NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think will prevail if theoretically, the male and female human are two seprate species? They can breed(with the same sex...theoretically! They cannot breed with the other gender), have the cultures they have now, physical and emotional attributes etc.

I know, it's kinda stupid but I'm quite interested to know what you NS-ers think of this very improbable scenario. Thanks.

Females are superior to males. Females existed before males, and males exist only to facilitate the propagation of the species through females. Parthenogenesis, if nothing else, proves this. I know I didn't answer your question how you wanted, but I am referring to all sexual organisms.

I think that males and females would probably be able to get along. If they did not, then they are similar enough that it could go either way.

Females are superior to males. Females existed before males, and males exist only to facilitate the propagation of the species through females. Parthenogenesis, if nothing else, proves this.

I don't know how that constitutes superiority (nor in fact, who would prevail). In terms of ability to survive the trials of nature, men and women do more or less equally well. Men tend to be better and things which demand physical strength, but women, I think are more resistant to disease and live longer.

Males. All the military heads are pretty much male, most military personnel are men, most gun enthusiasts are men, and there are many more wife-beaters than husband beaters. Its just how it works.

Males. All the military heads are pretty much male, most military personnel are men, most gun enthusiasts are men, and there are many more wife-beaters than husband beaters. Its just how it works.

But wouldnt that contribute to self-destruction of an all-male society?

I don't know how that constitutes superiority (nor in fact, who would prevail). In terms of ability to survive the trials of nature, men and women do more or less equally well. Men tend to be better and things which demand physical strength, but women, I think are more resistant to disease and live longer.
I think it does, since disease is the main cause of death in the human population anyway. Longevity=More offspring. But then again, women is fertile way shorter than men are...

Males. All the military heads are pretty much male, most military personnel are men, most gun enthusiasts are men, and there are many more wife-beaters than husband beaters. Its just how it works.
Ahh yes, but who could ensure the largest amount of offspring, the only way to determine success? Males would have a very difficult time feeding neonates, due to the lack of mammary glands. I'll just give it to them that they can somehow give birth. Less offspring would even be born with males, since YY is not a valid chromosomal combination. And, sociologicall, females are a more close knit and social society, and would thus be able to cooperate better than the more contentious males, and organisation and cooperation take place over physical prowess, as ants prove.

Females are superior to males. Females existed before males, and males exist only to facilitate the propagation of the species through females. Parthenogenesis, if nothing else, proves this. I know I didn't answer your question how you wanted, but I am referring to all sexual organisms.

Please, don't be afraid to express your opinion :roll:

well, if we didn't have to compete over men, i'm sure women would be more civil to each other...

and i'm guessing that the men would eventually end up lost in the woods somewhere and unwilling to ask for directions from the locals and then end up dead.

I don't know how that constitutes superiority (nor in fact, who would prevail). In terms of ability to survive the trials of nature, men and women do more or less equally well. Men tend to be better and things which demand physical strength, but women, I think are more resistant to disease and live longer.
we also deal with stress and sleep deprivation better and have better colour vision (good for picking out fruits)

It's an obvious answer: gay men would dominate.

Ahh yes, but who could ensure the largest amount of offspring, the only way to determine success? Males would have a very difficult time feeding neonates, due to the lack of mammary glands.
True.
I'll just give it to them that they can somehow give birth. Less offspring would even be born with males, since YY is not a valid chromosomal combination.
For the purposes of this thread we aren't using real scientific premises anyways so we might as well assume that somehow XY + XY = XY offspring.

And, sociologicall, females are a more close knit and social society, and would thus be able to cooperate better than the more contentious males, and organisation and cooperation take place over physical prowess, as ants prove.
Males' organizational abilities are superb. The highly disciplined Mongol horde, Napoleon's army, indeed nearly every army in the world until recent years have been male-only and organized and led by males.

I would say the males would win because in modern culture, males tend to be aggressive and violent (not a good thing). But if there would be some sort of war between men and women, the male aggression and cruelty can be channeled to defeat the women.

Who do you think will prevail if theoretically, the male and female human are two seprate species? They can breed(with the same sex...theoretically! They cannot breed with the other gender), have the cultures they have now, physical and emotional attributes etc.

I know, it's kinda stupid but I'm quite interested to know what you NS-ers think of this very improbable scenario. Thanks.
I think that if males and females discover that they are two separate species, they not only would have to invalidate any offspring they have, but they would have to declare themselves extinct with each new generation.

Please, don't be afraid to express your opinion :roll:
Hey, I would like to establish that I am a male myself. I am expressing my opinion through biological terms, and, in evolutionary biology, females are certainly dominant over males. Aphides, for instance, do not even require a male to mate with a female in order to lay fertile eggs, though they are a sexually reprodcing species. Social insects, like ants, are predominantly female.

well, if we didn't have to compete over men, i'm sure women would be more civil to each other...

and i'm guessing that the men would eventually end up lost in the woods somewhere and unwilling to ask for directions from the locals and then end up dead.
Rofl.

Women= :fluffle:
Men= :confused:

I think that if males and females discover that they are two separate species, they not only would have to invalidate any offspring they have, but they would have to declare themselves extinct with each new generation.

I emphasized the word 'theoritically' :(

Males' organizational abilities are superb. The highly disciplined Mongol horde, Napoleon's army, indeed nearly every army in the world until recent years have been male-only and organized and led by males.
Touché...

I would say the males would win because in modern culture, males tend to be aggressive and violent (not a good thing). But if there would be some sort of war between men and women, the male aggression and cruelty can be channeled to defeat the women.
after which they would war among themselves until they're all dead...

Im choking on all the Estrogen in the air in this thread...

Women.

I say women because they have better paternal instincts, so when a child is born all the women in a particular group would raise the child, where as with men the child would probably recieve basic care from one individual

thus women would be the more populous of the two species and would, via sheer weight of numbers, out compete males for food, shelter and space,

whilst yes the males would have the upper hand in any form of violent conflict, I think that the women would be smart enough to realise this and start peaceful trade with the man, so that they don't realize that they (the men) don't realise that they are dwindeling in numbers

also women do have good organisational skills, and so would be able to colaborate much better with other tribes, perhaps leading to specalisation of tribes (one food, one water, one shelter, one child raising, etc) this might also lead to a true communist state,

men on the other hand are much more likely to have internal conflict and wars, and are more likely to violently remove an opponent, thus the male population would dwindle even more rapidly and would be ruled by a cruel, barbaric dictatorship,

under the above conditions the male life span would be very short (30 would be old) this coupled with the high infant mortality rate would lead the male species and the road to extinction, which it would reach surprissingly fast, women on the other hand would have a long life expectantcy (80+) and a very low infant mortality rate, they would also breed a lot more often due to the restriction of their child bearing years.

So all in all I think that the female species would win via non-violent attrition.

I say women because they have better paternal instincts, so when a child is born all the women in a particular group would raise the child, where as with men the child would probably recieve basic care from one individual
Ha! I hope not, since paternal instincts are those of a father. I think you meant parental. Or maternal, either one. And I should've also stated that I am male before offering my argument...

yeah, meant "Parental"

But wouldnt that contribute to self-destruction of an all-male society?

I think it does, since disease is the main cause of death in the human population anyway. Longevity=More offspring. But then again, women is fertile way shorter than men are...

More horniness => more sex => more pregnancy => more offspring

we also deal with stress and sleep deprivation better and have better colour vision (good for picking out fruits)

You as in women? If so, I should have to doubt the bit about stress. In my experience, men are more wont to attempt to solve problems, whereas women are more wont to cry about them (no offense).

Men are better hunters, so that gives a little edge there.

Are there any women in the world who can order nuclear strikes?

Men win ^_^

The default setting for anything is always inferior to something customized.

You as in women? If so, I should have to doubt the bit about stress. In my experience, men are more wont to attempt to solve problems, whereas women are more wont to cry about them (no offense).
men are also more likely to end up with ulcers from stress. women release it, men internalize it. release is healthier than internalizing.

men are also more likely to end up with ulcers from stress. women release it, men internalize it. release is healthier than internalizing.
Typically, this is very true. However, I don't know what you mean by ulcers. Perhaps you're referring to stomach ulcers? Because ulcers can certainly be external as well. Do a Google image search on "ulcer" if you think you can stomach it.

men are also more likely to end up with ulcers from stress. women release it, men internalize it. release is healthier than internalizing.

Fair enough. But whether that has a significant effect on survival ability is unclear.

Fair enough. But whether that has a significant effect on survival ability is unclear.
the coping with sleep deprivation has a drastic survival effect though. they think that's a big reason why men die earlier than women. sleep depirvation causes heart disease more often in men than in women.

this is probably because women invest more in reproduction and thus would have been more concerned for the survival of their offspring and thus, the first to respond to cries of hunger and the like. (thus getting less sleep)

Typically, this is very true. However, I don't know what you mean by ulcers. Perhaps you're referring to stomach ulcers? Because ulcers can certainly be external as well. Do a Google image search on "ulcer" if you think you can stomach it.
oh i have them (christmas with my family and i didn't want to be running off crying and making things worse as two of my sisters were already ruining things enough as it was) and i know spicy foods, alcohol, overeating et c can cause them as well.


however, for me in particular, well, let's put it this way, i can go to a thai restaurant, get tanked and drink a tonne of coffee at the end of exam week and be fine. when it comes to a week with my family, i wake up with my stomach on fire.

Are there any women in the world who can order nuclear strikes?

Men win ^_^
Ummm... you do realize that if a bunch of men fire nuclear weapons there's prolly not going to be anyone left? And even if some people are left alive there's a better chance of them being women because, on the whole, there are more women in the world than men.

I played this game before. Oh yeah.. It's called Gender Wars.

Kinda shitty game.

the coping with sleep deprivation has a drastic survival effect though. they think that's a big reason why men die earlier than women. sleep depirvation causes heart disease more often in men than in women.


I'm a man and I cope by getting lots of sleep afterwards. Is that the right way to do it?

I'm a man and I cope by getting lots of sleep afterwards. Is that the right way to do it?
not really.

that's like going a couple of days hardly eating anything and making up for it by gorging yourself.

the coping with sleep deprivation has a drastic survival effect though. they think that's a big reason why men die earlier than women. sleep depirvation causes heart disease more often in men than in women.

There is also the fact that estrogen is wonderfully protective to the cardiovascular system.