Very interesting article, thanks! I've always been amazed at the way some humans use other animals' behavior to try to explain or justify human behavior. Makes no sense most of the time, is often very unscientific, but on the other hand, it's uniquely human to do this, that's for sure. Animals (i.e. non-human animals) don't seem to give a hoot, they just live their lives (or try to) come what may! Humans need to figure out the best way to be human, and so far, after many millenia, aren't doing a very good job of it (in my opinion anyway). Best wishes, Colin, and Fr. Pete!
I think we keep doing this because of our natural tendency as humans to anthropomorphize things. We have this built-in and well meaning, but ultimately arrogant idea that ALL animals must somehow be a reflection of us (this is why we haven't found life on other planets, but that's a whole other discussion).
Thanks for the scientific observations, & especially for defending valid scientific method. I taught Kindergarten and First Grade science for a few years and insects were a unit of study! I usually post videos profiling we women whose erasure is accomplished exactly by the trans ideology--trans widows--ex-wives of suddenly crossdressing men. We were treated to lectures about fake biology along the way, before leaving the dude. (along with being coerced about "role play" in bed--this movement is very kink-adjacent)
FR Prete is a wise and beautiful thinker, thanks for sharing this with your readers Colin! I LOVED this essay when I first read it on Frederick's site, and it was a pleasure to read through it again. We delude ourselves when we think we aren't subject to the same mistakes with our projections onto animals that people in the past have made.
Also, my last name means "bumblebee" in German so I'm always into anything to do with bees! :)
I'm much more ignoramus than entomologist but I've had my eye on this chimp called Homo for a few decades now and so can maybe contribute here.
The chimp called Homo conquered the Earth mostly by becoming Homo Faber, the tool creator and tool wielder, with the most useful tools ranging from this thing called language to things like guns and jets and atom bombs. But the ultimate tool, most handy and powerful of all, is using other Homos for your personal benefit, whether it be as your valet or bodyguard or ideological disciple.
And as these tools are connected to and controlled by our chimp brains (social down to its synapses and designed for survival and flourishing), they will always be wielded to meet our personal, social and psychological needs. Thus anything processed, absorbed or created by Homo brains simply becomes another tool to get your way and get your needs met, which from the cavemen to the They/Them has usually meant climbing the hierarchy of your tribe (or at least remaining a member in good standing) and turning any input into a self-serving, self-glorifying output.
Thus it has always been and thus it shall always be, at least until Homo 2.0 is reprogrammed by a wise, benevolent and omniscient algorithm (coming soon!)....
This links superbly to my favorite Jordan Peterson and “I know nothing about biology but I talk like I do”. His most famous laugh out loud silliness is stating that serotonin (a neurotransmitter) regulates aggressive behavior in Lobsters (arthropods...), which in turn creates emergent behavior of “hierarchy”.
Humans also use serotonin as a neurotransmitter (all animals do) which influences mood. Peterson leaps to the conclusion that there is a deep ancient connection between animals and humans needing and living on hierarchies based on serotonin. Something like that. Bizarre connection.
The hierarchy in a beehive is not maintained by serotonin levels (but digestion is...) but by... sex. So should we operate under the assumption that we are more like lobsters or bees.
Peterson has definitely come up with a few howlers over the years. Sadly I don't have the actual link -- only a screenshot -- but this Tweet is something of a classic from November 2013:
JP: "Proof itself, of any sort is impossible, without an axiom (as Gödel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof."
I do have one from Steven Pinker in 2018 which underlines the same problem:
SP: "I dislike Jordan Peterson's counter-Enlightenment wooliness (Christianity, Nietzsche, Jung, lobsters), but Caitlyn Flanagan explains his appeal in an era when the cultural Left seems to be trying to out-stupid the Right (impossible, but they're trying)."
Reference to Godel’s Theorem is always proof that the person is a pompous idiot. The ability to make statements which have no truth value (essential Gödel) don’t require the existence of God.
Peterson’s videos are like the old TV show Colombo. The killer is always pompous, insufferable and egotistical, and those personality defects cause them to make a silly mistake which reveals them to be a vicious killer.
Very much agree that we humans have an unquenchable tendency to anthropomorphize - and that this often ruins political debates.
We crave and search for something in nature that can be used as an argument for our world view and all its content - another example is quantum physics, which gives the imagination good opportunities, given how little we understand.
brilliant essay. thank you. what are we like? lobsters, chimps or bees? and what about wolves, whales or even flowers? jeepers. talk about options. no wonder we are so confused.
… We're probably a little like all of them. Interestingly, we are hybrids of several archaic human lineages... So, I guess you can think of us as mongrels of sorts. Thanks for the kind words.
I hope you enjoyed your honey! Your question seems simple to me. Sex refers to your genetics and, consequently, the gametes that you produce. Gender refers to the way that biological status is manifested in cognition and behavior. What do you think?
> Sex refers to your genetics and, consequently, the gametes that you produce.
Not all species have sex determined by genetics.
> Gender refers to the way that biological status is manifested in cognition and behavior.
This is incoherent. You seek to define gender independently of sex, but you still need to implicitly rely on sex in order to determine which cognitions and behaviors are male or female.
Furthermore, why do you restrict yourself to cognition and behavior? If you're going with the model of humans as biological robots then it makes no sense to separate cognitive and behavioral traits from physical traits. If you're treating humans as being with free will, then cognition and behavior is a choice rather than being biological and should be treated as such.
Thank you for the reply. I understand the points you are making. However, "determined" is not the accurate term that you want to use. Biological phenotypes are the product of genetic expression within the environment in which they exist. In biology, environment is understood from the subcellular to the ecological level of analysis. One cannot fix a 'determinant' at any one level of analysis. Consequently, I know of no organism whose sex is not a product of gene expression within a particular environment. If you are referring to epigenetic effects on genetic expression, this still involves genetic expression. If you note the original article, it makes this point.
You may disagree with me about the definition of gender, but I don't think that I'm incoherent. I think that it's a somewhat ambiguous term. If you'll notice, I did not define it independently of sex. By "Biological status", I meant genetic/physiological status. I should've been more clear. My definition — referring to cognition and behaviors — does not separate those from physical traits. Cognition and behavior are products of biological processes (hence, what I assume you mean by "physical"). Regarding your final point, you've confused "choice" with "biological". These are not mutually exclusive terms irrespective of whether you believe in "free will" or not. Again, thank you very much for your thought-provoking response. I appreciated it!
> Again, thank you very much for your thought-provoking response. I appreciated it!
Sorry, but neither your flattery nor your attempt to cram in every piece of biological jargon you can think of is going to make me overlook the fact that your response appears to say nothing of substance.
That's a good point. I use the term purposefully when it refers to behaviors not necessarily linked to biological sex. For instance, female bees produce the honeycomb. That's a role linked to their sex. Male bees do not do that. On the other hand, if I claim that because worker bees are female they have to be demure and chaste, that suggests a gender role to me because it's associated with behaviors that are not necessarily linked to being female. The term, "gender" has become quite confused, I agree. People use it differently, and it is generally inconsistently anthropomorphized when applied to animals. Thanks a lot for the comment!
Very interesting article, thanks! I've always been amazed at the way some humans use other animals' behavior to try to explain or justify human behavior. Makes no sense most of the time, is often very unscientific, but on the other hand, it's uniquely human to do this, that's for sure. Animals (i.e. non-human animals) don't seem to give a hoot, they just live their lives (or try to) come what may! Humans need to figure out the best way to be human, and so far, after many millenia, aren't doing a very good job of it (in my opinion anyway). Best wishes, Colin, and Fr. Pete!
I think we keep doing this because of our natural tendency as humans to anthropomorphize things. We have this built-in and well meaning, but ultimately arrogant idea that ALL animals must somehow be a reflection of us (this is why we haven't found life on other planets, but that's a whole other discussion).
Good point. And, I agree with you.
Thank you very much!
Frederick R Pete is a treasure.
Thanks for the scientific observations, & especially for defending valid scientific method. I taught Kindergarten and First Grade science for a few years and insects were a unit of study! I usually post videos profiling we women whose erasure is accomplished exactly by the trans ideology--trans widows--ex-wives of suddenly crossdressing men. We were treated to lectures about fake biology along the way, before leaving the dude. (along with being coerced about "role play" in bed--this movement is very kink-adjacent)
I also post shorts of insects in my garden. As an illustration, many kinds of bees in flowering mountain mint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anm-2u_PtRw
Thank you, that was very kind of you.
FR Prete is a wise and beautiful thinker, thanks for sharing this with your readers Colin! I LOVED this essay when I first read it on Frederick's site, and it was a pleasure to read through it again. We delude ourselves when we think we aren't subject to the same mistakes with our projections onto animals that people in the past have made.
Also, my last name means "bumblebee" in German so I'm always into anything to do with bees! :)
Thank you very much, Elizabeth. And, interesting point about your name! ....
This is a fantastic history essay.
Thank you very much.
Wonderful essay -- kudos!
I'm much more ignoramus than entomologist but I've had my eye on this chimp called Homo for a few decades now and so can maybe contribute here.
The chimp called Homo conquered the Earth mostly by becoming Homo Faber, the tool creator and tool wielder, with the most useful tools ranging from this thing called language to things like guns and jets and atom bombs. But the ultimate tool, most handy and powerful of all, is using other Homos for your personal benefit, whether it be as your valet or bodyguard or ideological disciple.
And as these tools are connected to and controlled by our chimp brains (social down to its synapses and designed for survival and flourishing), they will always be wielded to meet our personal, social and psychological needs. Thus anything processed, absorbed or created by Homo brains simply becomes another tool to get your way and get your needs met, which from the cavemen to the They/Them has usually meant climbing the hierarchy of your tribe (or at least remaining a member in good standing) and turning any input into a self-serving, self-glorifying output.
Thus it has always been and thus it shall always be, at least until Homo 2.0 is reprogrammed by a wise, benevolent and omniscient algorithm (coming soon!)....
Very interesting analysis!
Hey thanks!
And thanks for teaching me about bees!
Agree - life is expansive.
This links superbly to my favorite Jordan Peterson and “I know nothing about biology but I talk like I do”. His most famous laugh out loud silliness is stating that serotonin (a neurotransmitter) regulates aggressive behavior in Lobsters (arthropods...), which in turn creates emergent behavior of “hierarchy”.
Humans also use serotonin as a neurotransmitter (all animals do) which influences mood. Peterson leaps to the conclusion that there is a deep ancient connection between animals and humans needing and living on hierarchies based on serotonin. Something like that. Bizarre connection.
The hierarchy in a beehive is not maintained by serotonin levels (but digestion is...) but by... sex. So should we operate under the assumption that we are more like lobsters or bees.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Nice article.
I'm voting for the lobster thing… LOL
Peterson has definitely come up with a few howlers over the years. Sadly I don't have the actual link -- only a screenshot -- but this Tweet is something of a classic from November 2013:
JP: "Proof itself, of any sort is impossible, without an axiom (as Gödel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof."
I do have one from Steven Pinker in 2018 which underlines the same problem:
SP: "I dislike Jordan Peterson's counter-Enlightenment wooliness (Christianity, Nietzsche, Jung, lobsters), but Caitlyn Flanagan explains his appeal in an era when the cultural Left seems to be trying to out-stupid the Right (impossible, but they're trying)."
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1029084788446113792
Reference to Godel’s Theorem is always proof that the person is a pompous idiot. The ability to make statements which have no truth value (essential Gödel) don’t require the existence of God.
Peterson’s videos are like the old TV show Colombo. The killer is always pompous, insufferable and egotistical, and those personality defects cause them to make a silly mistake which reveals them to be a vicious killer.
Very much agree that we humans have an unquenchable tendency to anthropomorphize - and that this often ruins political debates.
We crave and search for something in nature that can be used as an argument for our world view and all its content - another example is quantum physics, which gives the imagination good opportunities, given how little we understand.
brilliant essay. thank you. what are we like? lobsters, chimps or bees? and what about wolves, whales or even flowers? jeepers. talk about options. no wonder we are so confused.
… We're probably a little like all of them. Interestingly, we are hybrids of several archaic human lineages... So, I guess you can think of us as mongrels of sorts. Thanks for the kind words.
Great article.
Although, FR Prete makes the same mistake & erases men's sex, when men aren't acting in honourable ways.
"You learn a lot about PEOPLE by how they talk about animals"
& "HUMAN behavior"
FR disguises the sex of the man with hurt fee-fees over bumble bees
Have we become more intellectually sophisticated over the last three centuries?
No!
His article with examples of exclusively men sacrificing science, truth & critical thinking,
needing to pretend females are male, in order to continue to adhere to their illusion that males are the superior sex.
We still de-sex men so much, it's subconscious
- Violence against women
- She got R*ped
- "battered wife"
I hope you enjoyed your honey! Your question seems simple to me. Sex refers to your genetics and, consequently, the gametes that you produce. Gender refers to the way that biological status is manifested in cognition and behavior. What do you think?
> Sex refers to your genetics and, consequently, the gametes that you produce.
Not all species have sex determined by genetics.
> Gender refers to the way that biological status is manifested in cognition and behavior.
This is incoherent. You seek to define gender independently of sex, but you still need to implicitly rely on sex in order to determine which cognitions and behaviors are male or female.
Furthermore, why do you restrict yourself to cognition and behavior? If you're going with the model of humans as biological robots then it makes no sense to separate cognitive and behavioral traits from physical traits. If you're treating humans as being with free will, then cognition and behavior is a choice rather than being biological and should be treated as such.
Thank you for the reply. I understand the points you are making. However, "determined" is not the accurate term that you want to use. Biological phenotypes are the product of genetic expression within the environment in which they exist. In biology, environment is understood from the subcellular to the ecological level of analysis. One cannot fix a 'determinant' at any one level of analysis. Consequently, I know of no organism whose sex is not a product of gene expression within a particular environment. If you are referring to epigenetic effects on genetic expression, this still involves genetic expression. If you note the original article, it makes this point.
You may disagree with me about the definition of gender, but I don't think that I'm incoherent. I think that it's a somewhat ambiguous term. If you'll notice, I did not define it independently of sex. By "Biological status", I meant genetic/physiological status. I should've been more clear. My definition — referring to cognition and behaviors — does not separate those from physical traits. Cognition and behavior are products of biological processes (hence, what I assume you mean by "physical"). Regarding your final point, you've confused "choice" with "biological". These are not mutually exclusive terms irrespective of whether you believe in "free will" or not. Again, thank you very much for your thought-provoking response. I appreciated it!
> Again, thank you very much for your thought-provoking response. I appreciated it!
Sorry, but neither your flattery nor your attempt to cram in every piece of biological jargon you can think of is going to make me overlook the fact that your response appears to say nothing of substance.
That's a good point. I use the term purposefully when it refers to behaviors not necessarily linked to biological sex. For instance, female bees produce the honeycomb. That's a role linked to their sex. Male bees do not do that. On the other hand, if I claim that because worker bees are female they have to be demure and chaste, that suggests a gender role to me because it's associated with behaviors that are not necessarily linked to being female. The term, "gender" has become quite confused, I agree. People use it differently, and it is generally inconsistently anthropomorphized when applied to animals. Thanks a lot for the comment!