Implications of a race of hermaphrodites?

[rounser]

Okay, I didn't find exactly what I was looking for, but I did find this:

Organelles, those "critters" which live in our cells and keep them running, get left behind when the sperm enters the egg. All your organelles come from your mother, which means that males are a genetic dead-end for organelles. Organelles that "want" to pass their genes on "don't want to" end up inside a male.

This means that hermaphrodites are in a constant battle against rebellious organelles trying to destroy their male parts. Male-killer genes have been found in 140 species of plant, diverting resources away from the anthers and into the seed. You can tell they're at work because you end up with no males, just hermaphrodites and females. Plants with males and hermaphrodites only are almost unknown. The hermaphrodite plants are in a continual race against their organelles to stay male-fertile.

This doesn't apply to most animals. Imagine a race of hermaphrodite mice. There arrives in it's midst a mutation, which happens to kill male gonads. It spreads because females who have the gene do quite well; they have twice as many babies because they put no effort into making sperm. Soon the population is females with the male-organ-killing gene and hermaphrodites.

The hermaphrodites are now at a premium, because they're the only ones selling sperm to the females. It doesn't pay to have a male-organ-killing gene anymore; rather, it would pay to have a female-organ-killing gene so that the hermaphrodite could become male and concentrate solely on selling sperm to the females. If the female-organ-killing gene appears, hermaphrodites are no longer at a premium, because they're now competing with pure males and pure females, specialised at doing either task better than a hermaphrodite. Most of the sperm on offer comes with female-organ-killing genes, and most of the eggs on offer come with male-organ-killing genes, so the offspring are constantly forced to specialise.

The theory goes further, into how organelles, having lost that battle, attempt to kill off every male in a population, but that's enough to prove my point. I just wish I could find the "hermaphrodites and males and females in a cave" example I was looking for, but it's not in the book I thought it was...

 

[fusangite]

Rounser says

WRONG. The complexity of our social environment is one of the things that pushes forward intelligence. You need it in order to outcompete your neighbour. This is why, for instance, dogs are smarter than domestic cats. They live together more, and therefore need to outsmart each other in competition.

So, you're telling me that species which congregate in groups tend to be smarter than species whose members are solitary? Uh.... Yes -- because of course fish that swim in large schools are smarter than octopi... Naturally, gazelles are vastly brighter than leopards... I hesitate to even mention ants as they relate to your theory -- obviously, competing with other ants has made them what they are today...

Basically, you seem unable to distinguish actual Darwinism from Social Darwinism; we've sorted all this out during the twentieth century.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain ignorance on your part. The more social we become, the more fierce the competition gets.

Why is it then that murder rates vary inversely with population density?

You're still incorrect. You are still most likely to be cuckolded or killed by your own species, and you'll have to compete for the most desirable partners. It is true that we're likely to live longer now, but that wasn't always the case, and when reaching breeding age is no longer an issue, you're still competing for quality and quantity of offspring. Hermaphrodites would still find themselves being outcompeted on both those counts.

How does that work? In a society of hermaphrodites, the number of available partners per capita doubles.

Wait until I present the model of what happens when hermaphrodites have to coexist with males and females, and who wins that mating game very quickly.

This raises a good point; aren't the hermaphrodites we're discussing in this post a subrace of elves? Given that elves can interbreed with humans and produce non-sterile offspring, it seems to me that the hermaphrodites could mate with eachother, the male elves and the female elves. Depending on the genetics of the hermaphroditic subrace, it's unclear what would happen. Would hermaphrodites be like blondes or would their gene be more dominant?

Nope, you're posing, and attempting to use theory where it doesn't apply. If you can't see the difference between a gender-determined mating strategy and a spine, I can't help you.

And if you cannot see the difference between sex and gender...

You're getting mixed up - the game theory says it's DISADVANTAGEOUS, therefore even if it did exist, it wouldn't for long if there were males and females about to outcompete it. Despite the fact that it probably did (given that we have hermaphrodites of the non-fertile variety living and breathing with us today).

I've never heard of game theory that requires as little data as the game theory you're advancing; I find it amazing that you're able to postulate the automatic extinction of a species knowing only partial information about its reproductive biology and no information about any other aspect of it. Tsyr's request was for a way to make a hermaphrodite society work -- and I still maintain LeGuin is the authority.

Finally, in case you haven't noticed, this is an FRP. While societies and worlds have to be internally consistent, we are unfortunately not bound by Mendelian genetics, natural selection or any other mechanisms like that. While I agree that good principles of logic should be applied to these things and that basic rules of the world should not need to have been violated for the world to come into existence (I'm involved in this thread because I don't think all information about sex and gender can be cast aside when designing societies in games), I don't believe there is any value in trying to run D&D off all the natural laws as we understand them now.

I've always held that D&D appears to be based on a corruption of Aristotelian physics and not on modern science. Thus, when I don't find an answer in the rules, I resort to Aristotelianism (that's why light bodies fall slower than heavy bodies in my world -- look at the falling damage; it's not exponential). So, here, in my view, are some basic laws in D&D that should inform this argument:
1. the special creation of every species and the fixity of each species
2. the tendency of species to organize themselves into internal hierarchies
3. the special place of beings endowed with souls as distinct from all other nature

 

[rounser]

So, you're telling me that species which congregate in groups tend to be smarter than species whose members are solitary?
Uh.... Yes -- because of course fish that swim in large schools are smarter than octopi... Naturally, gazelles are vastly brighter than leopards... I hesitate to even mention ants as they relate to your theory -- obviously, competing with other ants has made them what they are today...

No, it doesn't apply across the board. It's a tendency, though - along with tool use, and selection of intelligence as a sexually attractive trait, social competition with other humans drives up human intelligence. The more social a species is, the more need it has for intelligence to outwit it's fellows in mating, getting food, etc. I don't think ants apply much because most of them are sterile. I wouldn't be surprised if gazelles were smarter than leopards, by the way (although obviously not better hunters). As for octopi, I suspect that they may be tool-user types.

Basically, you seem unable to distinguish actual Darwinism from Social Darwinism; we've sorted all this out during the twentieth century.

No mate, the debate is still raging, although Social Darwinism is a dirty word nowadays. It got a bad name because people tried to hijack it for political purposes, and others feared it's political implications as opposed to trying to discover the truth. Try the updated term, "Evolutionary Biology". The premise still stands, though - if you're arrogant enough to place us apart from animals, you've got another thing coming.

Why is it then that murder rates vary inversely with population density?

Murder isn't the only form of competition. Think of status, wealth, partners etc.

How does that work? In a society of hermaphrodites, the number of available partners per capita doubles.

See post above.

And if you cannot see the difference between sex and gender...

Que? No-one's confusing gender and sex. Hermaphrodites, males and females are all sexual.

I've never heard of game theory that requires as little data as the game theory you're advancing

Ever heard of models of simple systems? Ever heard of math? Nope? Nevermind.

Finally, in case you haven't noticed, this is an FRP. While societies and worlds have to be internally consistent, we are unfortunately not bound by Mendelian genetics, natural selection or any other mechanisms like that. While I agree that good principles of logic should be applied to these things and that basic rules of the world should not need to have been violated for the world to come into existence (I'm involved in this thread because I don't think all information about sex and gender can be cast aside when designing societies in games), I don't believe there is any value in trying to run D&D off all the natural laws as we understand them now.

Neither do I. But once you know why, you've got a knowledgeable point of departure as to why things are as they are in the real world, and that can spark ideas.

I've always held that D&D appears to be based on a corruption of Aristotelian physics and not on modern science. Thus, when I don't find an answer in the rules, I resort to Aristotelianism (that's why light bodies fall slower than heavy bodies in my world -- look at the falling damage; it's not exponential). So, here, in my view, are some basic laws in D&D that should inform this argument:
1. the special creation of every species and the fixity of each species
2. the tendency of species to organize themselves into internal hierarchies
3. the special place of beings endowed with souls as distinct from all other nature

I like to add the "four elements" system of matter, with everything being a combination of air, fire, earth or water. That seems to ingrained in D&D too.

 

[David Argall]

There will be 2 "sexes"

While hermaphrodites are all of the same sex, they will not be of the same "sex". Rather, those of high status and power will be "male" while those of lesser status will be "female".

In hermaphrodite races, it is usually an advantage to be "male", in part for reasons any pregnant female will explain to you in shrill detail if you are dumb enough to suggest she is not worse off. An additional evolutionary reason is that males can knock up large numbers of females, so your hermaphrodite gains the advantage of more kids by being male. Among some hermaphrodite species, this produces penis fights where both lovers attempt to impregnate the other without suffering the same fate.

So a possible social organization would feature a king who, while a functional female, always acts as male and treats all others as female, while those in lesser ranks treat their superiors as male and their lessers as female.

Note that a great many of the instincts of an intelligent species are learned, so there is a good deal more variety among them, especially within a society. So there is room to allow a good deal of whatever you desire.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Well, the gnolls. IF (big) they are based on Hyena could be considered to be as female hyena have a fake (I think it was the hyena).

 

[Graf]

I think you could do some very interesting things depending on how far you want to push it.

What if age affected social roles the way that gender traditionally did?
So the younger members are often primarily breeders and caretakers who stay at home and then as you age you give up the carefree existence of being a breeder in exchange for taking on other responcibilities.
So marrages between individuals with 20 to 30 year age gaps are the norm.... then as the breeder ages their older partner dies off and they remarry someone from a lower generation, assuming the 'older' role?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Please stop the hijack of the thread (whether hermaphrodism is possible in the real world) and discuss the gaming implications of a hermaphroditic race in D&D.

Thanks.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Hey, whats wrong with a good hijack?

Rounser, you're outclassed here and you need to lose gracefully. You're going from a simple misunderstanding to making yourself look worse with every post. If you have as much an interest in evolution as you seem to, start with the basics - evolution does not replace g/God(s) as a designer. There is no designer. There is no design. No plan, no prophecy, no great chain of being. Read the Blind Watchmaker, its great.

Umbran, I want to have your children, in a sort of gender neutral, hermaphodidic way.

Argall... nevermind, its not worth it.

Bit o social evolutionary game theory on my part in terms of what a hermaphroditic culture might look like. The parent bearing the larger physical (and in sentient cases monetary/social) toll of reproduction is going to be choosier. Thats a hard line, in some insect species the male makes a huge "donation" of physical mass (kinda hard to explain quickly) and in those very specific cases, the males are the choosy ones.

BUT, we're talking about intelligent people here, and some inseminaters will "shop" for the best bearer - which may not be the same as the best inseminators. Perhaps a good bearer is the strong but caring type who can withstand the rigors of pregnancy and has the patience for lactation and diapers. They can be very choosy about whose children they want to bear, and live a comfortable queen bee sort of life with support from their inseminators and the loyalty of their children (which will last after their bearing abilities have dwindled.)

The good inseminator might be highly intelligent, dexterous, tallented or magical. It has traits which are admired and which make people say "I want to have your children" because they see themselves the proud bearer and comfortable older dependant of those children. The good inseminator could have all the sex it wanted, but sicne it is in such great demand, it will likely have social climbing triumph over biological need and become choosy, needing to be plied with gifts and wooed for its sperm. They could live the life of a well kept mistress of many potential bearers, and the smart ones would eventually snag a well set up bearer who will "share" its parenthood giving a buffer of comfort in old age.

The majority of people who are not on that upper choosy curve will of course just find each other in pairs or trios or however they choose to form bonds. One couple might be lucky enough to have a clear division of who should bear "well, I've always wanted to bear, I'm in the mage school instead of the malitia, and I've got better hips than you..." While others may have to do more negotiations to see either "who gets to bear" or "who gets stuck bearing" depending on which side they both tend to. Dear Abby type columns will be filled with people talking about how "My partner wants to bear, and I really want them to, but I've just never been a good inseminator. It doesn't feel as good to me as recieving and I'm worried I won't feel the same bond to the child..."

Then there is the qestion of whether bearing leaves a noticable physical change. While they may look largely feminine, its possible that those who have born will be the ones with developed breasts. What this would be taken to mean socially is of course completely up for grabs depending on the more significant bits of the culture...

Oh, and come up with a good gender neutral pronoun. That was the silliest thing in that one star trek episode : "we've had hundreds of years of dealing with tons of different races, but our default language never came up with a non insulting GNP, even though they had a few candidates on the internet since the 80's or so...."

Kahuna Burger

 

[fusangite]

Please stop the hijack of the thread (whether hermaphrodism is possible in the real world) and discuss the gaming implications of a hermaphroditic race in D&D.

I thought I did a very elegant segue, myself, trying to do exactly the same thing.

One thing I do want to revisit, though, is the point I was trying to make earlier. Hermaphrodite is a sex not a gender. Male and female, unfortunately, are both a gender and a sex. One of the points I was trying to make to Rounser is that there is no reason, based on the evolutionary principles, that a race of hermaphrodites would not create a society with identical gender roles to those of non-hermaphrodites if, as he argues, gender distinctions really do give us this massive evolutionary advantage.

The reason I bother raising this point is not so much to continue the technical argument which I agree is a little off the main point but to suggest that just because these elves are hermaphrodites, there is no reason to assume they will not still develop a society with two genders with roles defined identically to human gender roles. Let's be clear here -- we're talking about a society of hermaphrodites not a hermaphroditic society per se (although I agree that some of the most interesting stuff posted here is about a hermaphroditic society).

If we're going to make any real progress in this discussion, we must clearly de-couple sex and gender which most posters have indeed effectively done. However, I'd recommend to David Argall that he adopt this standard terminology in the interests of clarity. To be clear: sex is biological, gender is a social construction. In our society your sex and gender are always identical (to the point of a lot of surgery being done to get them to line up). In many societies, just because you are born a certain sex, that does not mean you need to fall into that gender role.

And again, I'll keep plugging the Left Hand of Darkness.

My last little point: indeed Rounser, it is the four element system that first caused me to believe D&D is an aristotelian universe -- it's only after I saw that that I noticed falling damage was not exponential. However, I still have yet to figure out what the philosophical or scientific implications are of the Great Wheel replacing the Celestial Spheres and the elements coming from outside of earth instead of being specifically confined to the earth. Anyway, I really enjoy discussing this particular area of D&D and am interestin in any feedback people have.

And now, on with the show!

Now, back to Tsyr's question. Looking at these ideas in the context of Aristotelian physics and ideas about the heritability of traits, I would like to suggest that this subrace work as follows:

There are two groups of Y'mir; the Passers and the Untouchables.

It is unknown precisely how many Passers there are because these Y'mir hide their identity and attempt to blend into normal elf society. Most of the Passers are single people, celibate monks or palace eunuchs and there is even an understanding in certain monastic orders and governments of a "don't ask don't tell" policy whereby the sexuality of prominent and skilled Passers have their identities actively covered-up. Some governments actively (though covertly) look for Passers as they are considered to be exceptionally empathetic creatures with an extraordinary skill at diplomacy and espionage. A small minority of Passers have successfully integrated into mainstream elvish society either by marrying other Passers or finding elvish partners they can disclose their true sex to.

With the exception of the court eunuchs and ascetics, Passers generally live within clear male-female gender roles and wholly adopt whichever gender suits them and they can most easily impersonate.

Untouchables fall into two broad groups: Y'mir babies who are born to families in normal elvish society (either because of a curse, a parent who is a Passer or Passer blood in the family from a previous generation) and those choosing to live in Y'mir communities because of pride in and public identification with their race or because they are exposed Passers.

The Untouchables are not literally untouchable; what is simply meant is that other elves are not allowed to interact with them sexually. Nonetheless, often in the largest elven cities Y'mir quarters have become vice districts where prostitution is common. Most Untouchables, however, are employed in chancery positions by governments or other institutions; they also often work as money-lenders, physicians or highly specialized artisans (they have a virtual monopoly on the making of clocks and other timepieces).

Untouchable society is an insular one which paradoxically de-emphasizes sexuality. Respectability is the highest good in most Untouchable communities. Respectability, for Untouchables, connotes a love of order and categorization; while most elvish society is anarchic and spontaneous, Untouchables have a predeliction for clocks and routine. Respectability can also come from immaculate dress and grooming. The only public expression of Untouchable sexuality comes from their unique and provocative hairstyles which draw attention to the Untouchable's most attractive physical feature (whatever it might be). Monetary wealth and social position do not typically bring respectability although they do allow the wealthiest untouchables to hire fine tailors and barbers. Instead, social standing can often come from the maintenance of an immaculate home and person in spite of financial adversity.

Because functioning in mainstream elvish society is so important to Untouchables, anyone who can afford to will hire pure-blooded elvish nursemaids for their children to ensure that the child is raised from the beginning with an understanding of elvish society.

There is a single schismatic group of Y'mir who fall into neither category; they live at the very periphery of elven lands and engage in a polygamous bachanalian lifestyle. They delight in inverting all customs of respectability developed by the Untouchables and base their society on contrariness. Some Untouchables, and even a few Passers, leave the cities to join this society. Often this society's values are a precise inversion of the current ideas, trends and values of elvish society as the few new migrants who trickle in typically take great delight in inverting whatever custom it was that drove them out of their urban home. This society, however, remains small as only a very small percentage of the elves born in this society stay in it; most return to the cities seeking either the respectability or the anonymity their parents came to reject.

 

[rounser]

Rounser, you're outclassed here and you need to lose gracefully. You're going from a simple misunderstanding to making yourself look worse with every post. If you have as much an interest in evolution as you seem to, start with the basics - evolution does not replace g/God(s) as a designer. There is no designer. There is no design. No plan, no prophecy, no great chain of being. Read the Blind Watchmaker, its great.

*counts to ten*

I've read the Blind Watchmaker. How can I discuss this stuff with you lot on any intellectual level if you keep assuming I haven't read this stuff/don't know this theory and keep posing like a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals instead of actually making an argument? Read the post at the top of the page about organelles, and THINK, dammit. It's from a book in the same vein as the Blind Watchmaker (which is showing it's age) called the Red Queen.

All through this thread I've had Umbran trying to tell me that hermaphrodites probably never evolved, whereas I've been arguing that if they had, they'd probably get outcompeted, because I've seen theory to that effect. If you can't see why hermaphrodites wouldn't last for long in competition with pure males and females, it's YOU who need to brush up on your theory, and understand the difference between a gender and something less critical which is suboptimal.

One of the points I was trying to make to Rounser is that there is no reason, based on the evolutionary principles, that a race of hermaphrodites would not create a society with identical gender roles to those of non-hermaphrodites if, as he argues, gender distinctions really do give us this massive evolutionary advantage.

How was I arguing against this? Don't pin straw men on me, pal.