Categories
evil overpriced women evil sexy ladies men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny red pill reddit

Life is so much better now that I’ve stopped seeing women as human beings, loathsome manbaby explains

Seeing women as objects: Not actually a new idea
Seeing women as objects: Not actually a new idea

The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!

Members of that strange internet subculture known as Men Going Their Own Way face a bit of a dilemma: they hate women, a LOT, but at the same time most of them want very much to put their penises in them, which kind of gets in the way of the “Going Their Own Way” part of that whole “Men Going Their Own Way” thing.

But one Reddit MGTOW by the name of Isaiah4verse1 has found a solution of sorts to this little problem: He’s simply stopped seeing women as full human beings.

“I am actually no longer attracted to females,” he explains in a recent comment on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit.

I haven’t looked at porn in over a month. I can’t look at them without a deluge of Red Pill knowledge coming to mind. It’s great.

You’ve trained yourself to be repulsed by women. Congratulations.

I find it completely dishonourable to my mind, body and spirit to be bound sexually to such creatures therefore I took care of it with brute force and it’s done.

Wait, what? What exactly did you take care of “with brute force?” This didn’t involve a rusty steak knife and a lot of blood, did it?

Actually, it has worked too well. I don’t have any feeling towards women. I do not recognize them as complete human beings but unevolved persons.

Unfortunately, he’s not the first to arrive at this, er, enlightened position.

I am completely and utterly free and feel like a kid! (remember back before puberty when this garbage didn’t pollute your mind?)

Huh. My memories of life before puberty involve ugly cars, bad hairdos and songs by ABBA, but then again it was the 70s.

If the name Isaiah4verse1 sounds vaguely familiar to you, well, we’ve met him before. He was one of the MGTOWs who thought it was hilarious that Charlie Sheen might have passed his HIV along to a number of women.

Oh, and earlier this year he set forth his theory that women are basically a bunch of overpriced vagina buses. Maybe you remember that.

H/T — r/BestOfOutrageCulture

 

223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

Technically not a mathematician here, but I was a psych major who took too many classes in research and statistics, so I’ll give it a go. We’re after all women they date or attempt to date being horrible and that being 50%+ of women? Cuz this is how the estimated numbers seem to work, said women are 15-64 — 65.9% of the population is in that age range. Sex ratio is close enough to 1:1 for our purposes, and the world population is 7.3~ billion.

7.3/2 = approximately 3.65 women on the planet
3.65 * 0.66 = 2.4 billion women aged 15-64

Assuming these guys are including “she ignored me”, which they are, they’re idiots, I’m thinking 100 rejections isn’t unlikely — most dating site messages go ignored don’t they?

So then 2.4 billion / 100 rejections each = 24 million MGTOW. Yeah, nope.

Limit to the US?
By age, cuz I need to transfer these numbers between devices:
15-19 = 7.1%
20-24 = 7%
25-29 = 6.8%
30-34 = 6.5%
35-39 = 6.5%
40-44 = 6.8%
45-49 = 7.4%
50-54 = 7.2%
55-59 = 6.4%
60-64 = 5.4%

15-64 = 67.1%
Out of a population of 328,729,000 that’s 220,580,000 cuz I’m rounding. Half of them women means 110,290,000 women aged 15-64. Divide by the assumed 100 failures each and that still gives us just over a million MGTOW.

Hell, lets narrow it to that “magic” 15-30 age window (is that too wide for them?) — 20.9% of the US population, assume half women makes for just over 34 million women of an age they’d acknowledge they exist. At 100 failures each, that’s fucking still over a quarter million of them.

200 failures each? 170,000
300? 113,000
400?! 85,000
500?!? 68,000

Well, that’d be if all women they failed with where horrible, so half all of that I guess? But that would mean they’d have to have struck out with a thousand women each if there are 68,000 of them. So yeah, math says they’re full of shit. Of course, I can’t well narrow it to HB8+ or whatever standard they use to acknowledge a woman exists, I could approximate it will a bell curve, but my pizza is here!

Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

This is not easy: I gather that social scientists spend enormous amounts of time and money ensuring that their samples are properly representative of the parent population.

You’ll be sad to learn it’s mostly volunteer based, and even when they include it as part of passing intro to psych, we still got to pick which study to “volunteer” for (and were, you know, college students, so varies bases built in there).

Good solid psych research is hard, it’s why I get so angry about them twisting the CDC report on rape and sexual assault — they actually did it.

As for Yudcultsky, I think that says everything I have to say on the man.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

Fistpound, Argenti. There is no such thing as too much statistics and too much rigour in research.

Also, “Yudcultsky.” Heeee! I’m remembering that!

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

Going on from the topic of grossly generalising women (sort of), I think I dodged a Nice Guy style bullet the other night. It was my colleagues 21st and we were at a karaoke bar when I got talking to a dude at another table. We shared an interest in retro video games and talked about Legend of Zelda for a few minutes…and he got a little too attached based on that single piece of common ground. Before I know it he’s talking about how women are generally social and men are generally engineers and then how women are so superficial but I’m not and could I give him my number? Sing a song together? I wasn’t getting a good vibe off of him but wasn’t sure (I have very little experience on the dating scene and I’m still learning the basics) so I said I’d hang with my friends some more then approach him if I wanted to do either.

He got weird after that. Kept asking. Approached me and did a very unsubtle “mistaken” ass-stroke when trying to put his hand on the small of my back. Approached me again and went into a spiel about how he didn’t want to let me walk out the door cos I’m so speshul and then again with the women are superficial but I’m apparently not blah blah please give me your number we could just be friends if you want to (*cough*bullshit*cough*). With his arm over my shoulder by the way. I made up my mind and said not interested. Didn’t want to duet, didn’t want to give my number.

HE STILL DIDN’T STOP. Tried to join in when me and the birthday boy were singing Uptown Funk, asked said friend to get me to add the guy on Facebook when I’m RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM BOTH, then tried to leave with us and get us to go to another bar when we were just planning to all go home.

I’m really fucking glad I didn’t give my number.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
6 years ago

(If the relationship succeeded, after all, they wouldn’t be MTGOWs, except for Dean Esmay and what’s up with that anyway?)

Between Esmay’s history with the truth and the fact that your average MRA invents three new people before breakfast… Let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s Canadian.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

Ewwww. That was a fortunate dodge, sunnysombrera.

@M:
I always pictured Ms Esmay as heaving a long-suffering sigh as she notices him scurrying back to his laptop to assert his masculinity online. Some husbands have train sets, she thinks to herself, some husbands drink, some play football; at least mine doesn’t spend money on his absurd pasttime.

zblongladder
zblongladder
6 years ago

In case any of ya’ll are curious what Isaiah 4:1 is, well…

In that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
“We will eat our own food
And wear our own clothes;
Only let us be called by your name—
Take away our disgrace!”

(Isaiah 4:1, JPS 1985)

Mr. Isaiah4verse1 seems not to realize that, in context, this is a passage about the sack of Jerusalem. I.e., the reason all the women are begging one man to marry them is that all the other men are dead:

Her men shall fall by the sword,
Her fighting manhood in battle;
And her gates shall lament and mourn,
And she shall be emptied,
Shall sit on the ground.

(Isaiah 3:25-26, JPS 1985)

And here I thought the manosphere thought that men dying in war was misandry…

MaleSuicide
MaleSuicide
6 years ago

It looks like men can’t win judging by feminists impossible standards. You look at porn and your a pervert. You stop looking at porn and you a msygonist.
Straight men would have to condition themselves to quit porn, because it’s addictive. If your gonna quit smoking or drinking your gonna need to develop a distain for cigarettes or alcohol, in order to quit them.
I don’t see any problem with cultivating a distain for porn because overall I think any addiction is unhealthy and unlike what the modem “right on” concessions is with porn, I’m not really in favour of it. The reason the MSM is so accepting of porn these days is due to the fact it’s too popular to condemn.
Sex is more of a biological addiction with men and it skews male judgement on women, it prevents an honest dialogue between the sexes. This is why women largely believe men are habitual liars. We lie in order to tell women what women need to hear, so that we can have sex with them.
This is also why many men become feminists, I know because I was once a male feminist. Today women may like me less for speaking my honest opinions but I also get laid more so go figure.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
6 years ago

Sunny,
He sounds like a total m’lady from the Amy Schumer sketch.

If anyone wants a laugh, read the comments under the YouTube video of that sketch. There’s so much nice guy whining that completely proves the whole point of the sketch.

hippielady
hippielady
6 years ago

@sunnysombrera

Yes, you did dodge a bullet. Good instincts on your part.

guy
guy
6 years ago

I’m from the engineering/computer science side when it comes to doing statistics. Generally, when trying to draw a conclusion about a population, we want a completely random sample, where every combination of data points of a given size are equally likely (as opposed to every individual data point being equally likely, which could happen if the population is divided into two equal-sized groups selected by coinflip). I imagine that stratifying it into groups and selecting a proportional number of data points from each group at random tends to give similar answers but probably does odd things to modelling curves.

However, when you’re doing sociology you’re interested in differences between groups and can carve it into groups that you have an actual reason to think will be different, so stratifying it will let you compare groups and have a meaningful total model. Plus even the ones that aren’t exclusively college student volunteers have trouble with making things actually random; phone surveys in the first half of the 20th century were biased towards the rich. Stratifying it means groups aren’t systemically underrepresented.

And yeah, their sample is actually from women that they attempt interaction with and is ignoring the possibility that the problem is them, which means it’s much less accurate than a random sample of equal size. Technically a random sample could include exactly the same people, though, which is why any sample smaller than the entire population can draw an invalid conclusion. The odds of that fall rapidly if you repeat the experiment with new random samples and generally get the same result.

Rabukurafuto
Rabukurafuto
6 years ago

Shaenon
December 7, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Oh, Beale. Calling his ebook a “bestseller” because it briefly topped its narrowmost category on Amazon is adorable. By that measure, my husband’s book on the history of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a bestseller several times over. (It did pretty well). Heck, I had a story in a sci-fi anthology that was a top seller on the Amazon main page, so I must be a mega-mega-bestselling author.

Hey, nice getting a story into an anthology! That Ninja Turtles book sounds kind of fun too.

Yes, Beale is so proud that his book reached number 1 bestseller…in Ideologies & Doctrines. Alongside books by Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Dinesh D’Souza. Oh, and the forward is by Mike Cernovich, so you know it’s a quality product!

katz
6 years ago

This is why real authors say “New York Times bestseller,” because just “bestseller” can mean anything.

Leda Atomica
Leda Atomica
6 years ago

That ad…

“Here’s a half-naked feeemale for no reason at all, so when you buy our product you KNOW you’re not a sissy-boy! What? Relevance? Goddamnit Dave, just add some lines and car words to it, do I have to do all the work around here?”

Gosuamakenatek
Gosuamakenatek
6 years ago

Not to side with this guy or anything, because I won’t, because he’s a disgusting creep, but I can guarantee that not being attracted to females anymore would be the best thing that could ever happen to me. I’ve literally thought that since I was like 12. But I sure as hell won’t be getting there by hating women so much that I’m overwhelmed with entitled manbaby rage whenever I think of them.
I don’t place my ego above everything else like every MRA type does, the only person I blame for my problems is me. And of course the bloody skeleton god of death Mictlantecuhtli, who clearly placed a curse on my head when I was born, but that goes without saying, I don’t think I need to tell you all about Mictlantecuhtli!

ColeYote
ColeYote
6 years ago

I am completely and utterly free and feel like a kid!

That’s because– no, fuck it, too easy.

dlouwe
dlouwe
6 years ago

@MaleSuicide

Other than the fact that I somewhat agree with you on the fact that porn can be addicting, and it could be beneficial for many men to break that addiction, you’re doing a great job of being wrong about everything.

kupo
kupo
6 years ago

I can guarantee that not being attracted to females anymore would be the best thing that could ever happen to me

Stop talking like a disgusting Ferengi and address us as women. And I can guarantee you that whatever makes you say that is because you see “females” as something other than human. Just fucking stop defending this mentality. It’s really gross.

HeinzD
HeinzD
6 years ago

Back about 20 years ago I decided to go MGTOW. Not that it was a thing then. And not that I was a horrible human being who hated women. But I had a rough go of dating in a small town so I decided to hang up my dating hat. I decided to focus on learning things I had always wanted to learn. I signed up for classes and went and talked to people who did all the cool things I wanted to do.

I also started taking people up on offers to do things I’d never done. I went to the gun range with some RCMP friends. I climbed a mountain. I learned how to blow stuff up. I was shown how three phase power works. I took singing lessons (they were a waste but I had a good time). I went on trips to places I always wanted to go. I learned about the future of film editing and sound editing when I was shown early versions of AVID and Pro Tools. Basically I put my energy into all the things I love.

You know what happened? I met my wife after I went to a medieval faire. I was confident, interesting, and funny because I worked on me. So, there is something to this ‘going your own way’ for a while but none of it involves being an asshole to 50% of the populace.

Paradoxical Intention
6 years ago

MaleSuicide | December 7, 2015 at 4:13 pm
It looks like men can’t win judging by feminists impossible standards.

And what standards would those be, Mr. 3Edgy5Me Username?

You look at porn and your a pervert. You stop looking at porn and you a msygonist.

No one said if you stop watching porn you’re a “misogynist”, and no one said you’re a “pervert” if you watch porn. What we object to is men bringing up porn standards everywhere else. Some men can’t tell the difference between porn and real life.

Read to understand, not to respond, please.

Straight men would have to condition themselves to quit porn, because it’s addictive.

[Citation Needed]

If your gonna quit smoking or drinking your gonna need to develop a distain for cigarettes or alcohol, in order to quit them.

I imagine many alcoholics and smokers already have a disdain for drinking/smoking. It takes far more than just “building up a disdain” for something to kick an addiction or something similar.

I don’t see any problem with cultivating a distain for porn because overall I think any addiction is unhealthy and unlike what the modem “right on” concessions is with porn, I’m not really in favour of it. The reason the MSM is so accepting of porn these days is due to the fact it’s too popular to condemn.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2015/08/WordSalad.jpg

Sex is more of a biological addiction with men

[Citation Needed]

and it skews male judgement on women, it prevents an honest dialogue between the sexes.

I’d say that’s more of porn/society’s doing, rather than just boners doing what boners do. Men are told what women should be like via porn and other forms of media, and that skews their perception.

This is why women largely believe men are habitual liars. We lie in order to tell women what women need to hear, so that we can have sex with them.

So, women believe that men are habitual liars because men lie to them just to get laid?

And people think feminists are misandrists.

This is also why many men become feminists, I know because I was once a male feminist.

So, you were one of those “I’m a feminist, and I’m a man! Sleep with me! Give me Basic Human Decency Cookies!” kinds that we’re all very wary of? Thanks for confirming for me that men shouldn’t call themselves feminists.

Today women may like me less for speaking my honest opinions but I also get laid more so go figure.

Aw, looks like your tactic didn’t work and now you’re bitter. Poor bby.

Kale
6 years ago

On the evolution question, I’m surprised no one else has yet brought up the basic principle that all animals are by definition currently at the exact same place in our evolution, because that is how evolution works; that is, the human is not more evolved than the shark, because the shark is perfectly suited to her (ha! sneaky feminism!) environment at this time (Even though the shark was pretty much the same however many millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth and my dad started making dad jokes).
I would postulate that it may be possible for one sex to evolve changes while the other does not. I’m just an evolution fan and a student tho. I cant even think of a possible example; I thought of female hyeanas evolving a sort of female penis but it occurred to me that the male probably had to evolve in some way to adapt to that change.

Men and women did not evolve as if they were a dramatically different species. This is one of the most annoying things that people seem to believe. We here at WHtM surely know that gender and sex is a spectrum. First of all, all animals having evolved from a common ancestor, humans have commonalities with other animals (our hand bones are the same basic pattern as bat wings, hooves, even fish). We arent even as drastically different from other animals biologically as some people want to think the sexes are different. Sex development in the womb just doesnt produce an entirely different offspring, like we dont just get a bunch of “Women-Only” genes, it’s all utter nonsense. People seem to think they can just make up shit about history and science and call it a fact. We barely even know how “primative” humans lived ffs, we have a handful of remains and the more we learn the more we find that previous assumptions were incorrect. For example, women have a HUGE influence on the development of agriculture. I think the Cherokee tribe are one of the best preserved and documented examples of this – they were practically matriarchal (they were too equal to be compared to patriarchy though). It just made logical sense for women to “stay home” and do the hard work of farming while men went out after game and to war. Because of this, women controlled most of the food and all of the land. Women would have been responsible for all those agricultural developments that, say, kept Pilgrims from starving (yea jk that was a different tribe of course) and probably still influence farmers of those crops today. It’s just that as Europeans got more patriarchal the record reflected these prejudices by omission of the role of women in past incarnations of society. You can see evidence of the active destruction of women’s power in myths that undermind older pagan traditions that were more female-centric (like the hunting of witches). So I dont really buy modern-day men’s guesses about women ‘huddling in caves” (really, they had no way to defend themselves when men were away? How is that gonna help their babies survive?) esp when STEM fields are so full of ridiculously sexist dudes.

There was a troll on here earlier that didnt seem to get attention for his deliberate straw men against feminists, but I just wanted to say for the record, not only are feminist not WGTOWS, a lot of us are men. Some of us were even assigned a female role at birth and are so manly and love manhood so much that we take on a male role as adults. So it’s not terribly inaccurate to make some crack about how we are feminists because we are so manly althought that one has never made sense to me – why would someone ditching the female role care about how females are treated more than a femininie woman who dates men and therefore has to navigate all the worst parts of sexism? Whatever, sexist dudes never are very good at the whole logic thing. At any rate, no, women who want to vote and get paid fairly and have needed medical care and not be assaulted or harassed dont hate men, we hate men who treat us like shit and the stupid system they created to keep us down.

Kale
6 years ago

Also, for the record, having lost more than one man and more than one woman in my life to suicide, and seen people I love struggle with it and struggle with it personally…

first of all I hope you are not suicidal, if you are dont read past this part and just go get help….

but If you arent suicidal yourself (or mourning a suicide) and are merely using suicide as some sort of anti-feminist gotcha?

FUCK. YOU.

Seriously.

MORE WOMEN THAN MEN ATTEMPT SUICIDE. Suicide is not evidence of how women are somehow oppressing men. Some men may commit suicide due to the patriarchal system women are opposing. For example, men who committ suicide due to failure to conform to the male gender role? Yea, feminists dont want men to have to coform to that. Guys stressed from work? Feminists want women to have equal access to jobs, and men to be able to take time off and share the burden of the household. feminists want men to express emotion. A lot of feminists are for socialistic programs and/or private charities to help the poor in general and for mental health care….

not to mention the main reason for more male suicides is that more men have guns. That’s patriarchy by the way, men literally are the ones who are supposed to get the most access to the most advanced weapons. That’s also a major reason so many women die every year – men owning guns….

So stop insulting suicide victims, stop using them. Some of us have actually experienced the horror of suicide, it is real and painful, it isnt a fun game to play in your wierd hate campaign against women. Just stop.

contrapangloss
contrapangloss
6 years ago

Also, someone asked for a Biologist! Warning, TL;DR incoming

Contrapangloss, B.S. is here! Anyone who specialized in non marine, or has a M.S. or Ph.D. would probably have a better answer, but for general knowledge.

We’ll start with the fun one!

Carnivorous Llamas

As SFHC pointed out, we haven’t found any. Yet. We find weird things all the time, though, so it could still happen!

Also, Llamas could potentially digest meat. It wouldn’t be good for them to have a steady diet of meat, though, because they kind of need the fiber. A llama eating meat and supplements would likely have terrible, terrible diarrhea.

Also, you’d have to figure out nutritional supplements, because the proportional mix of amino acids in animal vs. plant matter is fairly different.

Amino acids are kind of important. In fact, amino acid content is one of the reasons you really shouldn’t feed cats dog food and dogs cat food on a regular basis. Cats stealing nibbles of dog food is okay, but if they only eat dog food, they don’t get enough taurine which can lead to heart disease and other issues.

Dogs on the other hand… cat food is a little too high protein. It’s an excellent treat (yay dog training) but if they eat it too much, it can cause them vomiting and diarrhea, because too much protein and not enough fiber.

So, yeah, carnivorous Llamas could have existed. Current Llamas could potentially eat meat for a limited amount of time with additional fiber and nutritional supplements. Getting them to eat it? A little harder. If they’re starving, maybe?

Is it possible for one sex (particularly the ‘female’ sex)to be less evolved than the other

Warning: I’m going to be using female in the Biology Student sense, of ‘the phenotype that produces the larger gametes during the reproductive phase’. I say ‘phenotype’ because not all organisms have genetic sex determination. Also, some organisms have sex determination, but it’s backwards relative to ours.

I’m doing this warning because sometimes biology definitions can be wacky and not nice, and if anyone is a woman who happens to be stuck with a body that produces smaller gametes (or visa versa), I’m not trying to call you male. This thing really has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the in general thought experiment.

Back to the biology!

First off, the easy answer. No, you aren’t going to have one sex that’s less ‘evolved’ than the other.

Buuuuut, for the sake of argument lets play the Ancient Aliens game. You know the one where you start with a huge “what if”, assume it’s true (when it’s really not) and then try and build a plausible thingy off of that.

So, “What If” a sex could be less evolved than the other?

We’ll start with the mechanism of evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in the proportion of an allele through a population, over time. While there are a whole kit and caboodle of things that can influence the changes in the proportion of an allele (a specific form of gene – think of genes as “Ice Cream” and alleles as “vanilla” or “strawberry”: the genotype is the specific combination of alleles an organism received from their parents for each gene), there’s one thing that you kind of have to have for evolution to occur:

Mutations.

Yes. We are all mutants. Take that, MRD!

…sorry. I’m a nerd. Sorry.

Evolution can (and does play) with alleles without mutation, but for anything ‘new’ to arise, we have to have mutations.

Luckily, mutation happens all the time! Most mutations are detrimental, but some mutations can be ‘silent’, and some mutations are beneficial!

Well, or were beneficial at some point in time. Or were close enough to another beneficial allele on a chromosome (within 50 base pairs of nucleic acids on the DNA strand) that they didn’t get selected against. Or just got lucky through random assortment, or an evolutionary bottleneck event…

Bad mutations sometimes endure. It happens. I digress, back on topic.

Mutations are the slowest form of evolution (selection is much faster) but they are the most fundamental unit of evolution.

But, we’re going to have to throw out selection, because selection just acts on mutations that are already there. Also, even if selection selects for dimorphism of sexes in some species (i.e. selection pressures are different for each sex) they’re still both equally evolved because both are responding to selection pressures at the same time.

Unless, of course, one sex just has more mutations for selection to play with…

Okay, enough with the background. Back to Mutation, Evolution, and Sexes!

We’re going to have to throw organisms without genetic sex determination right out the window here. Sorry turtles. I love you, but I’m sorry.

The reason for this is because if one sex needs to be less evolved than the other, that means they have to have a reason for their alleles to be different from one another. If there’s no genetic sex determination, and the population is breeding (which is kind of the biological point of having different sexes), then there’s really no difference between the two sexes from evolution’s standpoint.

So, we’re limiting ourselves to organisms with genetic sex determination. Yay.

We’ll also have to limit ourselves to the sex chromosomes, as all other alleles will have all the usual crossing over and breeding shenanigans. There’s a reason independent assortment of alleles is a general rule of thumb. Your chromosomes from mom and your chromosomes from dad don’t stay nicely packaged together as a bundle for you to bequeath to your offspring. They mix, they mingle, they sidle alongside each other and go “Hey, you’ve got the same genes I do! Wanna swap some alleles?”

Except for, interestingly enough, the sex chromosomes.

Well, to be more accurate, the sex chromosomes in organisms with a mismatched set… like XY. Or if you’re a bird, WZ.

So, only females (in XY determined species) will be able to gain any mutations caused by mistakes in allele swapping (called crossing over), because only females will have two sex chromosomes of the same size with the same gene loci. Basically, XX can swap ice cream flavors with each other. XY can’t.

In chickens, though, only the roosters would get the extra mutation boost. Lucky roosters, eh?

Moreover, females of XY determined species (and males of WZ) would also have a higher likelihood of more typical mutations: insertions, deletions, and other errors caused during the replication of the DNA strand forming the chromosome during cell division.

Why?

Because the X and W chromosomes are thousands of base pairs longer than the Y and Z chromosomes. Basically, more base pairs for a polymerase to screw up with.

So, that means evolution would have more mutations to play with in ‘female’ humans or ‘male’ chickens. Thus, if a sex is capable of being more evolved than the other, it’s clear that it would indeed be the sex with the matching sex chromosomes.

It’s still BS, though, because our initial “What If?”is a bogus question.

We’re all equally evolved, dudes.

Live with it.

contrapangloss
contrapangloss
6 years ago

Aaand ninja’d by Kale with a much simpler “No, that’s not how evolution works”

Also, I guess I need to look back at the first page because something came out of the mod queue that apparently needed a PI patented truth-bomb.

Sorry for the above deer made of teal.

Kale
6 years ago

@contrapangloss

fuck yes! Thanks!

I would LoVE if you would kinda clarify what I was trying to remember and articulate about how sex is a spectrum and when we are born we dont just inherit strictly “female-only genes” or whatev. Im trying to learn as much as possible about gender/sex in particular.

*[I prefer your in depth and better educated explanation!]

%d bloggers like this: