Explaining the "How" with the "Y"

The chart above displays height frequency in males (dotted line) and females (continuous line). This, simply put, shows the range of how tall a male and female with typically be. The first thing anyone can note, and seems obvious when considered, is that both sets of data form bellcurves, with a very tall center and exponentially smaller fringes. This makes sense, since there are a lot of people around average height, and few people wildly removed from average height. However, when we compare the two functions on the graph, we see that the male bellcurve is not as tall as the female one. This suggests that there is a smaller density of males at average height. Correspondingly, the fringe zones on either side of the curve do not fall as fast as the females, and extend longer before hitting the x-axis.

This tells us that males are more deviational. Again, this makes sense when you consider your daily observations. Some men are fairly short, others fairly tall; and while there is variance for women too, the difference in height is generally less pronounced. This extends far beyond height: if you took a graph comparing almost anything between the two genders, you will get the same bellcurves. Consider grades: I bet that the award for highest overall mark at your high school graduation went to a male. This is not being sexist, and it isn't a wild guess. Men are just more likely too finish with 100% because that is a fringe mark. Men are also more likely too finish with a 25% average. Women will probably have exactly the same overall average, but with less of a range of marks.

All of this in itself is valuable, but the value does not really begin to unfold before we consider why (soon, we'll get to the pun in the title).

Completely changing gears, let's consider nature, that is, evolution. It's all well and obvious why evolution happens at all: it is a way of ensuring that each succeeding generation gets the traits of the successful prior generation. In the end, through many generations, only the successful traits remain, and all unsuccessful traits are lost.

This is a bit oversimplified though. The fact is, the world and our society are always changing. Successful genes one generation might not be as successful the next. Sometimes drastic changes are made to our environment and the successful genes are now a nuisance. Consider body hair: initially this would be a large advantage, keeping us warm in a colder climate. Now, it is looked at unfavourably: men shave their faces, women shave their legs, and naturally hairless people now have the advantage.

The question is, how can our genes bring back an attribute that has been exterminated through generations of opposite thinking? The dodo isn't suddenly going to walk out again, so how can technically extinct genes do this? As we all covered in grade 9 sex ed class, a new human life forms from a half of the genes of the mother and half the genes of the father combining. Aside from this faithful combination of the two parents, there are slight random mutations for the next generation, that are uncommon to both parents. This is how extinct genes can be brought back for another chance.

We now have a seemingly working model for evolution. Every generation of people have a set of genes, and if they are successful for survival, then they will be passed along to the next generations and perhaps someday become commonplace. So, if this were the case, why do we have two genders? Surely, the best way to combine genes would be to have every person's genes open every other person, instead of just half the population. This is absolutely true mathematically, but obviously nature has some purpose for two sexes.

Continuing on grade 9 knowledge, while the mother always contributes an X chromosome, the father may contribute and X or a Y chromosome, resulting in the offspring being either a girl (XX) or a boy (XY). It is my opinion that, while there may be slight mutation on the part of the X chromosome(s), the main mutation is caused by the Y chromosome. That would make it so that, looking at the below graphic, that while a daughter is a faithful representation of her parents, a son can noticeably deviate from the genes that created him. So, the old saying "the apple doesn't far fall from the tree" doesn't always apply.

This theory goes a long way to explaining why there are two sexes. Females of the species can be considered the final products. They are the combination of two successful beings (their parents), so, considering her environment is relatively similar to her parents', she should be successful too. Females are the anchors of the species, making sure we hold on to our successful roots. Males, on the other hand, are the opposite. They are the prototypes: still based off a successful model, but the lab wants to try something new and see if it works out. Sometimes the changes are effective (Cherry Coke), and sometimes they are not (Vanilla Coke). The result of this final product-prototype relationship is that the entire species is constantly in a state of controlled flux, making sure that the bellcurve shifts to respond to external changes.

This is all just a theory, but it does go a long way to explaining a few things about us:

- Men are the suitors. While on rare occasions, women ask men out, usually the man asks the the woman out, and the woman gets to make the decision. Also, contrary to almost every episode of Seinfeld, women are usually those who terminate the relationship, as well (http://www.sandstorming.com/2006/02/men-are-more-romantic-than-women/). It is an evaluation of the prototype.

- Men are the guides in relationships. Men are the ones expected to pick the girl up for the dinner, plan the little surprises... in short, whisk the girl off her feet. This isn't just a male perspective; what is a Harlequin romance besides this? The fact is, the women are taking the prototypes out for a test drive, and noting his performance. Does this man's genes deserve to survive for the next generation?

- We are all attracted to someone who is different from us. Our goal is to keep passing on our genes through to the next generations, and if you are on one side of the bellcurve, it is fitting to find someone on the other side of the bellcurve so that your offspring (especially your daughters) will be closer to the center.

With this important rider, the model of nature seems to make perfect sense. Nature within a species (and in the longterm, across species) is the constant evolution of the successful model. Deviational models are created to make sure that the majority of our species stays centered around the most successful model corresponding to the natural and societal environment. Two genders are used to support this system: one to try new things that might be beneficial, and one to anchor down what works, making the beneficial more standard for the species.

And that is how the "Y" can explain the "how".