Let Me Tell You About the Birds and the Bees

In a marriage ceremony from a 1940s black-and-white comedy, the priest begins by invoking the birds and the bees. He keeps getting interrupted, which is an in-joke because the two at the altar are really supposed to marry other people. However, the real joke is the reference to birds and bees and marriage.

As this is spring, where a young ‘uns fancy turns to thoughts of love, and this is 2021, where some still point to Nature as evidence that heterosexual monogamy and genders are rigid, it’s worth thinking about. Because then they mention the birds and bees. Well, what do we all know about bees?

Research shows queen bees communicate honestly. Photo by Bernardo Ni, Penn State.

If Not Three Genders, then Three of Something

When a mommy bee and daddy bee love each other very much… oh, no. That’s not how it works. Let’s go to sixth grade biology. There are queen bees, worker bees, and drone bees. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say we’re taught that the queens and workers are females and the drones are male. All the drones do is help in reproduction. They try to mate with queens. If they’re successful, they die from the experience. If they aren’t able to mate and still hang around the hive when food gets scarce, the workers will kick them out, and they die. Limited functionality, you might say. They do contribute to genetic diversity, which some explanations say counters the idea that the drone is the “most ineffective and unhelpful bee in the hive.” But the genetic diversity comes about because the queen mates with multiple drones, so arguably the queen is providing the diversity.

The queens are larger–distinguishable from other bees–and mate with drones outside the home colony. They return and lay tons of eggs (200,000 a year for 2-4 years). The worker bees prepare the combs for nesting, clean the hive, feed the larvae royal jelly, honey, and pollen, fly off to find food, communicate with other bees over where the best pollen is, defend the hive or fight off intruders, recruit other bees to join their colony, and regulate temperature by flapping their wings when it’s hot and huddling together when it’s cold. In other words, workers do everything except for mate and lay eggs.

Darwin, who was a beekeeper, looked at these three differently-sized insects who each fulfilled different roles in their community, and labelled them three different genders. He thought that workers–who don’t participate in mating–were neuter. Modern biologists explain that these are really three different castes, but only two genders. The workers and queens apparently have virtually the same genome, which categorizes them both as female. They do look different from each other, so their genes aren’t identical, but similar.

diagram of bee chromosome
How bee reproduction works at chromosome level, from Wikipedia

In humans–and I’m dumbing this down for non-biological people like me–gender is determined by that combination of X and Y gene on the chromosome ((XX female; XY male). There is something similar in bees, and new research has identified it as the complementary sex determination (csd) gene. In the bee egg’s csd gene, if there are two different bits (alleles, for you biologists), then the bee will be female. If there’s only one, it will be male. (If there two identical alleles, then the hatched bee will be eaten–ew). The hatched single-allele bee will be diploid, and only have one set of chromosomes to contribute=male. The two-different-allele bee will be haploid with two sets of chromosomes=female.

As for how bees choose new queens, I read that it might be random, it might be done through democracy (that’s the textbook’s word, not mine), or it might be that the egg cells themselves are shaped differently for queens. Either the queen or the workers are choosing the next queen. It’s not the drones, for sure.

My takeaway from all this is that the idea of gender seems a little more fluid than just male and female. Genetically, queens and workers aren’t identical. They certainly have different functions. Moreover, even if they are three castes and two genders, they’re not a single male and single female, mating for life. So as a model in a human marriage ceremony, not a great example.

Social Not Sexual Monogamy … Well Not Even Social, in Birds

Smple summaries of reproduction across the kingdoms of living things quickly point out that monogamy is rare–perhaps 3-5%. Many of these articles describe a variety of behavior among various species, where males don’t remain with the females after mating, where females live in groups to raise young with males outside, or where male-female pairs raise young that were fertilized by others. Birds are often pointed out as an exception, mentioning that 90% of birds are monogamous.

However, that’s social monogamy, with a single male and female pair staying to raise the young in a single year. Sexual monogamy in birds is also rare. For example, only between one in 10 to one in 3 eggs in a cardinal’s nest have genes that match the male “parent.” In another experiment, female blackbirds who were paired with sterilized males were still laying eggs, presumably not “dad’s.” What’s funny in many of these articles is the imposition of human religious/social standards on the behavior. E.g. “The females couldn’t chirp their way out of that one.” or “It’s a soap opera…” or calling the differential pairing of females with new males the following year a “divorce.”

Drawing from The New Yorker

In other words, Mother Nature designed bird monogamy to be rare–it might not be a single male and female and, when it is, they don’t last for more than a season. That’s Natural. Yet, humans try to characterize this Natural behavior as Un-Natural based on human social norms. Then, we point to bird species’ behavior as our model for say, marriage, by saying that male-female monogamy is Natural, just look at birds. Yes, some birds do mate for life, but the numbers seem to run in the 2-3% range.

Mind you, I personally am socially and sexually monogamous, so I’m not advocating some other type of system. It’s just silly to make arguments that refer to Nature as supporting our social constructs.

Gender Diversity in Nature is REALLY Diverse

We can play this game all day. Elephants are raised in communities dominated by females, headed by a particularly strong matriarch. Teenage males are kicked out when they’re a certain age to rove in the wild and mate when they can, but adult male elephants don’t hang with the females. Female orcas rule the pod, even the males that remain with the family unit. Female spotted hyenas are bigger than the men. Male lions rule when it comes to reproductive rights, but the females do all the other work and make all the other decisions. In many species, the female is bigger than the male.

Elephants wait for their one-tusked matriarch. Photo at elephantvoices.org

Planaria and amoebas reproduce asexually. Lots of different types of fish–sea horses, clownfish, eels–can change their gender. In many species, the males raise the young. Also, beetle species are so prevalent that of the 1.5 million species of living things, every 5th one is a beetle. If anything is really the dominant thing in Nature, it would be beetles. But I find beetles freaky, so I’m not going to research their mating habits for you. Suffice it to say, it’s probably not permanently monogamous, and there are dung beetles, so that’s all we need to know.

This idea that genders are always fixed, that gender roles are always fixed, and that humans should follow the animal kingdom examples as proof of the above doesn’t last more than two words into a google search on “examples of animal homosexuality…animal gender fluidity… animal diverse reproduction…” The resulting titles always include the word “surprising,” but the only thing surprising is that we get surprised by the diversity that is out there.

In our so-called scientific history, we also had antiquated ideas that any five-year-old now knows to be false, such as that people with darker skin were mentally deficient or that women were prone to nervous disorders or that people who had a different epicanthic fold than those of European-ancestry were better at geometry. All hogwash.

If we want to look to Nature for examples, we have plenty of examples of successful perpetuation of the species that include multiple castes (or genders), multiple roles played by parents, multiple parents raising children in different ways. The next time someone starts invoking the “birds and the bees” as the model, just ask whether they mean the part where the useless males die after mating or where the queen bee who reproduces has the rest of the society working on her behalf. Are we talking the blackbirds raising other birds’ children or how menopausal orcas become the leader of their community? Because when someone starts to spout that “nature tells us that one male and one female” stuff, the birds and the bees say, “keep us out of it.”

Besides, in those movies, the marital pair is really supposed to marry other people, after all.

Bee: not so monogamous and heteronormative as previously believed. Cartoon from redbubble, Soft silence.

Fate Has Already Been Decided

The Norns, weaving the past, present, and future. Artwork by Arthur Rackham.

Warning: Spoilers ahead for the TV series “The Travelers,” “The Umbrella Academy,” and the movie Interstellar, as well as The Time Machine, Star Trek’s “City on the Edge of Forever,” and Oedipus Rex. Plus thinking about things that make your head hurt.

Wyrd bið ful aræd: Fate is unalterable.
(“weird bidth ful ah-red”)

Old English poem The Wanderer and Bernard Cornwell’s Saxon Stories

The Norse understood about Fate because their worldview envisioned Norns, Weird (Wyrd) Sisters who controlled all that happened, weaving the giant tapestry of our lives. The sisters represented what was, what is, and what is to be.  One Old English poet summed it up in that “weird” saying: Fate is unalterable. The Greeks understood it, too, at least the ones that told the story of Oedipus.

Science fiction writers are kind of on the fence.

Recently, I have been binge-watching series that happen to address time travel. We’ve gotten so used to this as a subject that we take for granted certain conventions, namely that it’s possible in a sci fi story to go back and change something in the past to alter the future. But what if it turns out that isn’t possible? What happens when Wyrd bið ful aræd — the idea that the future can’t be changed–smashes into the quantum technology that allows movement through time? Time travel, meet the Norns.

Continue reading “Fate Has Already Been Decided”

The New Normal is Still Us

For today’s question, let’s consider the metaphysics of identity–wait! don’t run away! I promise to make it relevant, not full of highfalutin’ ideas! The intrepid Fandango wonders:

Is the concept of “you” continuous or does the past “you” continually fade into the present and future “you”? Considering that your body, your mind, and your memories are changing over time, what part of “you” sticks around?

Provocative Question #80

To me, this smells strongly of the Theseus Paradox, a thought experiment from the Classical Age of Greece, although my thoughts turn more contemporary. Never mind the You… what about Us? What can the Theseus Paradox tell us about living through a pandemic?

Theseus Paradox

The Theseus Paradox, video courtesy of Carneades.org

Theseus, after slaying the Minotaur in the labyrinth of Crete, sailed home to Athens a hero. His ship was preserved and placed on display for all to see as a testament to his success and valor. Over time, the wooden ship rotted and planks were replaced. Then, the mast, bits of sail, rope certainly … and as decades and centuries wore on, all of the individual bits of the ship were replaced. Some of those replacements may have even changed the angle of the mast and the structure of the hall, since the blueprints were lost. Years later, the ship may not have even looked the same.

The paradox at heart, then, is If the entire ship is replaced, was it the same ship? That’s how I would rephrase that provocative question: What is the essence of You given that You are constantly changing? For some, the answer might be a religious one that mentioned the idea of the soul. For others who describe themselves as spiritual rather than adhering to a specific religious doctrine, they might say it’s your aura.

Continue reading “The New Normal is Still Us”

Why Not Bread and Circuses?

Baseball is back, and it’s already making headlines. Basketball is in the Bubble and the Wubble, about to (re)start exhibition play. Soccer’s been on for a while, although on a pay channel, which is either a missed opportunity or where it belongs, depending on how much you like soccer.

It’s Spectacular!

Alyssa Nakken, MLB’s first female assistant coach made an appearance on Monday. Photo by SJ Mercury News.

That’s Spectacular from the Latin word “speculum” meaning something to watch, especially something lavish, eye-raising, or amazing. It can be used negatively, as in “making a spectacle of yourself” or as in trying to divert attention. Right now, we need some diversion, without a summer blockbuster movie or new singing competitions. We’ve always had spectacle, even though the spectacles of yesteryear were different. Verdi’s massive opera Aida, premiered in Cairo in 1871 with hundreds of extras; sometimes it’s even been staged with elephants. I wouldn’t mind seeing some elephants right now, would you?

The Provocative Question of the week is: Have you missed professional and/or college sports since the seasons were either cancelled or suspended in March? How do you feel about the timing of the return of sports, especially given the surge in COVID-19 cases and deaths, at least in the United States?

Continue reading “Why Not Bread and Circuses?”

Absence of Evidence

Graphic of telepathy from Pinterest.

Shepherd: It’s my belief that those sheep are laborin’ under the misapprehension that they’re birds. Observe their behavior. …witness their attmpts to fly from tree to tree. Notice that they do not so much fly as… plummet. (Baaa baaa… flap flap… thud.) …One thing is for sure, the sheep is not a creature of the air. They have enormous difficulty in the comparatively simple act of perchin’. (Baaa baaa… flap flap… thud.)

Tourist: But where did they get the idea from?
Shepherd: From Harold. … He has realized that a sheep’s life consists of standin’ around for a few months and then bein’ eaten. … He’s patently hit on the idea of escape.
Tourist: Well why don’t you just get rid of Harold?
Shepherd: Because of the enormous commercial possibilities should he succeed.

Could there be ESP? Can sheep fly? Monty Python speculated about it…

The topic of Extra-Sensory Perception came up yesterday, and my initial reaction was that it was too broad to write about and that it hadn’t affected me personally, so I had nothing to say. I then got it into a hot debate with my spouse about the limits and definitions of ESP–does it include ghosts? is telepathy part of ESP and therefore BS whereas telekinesis might be possible so it’s not BS? what about twin studies? and so on. This led me down the Internet rabbit hole; what exactly is the research? I realized that I never have nothing to say.

This Provocative Question was asked by blogger Fandango (in summary): “Do you believe in ESP, defined as 1) Telepathy; 2) Clairvoyance; and 3) Precognition?”

Fair enough. For definitional purposes, let’s not include all unexplained phenomena, no ghosts, traveling back from the dead, global consciousness, or UFOs. Let’s get even simpler. Telepathy, and its corollary, telekinesis. Moving and communicating with just your mind.

Belief is the Wrong Word

While assessing whether ESP is possible might seem a simple question, I have to start by picking at the word “belief.” Belief can be a function of drawing a conclusion based on facts, even though the dictionary suggests that “Belief=confidence in truth of something without proof.” Proof is a bit dodgy, since it could be limited to what I’ve observed, but ought instead to be limited to what has been developed by experiment. This is important: Belief in scientific fact can’t be limited to what you have personally experienced.

I believe the world is round based on photos I’ve seen and textbooks I’ve read. I haven’t personally seen the “roundness.” I believe there is a sub-atomic world. I believe that there were giant sloths (we have the bones). I believe there could have been unicorns.

Continue reading “Absence of Evidence”