fruitsoftheweb:

TRICERATOPS
"This name means three horns. I made this animation myself. The triceratop is getting ready to charge ….. Watch out!"

fucking incredible

fruitsoftheweb:

TRICERATOPS

"This name means three horns. I made this animation myself. The triceratop is getting ready to charge ….. Watch out!"

fucking incredible

You agree that bees have 3 sexes? This is rubbish! Workers are infertile females.

quietmagpie:

losdarmatrix:

quietmagpie:

losdarmatrix:

I think it’s a reasonable assessment. The whole point, biologically, of the male/female thing is sexual reproduction, which is better at producing genetic diversity than asexual reproduction. Workers don’t reproduce. Why then bother classifying them as one of the reproductive sexes? So then you’d have male drones, female queens, and workers that are neither.

They are social insects, and the only reasons that workers don’t typically lay eggs are tied up in the dynamics of their social “culture”. This is why biologists typically say that bees have a caste system rather than three sexes. Saying that they are not biologically female is like saying a human woman that is infertile or chooses not to have children is somehow not female—it just doesn’t make sense.

That’s interesting that not all species of bee are eusocial. I didn’t know that! But yet, I’m still not entirely sure about a binary sexual classification of those few species that have workers. Even if queens and workers have no difference genetically, you show that they still have a physiological difference. And if the biological definition of female is “the one that lays eggs”, and workers don’t normally lay eggs, then I’m not sure they should be called female. I also don’t think that the human analogy makes sense. Infertility is certainly not the default state of a biologically female human, while it is for a worker bee - and when you start to bring in the choice to not have children, I think the analogy is even less relevant. Human intelligence gives us a lot more ability to choose things. Bees, as far as I know, don’t have that kind of intelligence.

I understand what you are trying to say. You are right that bees do not appear to have the same type of intelligence or individuality that humans possess. Their behaviors are highly stereotyped and genetically encoded, though they do have a high capacity to learn (for an insect) and the analogy with choice was a bit of a stretch. However, I think the infertile women analogy holds up:

The default state of healthy, genetically female infant humans and larval bees is fertility. It is only through unfavorable environmental conditions, such as starvation, that otherwise healthy humans and bees become infertile. In both, starvation-induced infertility can be reversed through good nutrition, though both will typically have more difficulty bearing children / laying eggs than their healthy counterparts.

Social bees comprise a tiny minority of bee species, and social behavior is a derived rather than basal trait. This is important because it means that the queen/worker/male system is not intrinsic to being a bee. Because it comes part and parcel with social behavior, I have a hard time seeing it as something other than the bee equivalent of culture or social norms. It isn’t so different from a hypothetical (dystopian?) human society where most females were forced from birth to do hard physical labor. They might never menstruate or be capable of childbirth if the work is hard enough. Does this mean that those individuals would then not be female?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I really can’t support alternate sexual terminology for bees based on the evidence I have at hand. “Male” and “female” accurately describe the reproductive potential of individual bees. The term “worker” is a clear description the social role of the majority of the females within a hive. I don’t feel like additional jargon would provide any clarity or insight for this group of insects.

That being said, there are many organisms which I agree that we should give a more critical eye when we say that they are “male” or “female”—particularly fungi and bacteria, but also certain groups of fish, amphibians and reptiles. I fully acknowledge that nature is messy, and that it does not always fit nicely into the boxes we create—I just feel that bees are not one of the problem groups.

Alright. I’m just gonna reblog this, but I don’t have any response. I think it’s a pretty good answer.

You agree that bees have 3 sexes? This is rubbish! Workers are infertile females.

quietmagpie:

losdarmatrix:

I think it’s a reasonable assessment. The whole point, biologically, of the male/female thing is sexual reproduction, which is better at producing genetic diversity than asexual reproduction. Workers don’t reproduce. Why then bother classifying them as one of the reproductive sexes? So then you’d have male drones, female queens, and workers that are neither.

You are the second person I’ve seen assert that worker bees are not female. I’m not really sure where this is coming from but, as an entomologist who specializes on bees, it is really bugging me (no pun intended… well, maybe a little intended). If this were about the nebulous concept of gender—whatever that would mean for an insect—rather than sex I would be more understanding, but people have been talking about bees and biological sex.

First off, the vast majority of the world’s ~25,000 bee species are solitary. They have males and females, and, like all insects, a low incidence of intersex individuals. Intersex insects typically have bilateral division of sex—these half-female, half-male chimeras are called gynandromorphs. For the vast majority of bee species, there are no workers at all!

Social bees come in several different flavors—-gregarious, semisocial, primitively social, and eusocial. The last three have a division of labor, with some individuals taking the reproductive role (queens), while others provision the colony (workers). There is no genetic difference between queens and workers—the difference is created by effectively starving the worker bees while they are larvae, preventing their reproductive tract from maturing.

Ok, you say, you know that already.

What you might not know, however, is that worker bees have the development of their reproductive tract repressed by chemical cues from the queen. In the absence of the queen, the workers will select one or two of their own to be the new queen. These workers will be fed generously, and their reproductive tracts will develop, and they will then go on to lay eggs. Because worker bees are capable of laying eggs, their biological sex is female.

They are social insects, and the only reasons that workers don’t typically lay eggs are tied up in the dynamics of their social “culture”. This is why biologists typically say that bees have a caste system rather than three sexes. Saying that they are not biologically female is like saying a human woman that is infertile or chooses not to have children is somehow not female—it just doesn’t make sense.

That’s interesting that not all species of bee are eusocial. I didn’t know that! But yet, I’m still not entirely sure about a binary sexual classification of those few species that have workers. Even if queens and workers have no difference genetically, you show that they still have a physiological difference. And if the biological definition of female is “the one that lays eggs”, and workers don’t normally lay eggs, then I’m not sure they should be called female. I also don’t think that the human analogy makes sense. Infertility is certainly not the default state of a biologically female human, while it is for a worker bee - and when you start to bring in the choice to not have children, I think the analogy is even less relevant. Human intelligence gives us a lot more ability to choose things. Bees, as far as I know, don’t have that kind of intelligence.

You agree that bees have 3 sexes? This is rubbish! Workers are infertile females.

I think it’s a reasonable assessment. The whole point, biologically, of the male/female thing is sexual reproduction, which is better at producing genetic diversity than asexual reproduction. Workers don’t reproduce. Why then bother classifying them as one of the reproductive sexes? So then you’d have male drones, female queens, and workers that are neither.

beautifuloutlier:

I want to note that the way the sex binary looks like it’s present throughout the animal world is that white scientists have a terrible habit of labeling everything “male” or “female” even when it makes no sense.

Like, by any reasonable metric, bees have three sexes: drone, queen, and worker. Workers are only labelled female because someone couldn’t abide the idea of something not being either one or the other.

And before someone calls “genetics” there are many species where both sexes have the exact same genetics, and even many where individuals can change reproductive capacity at will, and scientists suddenly have no problem calling the ones who grow eggs “female” even though they were “male” two weeks ago.

Some species of mammals reproduce asexually. They have only one sex. It is still called “female” because it makes babies even though one might reasonably ask why even make the distinction when every single individual makes babies just the same.

I am in agreement with this right up until “some species of mammals reproduce asexually”. Just, what. That is all kinds of incorrect. From the Wikipedia page on Parthenogenesis: “There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild.” It does go on to describe experimentally-induced parthenogenesis, but there are no known species that do it in the wild.

sunshien:

glutenfreevodka:

wdya:

Someone with an IP address sourcing to the House of Representatives just edited the Orange Is the New Black Wikipedia page with the telling summary of “not a woman.”

That’s right, this Congressman edited out a sentence hailing the show for including “the first ever women-in-prison narrative to be played by a real transgender woman.”  What did he replace it with?  Hate speech.

The Congressman called Cox a “man pretending to be a woman,” and linked to an offensive article by National Review Online aptly titled “Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman.”

The change has since been reversed and the IP address has been banned from editing Wikipedia for a month, but you can see the original edit he made in the link above.

The change was spotted by a Twitter bot which tweets out links any time a Congressional IP address edits Wikipedia.

Spread this like wildfire.

(articles on The A.V. Club, Yahoo, and NY Daily News)

Oh my god

i don’t know if everyone else knows about this or not, but i just went onto the twitterbot’s page and this is not just about laverne cox, someone from congress has been editing multiple articles concerning transgender people (mostly women) and laverne was probably the first trans celebrity they could think of, other edits have been made including:

(source)

(source)

(source)

this is not just about laverne cox, do not just make it about laverne cox, this is not one person being transphobic towards a celebrity we like, there is someone in congress with an agenda of misinformation actively trying to slander the trans community through wikipedia.

fastcompany:

Ka-Pow: Watch These Fish Cannons Shoot Salmon Safely Over Dams

Salmon have serious swimming skills—some travel thousands of miles to return to their original homes to breed. But even though they can jump as high as 12 feet in the air, they can’t manage to get over massive concrete dams that we have built to block their journeys back to their homes. Now one new idea could give them a boost. The plan involves whisking the fish through a long vacuum tube at speeds up to 22 miles per hour and then shooting them out the other end like a cannon.

Read More>

FISH CANNON.

Prince of Time

Does anyone else who subscribes to BKEW’s theories think this title is kind of silly? Like, okay, Time is the aspect of destruction. A Prince of Time destroys destruction. They are a destroyer who destroys destruction. They’re just asking to blow themselves up or some shit. Even more ridiculous: A Prince of Time also destroys through destruction! Yo dawg, I herd u liek destruction, so I put some destruction in your destruction so you can destroy while you destroy. I am just imagining an idiotic Prince of Time with five bajillion time clones just going completely kamikaze on shit.

ovisdraconae:

battledad:

wolfnanaki:

sturmtruppen:

songoharotto:

Wait, so Shayamalama wasn’t the one ultimately to blame for ruining this movie?  Reality has just been turned upside down.

What a twist!

So M Night was one of the very few people on the team who actually cared, but corporate executives fucked everything up to the point where he gave up?

That’s…actually really sad, especially since everyone blames HIM for the disaster.

The greatest Shyamalan twist of them all.

It’s a pretty good insight into actual problems in the movie industry.

Goddamnit.

dehydrate-back-into-minerals:

adriofthedead:

boogans:

lepetitdragon:

krakenqueen:

justskippingalong:

THE FADE TO BLACK OH MY GOD I LITERALLY CAN’T BREATHE RIGHT NOW

Excuse me, important announcement to make, WATCH IT.

Every video I see of the american woodcock has never disappointed me

I’m hoping to post a new drawing tomorrow but please watch this bird video for now

this is how I think the one with the cat should have ended

THIS IS BY MY FRIEND
spazzth
!! (Aka
spazzdhn
!!)

welp