mitochondrial DNA elements. And perhaps it might explain why men are so tied to their erections and ejaculations, because this is how they perpetuate their male species, by glueing male DNA into female bodies. Or maybe this only explains part of it and there is more to the picture. There are lots of theories to explore.

Anyway, mitochondrial DNA was discovered in th 60s, and I vaguely remember learning about it in biology class in high school, when we were studying cell structure and DNA – it was all very boring and of course they hid the most important information from us. But I’m very surprised never to have come accross this knowledge before in feminist articles, books or writings, even with radfems who have discussed biology and genetics in their work (Daly, Solanas, Johnson…). Is it really because none of us knew, or hadn’t had the opportunity to make the connection before? Or is it too taboo to mention?

I can’t wait to discuss this more.

 

Advertisements

19 Responses to “Something they didn’t tell us”


  1. 1 FCM June 16, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    theres probably a reason girls and women are specifically discouraged to enter and succeed in scientific fields. any woman who was female-identified enough and critical-thinking enough to notice all the male-centric bullshit might not enjoy the field at all, and at any rate would be in conflict with prevailing “knowledge” (phallocentric assumptions and propaganda) constantly and would certainly never be published. that means no academic tenure and no livelihood for those who are trying to make a living this way.

    that also means that *we* have no credibility to even discuss these subjects, or are not confident on our ability to discuss them. i know im not, nor do i even have enough information stockpiled to even be able to *think* about it. this isnt just thought-terminating put completely thought-precluding. and i have thought more than once that the solution to patriarchy and of womens oppression by men will be based in biology, or hard science (or even math/logic) and not sociology, anthropology or (obviously) academic feminism. and it is THOSE areas from which we are still specifically excluded.

    thanks for discussing this and making these connections! 🙂

  2. 2 witchwind June 16, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    As a side note, I haven’t written much analysis here because the facts speak for themselves and discovering this has been such a breakthrough for me.

    Yes that’s very true with science, if women do succeed to stay in the scientific sphere, most if not all would probably have had feminism bashed out of their heads, as a condition to stay and keep their jobs. Or put up with extreme harassment and censorship, less pay, exclusion, etc.

    The thing is, even if the solution is biological (ie invent a new brand of males, or outbreed them and figure out parthenogenesis – i think the perpetuation of our species could be justified only to clean up men’s mess from the earth after the nasty ones are gone), we’d still have to figure out what to do with men NOW and TODAY, and how to get out of this world-scale concentration camp.

  3. 3 FCM June 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    globally, women are questioning the practice of and refusing to gestate and birth males. this is an easy, relatively nontechnical biological solution. to western “feminists” this is practically or completely unthinkable, and yet women around the world are doing this. we are behind the curve of women as a class, i think, and we are willing to admit this and “‘take the lead” from nonwestern women and feminists in other areas, but not this one. as a consequence we continue to gestate and birth WHITE males which are the worst kind, when nonwhite women are voluntarily decreasing the numbers of nonwhite males. this is a problem and we are creating it by not being brave and not following their lead in this area, *if* we are not. im just saying. i do suspect that all women are doing this though. i suspect this is why we have ALWAYS wanted birth control and abortion, or at least one reason why. we know too many males = death.

  4. 4 witchwind June 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Women do this globally and have always done, and this is precisely why men have to force us into PIV and impregnation and captivity, so we can’t escape it.

    The degree of violence men exercise on us is proportionate to our level of awareness of men’s violence, and proportionate to the level needed to keep us in submission. That is, the less dissociated we are and the more we know about men’s violence and the more likely we are to escape from them (collectively, as a group within a country or area) the more overtly violent men will be. In this case, as is the case for many non-western women, it won’t matter if they see all men as dangerous and to be avoided and unbred, because the fact is that they will be killed, stoned, beaten or immediately punished in some way or another if she runs away or rebels. Or she will be so burdened by concerns of survival (having to work endless hours in miserable conditions for a miserable salary, just keeping her head above water and trying to avoid the worst) that what she individually thinks of men won’t make a significant difference to her condition. This is true for all women in such situations, whether western or non-western. As soon as you leave middle-class spheres where the illusion and lie of exceptionalism still works on women, you find it much easier to talk about the reality of men’s violence in straightforward ways: they are much less likely to deny it or to have to deny in order to survive.

    With women who grew up with the few crumbs that men give out (wherever this may be, in western or non-western areas but that have been westernised), even though this doesn’t protect these women from incest rape, harassment, marriage (captivity) and abuse / impregnation from husbands, the individual and institutional (economic, racist, class etc) violence is still less overt, and this is possible because it’s in a condition where men rely much more heavily on psychological violence and indoctrination which increases internal fracture in women and decreases the necessity and the energy of having to control and punish women at all times. It’s all the more efficient that it gives the impression of being more free, so dulls down and kills awareness, when in reality the walls of the cage have just been spread out a bit, but the cage and ropes of bondage are still there. Western men have specialised in psychological mindfuckery because the benefits far exceed the costs.

    That is, in every totalitarian system, it is never necessary to torture all of the targeted group. To maintain a state of terror, torturing and killing only some as an example is sufficient to maintain the rest in a state of terror.

    And the slight but still perceptible difference in category / status between women is necessary to keep men’s system going: racism, classism (etc) only divides women, but not men, on a sexual perspective.

    Anyway, all this to so say that while unbreeding men is an easy solution, we also have to find a solution for women to be able to reach that solution (in mind and in action) in the first place.

  5. 5 FCM June 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    they already are, is my point. “we” dont have to do anything, its already being done. perhaps this is a matter of pure or “true” survivalism and in the places where it is the worst for women, they identify hyper-localized (individual, community) solutions and implement them out of necessity. kind of like being in a natural disaster and YOU being the only one who is in your exact position at that exact time and YOU and only you therefore knowing what YOU have to do. no one can tell you what to do, and you cannot wait for someone to tell you what to do and it would be crazy and counterintuitive (against survival instinct) to wait for or expect help from the outside. hyperlocalized, immediate and effective responses are endemic to true survival situations. of course, we also hear of some people getting paralyzed with fear and dying in these situations…im not sure how often this happens as opposed to the other way. but even so, perhaps the paralytic response is specific to men, who are unable to think for themselves or take care of themselves in general, and wait for women to do it, and they are very bad survivalists anyway compared to women? just thinking out loud here.

  6. 6 witchwind June 16, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    It does seem that men are bad at surviving by themselves, and worse at recovering from violence, despite them being far more protected from violence and survivalism than women. This proneness to non-resilience and low capacity for regeneration after being broken by violence / illness may be explained by the fact that men’s mitochondries deteriorate more easily because attached to maleness or something, maybe because it’s all less connected inside. This is just speculating here, but i find it interesting to look at it in these terms too.

    hyperlocalised, immediate and effective responses.

    That’s interesting with the knowing what you have to do because waiting for someone else to tell you what to do would kill you. I guess this is what all women must assume wherever we are because otherwise it means we wait for men, prince charmings, male laws, institutions or saviours (etc) that never come, or come only to “rescue-perpetrate” us. And it puts as at extreme risk.

  7. 7 sallyarcher June 16, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    This excellently researched work on mitochondria (thank you, Witchwind) reminds me of the scientific research trail about 10 years ago regarding the female corpus callosum between the brain hemispheres initially indicating women would necessarily (naturally, but for oppression) have superior intellectual abilities to men. Then those commentaries were subtly overwritten online by hedging, analogies to other animals, expositions about male logic, blah, blah, so that the original research and information became more difficult if not virtually impossible to find.

    If the mitochondrial research were well known, it would blow the ‘woman-fr/-male-rib’ nonsense of the bible plus every other origin story men (not just white men but men of all races) try to promote in religion, politics and society at large that puts them in first place as dominators.

    Hope many, many women come here to your blog to see this information.

    There literally are women today in the deep south USA bible belt who, college educated and otherwise intelligent, believe an extrapolation from a biblical lie to think men have one less rib than women. Imagine blowing their minds with maternal-only mitochondria! Or all human fetuses starting out female. Or … anything on your blog. We can hope.

  8. 8 cherryblossomlife June 17, 2013 at 4:32 am

    Hi WW,
    On the subject of white men, I really have to say something about this. I do think there is something genetic in white men that makes them more stupid. Now, as a white woman myself, I have to be careful here, because I can be accused of trying to separate myself historically from the way white people, as a group, have behaved.
    And yes, I have to say that I *am* separating myself from white men’s behaviour. I regard them as a different species to me. Not to mention the fact that Wales has a history of colonization and oppression in itself, so really we’re talking about Anglo Saxons here. My first language is Welsh, my blood is Celtic, completely different to the English.
    And this brings me to a point I’ve thought of recently. I think it’s really important for people to speak, or try to learn, a language other than English. English is the easiest language to learn, which means it doesn’t take much brain power to use, and that goes back to the discussion we were having on your previous post, WW, about the idea that the more you use your brain, the more you fire up the neurons in it.
    . That could be why the British, and the Americans have been the worst when it comes to colonization, misogyny and oppression. The French and Portugese and Japanese have been pretty bad, but I think being white, and being an English speaker, and being male is what turns you into a complete oaf. “White skin” and “English speaker” and “Male” is a genetic recipe for disaster.White women have been historically more oppressed by white men than other groups of women have been by their men.

    There was a witchcraze in Europe, a misogynistic hysteria unparralleled with anywhere else on the planet. Americans and British doctors created LOBOTOMIES. Their target was women. That atrocity needs to be looked at in detail. Clitoridectomy (known as FGM) has been practiced for centuries by white doctors, often on female children. Anything that any other group of people have conjured up, white English speaking men had already thought of first. Except for Chinese foot-binding.

  9. 9 cherryblossomlife June 17, 2013 at 4:34 am

    That last sentence referred to misogyny, of course. “Any *misogynistic* atrocities that any other group of people have conjured up, white men had already thought of first” it should have been.

  10. 10 Sargasso Sea June 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    Being a bit of a biology/physical anthro nerd I really appreciate this post a lot. I too remember learning about the mitochondria and what’s stuck with me is the general idea of *batteries*. Women are indeed the batteries of life 🙂

    As to paralytic fear: the Kid and I were watching the (hideously evo/psch) brain games show on the tv the other night wherein there was an *experiment* on anticipatory fear responses. There were 3 subjects – one woman and two men. All were fitted with black-out goggles, white noise head phones and strapped to wheel chairs. They were then to be taken to a sensory deprivation room where various *stuff* would be done to them. The woman revoked her consent before she could be taken to the room. The two men went into the room – one reacted with aggression to the stimulus while the other froze.

    Women know all too well that fear/danger is something to be avoided…

  11. 11 witchwind June 17, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    I would LOVE to know more about corpus callosum between the brain hemispheres and why it is thought to increase intelligence! Do you know more about it sallyarcher? If so would you mind expanding on it a bit? Do you remember what the orginal sources / who the woman scientists were?

    Good point about the bible, i hadn’t even thought about it, omg!!

  12. 12 witchwind June 17, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    I forgot to mention that another way of talking about the mitochondria is as the cell’s “respiratory system”.

    yes when it’s danger identified as danger, we’re good at getting away from it. However when it’s sexualised danger (ie men harassing, “seducing”, raping, stalking), depending on our cultural background, upbringing etc, we’ll be much more likely to freeze, dissociate, feel grateful that they didn’t do worse than what they did, etc. Or deny it. Men, as opposed to women, seem much more likely to be able to have genital pleasure from dangerous or emotionally overwhelming situations. Which might explain why they seek violence so easily.

  13. 13 sallyarcher June 18, 2013 at 12:28 am

    When the larger corpus callosum in the female brain interested me about 10 years ago, the internet research trail promoting women’s superiority of hemispheric connection and holistic brain functioning was getting rewritten or “disappeared” almost as soon as I found it. You can still see some of the minimizing research often from male-female teams (one’s in Canada) if you google something like female and male differences in corpus callosum. These days the research answers try to elevate male logic capacity as the counterpoint to women’s greater connectivity of right and left hemispheres (which should logically result in greater logical abilities too once our thought processes are not truncated by patriarchy’s traumas and brainwashing). Don’t remember any of the women scientists of the time by name; scientists’ names in general are trivia I tend not to recall without specific research info in front of me.

    Thanks for being here to blog so regularly. I’m off work today and returning to the grind tomorrow. It was fun to have time to do some of this today.

  14. 14 witchwind June 19, 2013 at 9:07 am

    This corpus callosum thing is a goldmine! There is not only a difference in the corpus callosum between men and women but also in the limbic system (this is the bit in the center of the brain where emotions are attached to the memory – it is said that women have a deeper limbic system than men).

    A robust sex difference in the splenium of the corpus callosum, reflecting greater interhemispheric connectivity in women, was observed on magnetic resonance images from 114 individuals. In addition, bulbosity of the corpus callosum correlated with better cognitive performance in women but not in men

    source

    and here

    Cell numbers: men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue. Many women have asked me why men need more brain tissue in order to get the same things done.
    Cellular connections: even though a man seems to have more brain cells, it is reported that women have more dendritic connections between brain cells.
    Corpus collosum size: it is reported that a woman’s brain has a larger corpus collusum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemisphere faster than men. Men tend to be more left brained, while women have greater access to both sides.
    Limbic size: current research has demonstrated that females, on average, have a larger deep limbic system than males.

    source

    I spared you their conclusions from these facts, but unsurprisingly, lots of reading between the lines needed. The significance of this difference on men’s violence against women is of course erased and ignored. And the significance of having a greater corpus callosum and a deeper limbic system and all the possibilities it connects to are hugely if not totally minimised, devalued and erased, and twisted so to make it seem it advantages men somehow, or men keep the superior and more valued qualities, and women just have a few advantages but they’re not interesting, or justify submission to men somehow.

    The things they say about the effect of these brain qualities in women (after a very quick review, I’ll have to research proper journals to get to the actual research, especially the earlier ones) is ridiculously stupid. It’s reduced to: this is why women multitask!!!! Women are more connected to their emotions, and use language differently (can express their emotions better in words) and can be more depressed.
    translation = women are natural domestic slaves, whiney, talk too much, and naturally service men emotionally.
    Instead of what would be a very logical conclusion: women are better at doing anything given the greater connections we have, but are oppressed by men and are subjected to so much violence that we suffer from many emotional and physical disorders as a result.

    The pseudo male advantages they say: men can concentrate more on one single task which means they are better at maths for example (as opposed to: their lower brain connection means they CAN’T concentrate on more than one task!!!). And apparently they’re better at seeing systems, too. Which makes no sense at all, since if their brain hemispheres connect less well (23% less!!!!) and they can’t concentrate on more than one thing, well, that means you’re less likely to see the greater picture and all the ramifications of things, and more likely to have a pigeon-hole view of things! DUH. It is also a lie that men are better at maths. See above.

    Anyway, this is only SCRATCHING the surface of all the possibilities biology might give us in understanding men’s violence. I’m so excited. At first sight, with the little info we have, it seems likely that men’s inability to connect, to empathise, men’s lower capacity to recover from violence (which requires, in part, the ability to connect to the past emotions experienced during the violence), men’s general separateness, inabilty to see the greater picture and especially the greater consequences of their actions, might be due to brain differences.

    Anyway, i do need to investigate this more. now i understand why it’s such a taboo to go into science from a radfem perspective, within radical feminism. I can hardly contain my excitement of all the prospects this opens for understanding patriarchy / maleness!!

  15. 15 witchwind June 19, 2013 at 9:14 am

    it’s sad that we might be reinventing the wheel here again.

    I forgot to say: I remember Lucky talking about corpus callosum at several occasions. I think she got it from a science tv program, because that’s how the police identify the sex of a corpse, by weighing the brain, because of the 23% more mass of corpus callosum in women. Is that right?

    Do you know of any early research on corpus callosum Lucky?

  16. 16 daughteristhesun June 20, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Most excellent post WW, so many great questions.  FCM, I think your idea that the solution to patriarchy will come through biology and hard science is spot on, I keep coming to this the last few days.  I apologize for the length, I’ve been lurking around the radfem blogosphere for a few years and this is my first post.

    “Now i’d be interested in learning how and when maleness came about, whether it’s tied to the appearance of the eukaryot cell or if it came afterwoods, and whether it was always parasitic in nature or if it evolved that way over time.”
    Sexual reproduction came about with the evolution of eukaryotes, but there are some eukaryotes who do not reproduce sexually (some reptiles, amphibians, insects).  The first life on earth was indeed female, birthing only daughters.  Some of the females later spit out an appendage (the male), as an evolutionary strategy in an arms race against parasites.  The male appendage allowed the females to recombine their DNA, making them more fit for survival, more quickly adapting to their environment.  Unfortunately, that appendage often became a gigantic parasite itself.  This isn’t always the case though, in some species the relationship between the sexes is more mutualistic.

    “Is maleness inherently oppressive to female life whichever the species, or is it, after all, only specific to human females and males? If so, is it specific to homo sapiens, or does it include all other previous human-cousin species?”
    Hyenas are an interesting species that demonstrate how flexible mammalian biology is.  The females exhibit some traditionally male behavior, enforcing strict hierarchies with violence; they also produce more testosterone than the males and are much larger.  They have an elongated clitoris through which they urinate, copulate and give birth.  This makes mating more difficult for the males, and rape is physically impossible.  This is an exception, males almost always benefit at the expense of females, especially in social predators.  

    Sexual reproduction is a tricky strategy.  Evolving a male appendage results in great benefits for the organism: increased vigor, recombinational DNA repair through meiosis, quicker adaptation.  But you can’t get something for nothing.  The price we pay for these advantages is a split in the species, two halves who will always be in competition, to varying degrees.  Both sexes want control over the same ‘resource’–female bodies, reproduction and energy.  This is a biological FACT, and no amount of slut walking or pleading will change this dynamic between the sexes.  The benefits of sexual reproduction almost always outweigh the costs of male parasitism on the species (in evolutionary terms).  However, there have been some most peculiar developments in the last 100,000 years.  It is very bad luck for human females that their male appendage has become HIGHLY parasitic; it is very bad luck that the species with the technical capability to eliminate complex life on this planet, is also one in which the male demonstrates an exaggerated drive towards intraspecies violence.

    Males are dominant in most primate species; rape and violence against females occur regularly in the common chimpanzee, baboons are also highly male dominant.  There are, however, exceptions.  Have you heard of the bonobo chimpanzee? They are AMAZING.  They are our closest relative, smaller than the common chimp, with leaner and longer legs, more frequent bipedal locomotion, and they are matriarchal.  They create female dominated societies through strong, intimate bonds with other females that includes frequent sexual contact.  In these female dominated societies rape and murder are non-existent (no cases have ever been reported in wild or captive populations).  The females are able to rule their society and maintain peace with only minimal corrective violence–if a male shows aggression or try’s to assert his dominance the females band together and KICK HIS ASS.

  17. 17 witchwind June 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    Interesting that you say that, that females of the time created maleness to survive from parasites. That was one of my hypotheses too. Although how would the parasites at the time be distinguished from non-parasites, since everything was female? So there must have been females competing for life or something? They were all at the state of unicellular beings at the time.
    What were the first multicellular beings? Algae? swimming bacteria? Tiny fish?
    Another hypothesis might be that males are a mutation from female eukaryotic cells, an accident, but developed their own survival interests and used females to perpetuate their mutated species. In both cases, males do seem to function as mutations though.

    There are some species where males have already gone extinct, but scientists claim that males of these species have survived the extinction of the Y. they claim that the Y migrated to another chromosome. However they can’t distinguish the females from the males at all, and don’t explain how they would reproduce if one had a chromosome less than the other – they wouldn’t be able to reproduce because the same number of chromosomes is necessary for the fusion and duplication to take place. The logical conclusion of absence of difference between the animals of this species would be to assume that they’re all female. There is thus no evidence at all that males survive the Y.

    There are also reptilian species known to do parthenogenesis when there are no more males around (a kind of lizard).

    I have a question wrt reptilian species who don’t do sexual reproduction: I read that the females (crocodiles for instance) hatch eggs and the sex of the of the egg-crocodiles are determined by temperature. So, my questions are: are there males and females at all? If there are males, how are males distinguished from females how do females and males mate? Is it the female that decides the temperature according to how many females and males she wants, or is it random? Might it be possible that these temperature non-sexual reptiles are all female?

  18. 18 daughteristhesun June 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    I think you’re right about maleness being an accident.  I made it sound like the first organisms made a conscious choice to differentiate into male and female, but this certainly wasn’t the case.  They were basically slime.  irt crocodiles, the embryos would probably be in a state that most resembled females, as is the case with humans until the genital tubercle begins to develop around the fourth week.  There is a critical period in the middle of development during which temperature activates certain hormones, which do create a male and a female.  They are very hard to tell apart; the male’s penis is inside his belly and you have to stick your finger inside the vent to determine sex.  The female does alter the environment to produce a certain sex, but I’m not sure what causes her preference.  Surprisingly, the males are very tender during mating, he’ll nuzzle the female and blow bubbles on her belly.

  19. 19 trustyourperceptions September 5, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Radical Wind; Thank you for your unveiling of mitochondria/male biological vampirism.

    Just because science has been used against women, is no reason women should be dismissive of science. It has been used against us because they are HIDING information. We need to make that information public.

    First 5 posts of 7- part series are here: trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/dudesaredoomed1

    Part 3 deals with the recent history in science of exposing the y. Much more to write on. Parthenogenesis, Origin of the Sexes, Testosterone…

    We will expose men.

    Thank you for SPINNING out loud.


Comments are currently closed.



past musings

themes

Join 370 other followers


%d bloggers like this: