the significance of the biological concept of species

Anonymous asked:

hi! can you talk more about the significance of the biological concept of species? I'm a nonhuman who currently believes that species can't exactly be interpreted the way gender is, but I lack the vocabulary and knowledge in ecology to properly communicate that lol, so I thought I would ask you as an alterhuman in science! no worries if you don't feel like answering this ask :3

Answered by @talon-dragonbeast:

ooh i can definitely talk about that, yeah!! i was meaning to make a post like this since forever, so thanks for giving me the excuse!

so, i want to begin by emphasizing that species identity is a very real concept that should be always respected. of course, im an otherkin myself, so i dont think anyone ever doubted it in the first place, but i wanted to make myself clear anyways. species-diverse folks are the species they say they are, regardless of ones own beliefs. if a dog therian says theyre a dog physically, i believe them. if someone who looks like a human to me insists theyre not human at all, i believe them. if someone tells me, an atheist, that theyre a god or an angel, i believe them. and if someone says they can transform into a unicorn-dragon-zombie with robot wings through fucking magic, i believe them. so, now that that is clear, lets begin.

traditionally, species were classified based on their morphological characteristics, that is, their physical appearance. while this method was effective at first, it quickly became too unreliable (as evidenced by the many bird species that look almost the same, and dog breeds that, despite their physical differences, belong to the same species), so scientists began categorizing species based on their reproductive compatibility, specifically whether they could interbreed and whether their offspring were fertile. so, for example, iguanas and monitor lizards are incapable of interbreeding (different species), whereas donkeys and horses can produce mules, which are sterile (different species, same genus). finally, dogs and wolves can interbreed and they produce fertile offspring (same species, Canis lupus). nowadays, we classify species via phylogenetic analysis, which looks for similarities in DNA chains, though this method also presents its own problems as described by @nisaetus-nerd in this post.

now, why is species identity different from gender identity? well, for starters, species is more akin to biological sex than to gender. aside from the fact that the majority of the population takes species identity to be some kind of hilarious joke, species, just like sex, has some physical characteristics that (for now at least) cannot be changed. the category that we know as sex is actually a combination of chromosomes, reproductive organs (internal and external), external characteristics, hormones, (not relevant to humans but) pheromones, and reproductive cycles; similarily, species is a combination of many things, including DNA, physiology, morphology, diet, ecology, and behavior, among others.

its also important to point out that within the different sexes that exist in the human species there arent that many variations from one another; humans dont actually have a ton of sexual dimorphism (at least compared to freaks of nature (affectionate) like birds of paradise) and many of the differences between sexes that society highlights don't actually exist (think "female brain vs. male brain"). sex, at least in my opinion, isnt that important outside of reproductive health, so not many problems arise from simply throwing it out the window.

meanwhile, we do use species for a lot of things! as a vet in training, this is especially important when treating different animals; you wouldnt use the same drugs for a dog as you would for a horse, nor would you give the same food to a cow as you would to a pig. species are too different from each other, especially the further down the phylogenetic tree you go. you can actually use similar drugs for a dog and a human being, because we evolved together and have a similar physiology, but the same cant be said about chickens. most mammals heal their bones in a similar way (only difference i can think of, aside from the drugs, is the fact that you have to protect the bandages so they dont rip them off), but when it comes to, say, a bird of prey, thats an entirely different story. not to mention bees! they dont even have bones!!

(species have other uses outside of health of course, thats only what i specialize in. someone who studies ecology, or zoology, or genetic engineering, or any other field of biology would give you a different answer than mine. this is only my point of view, which i admit is kind of limited)

so! to wrap up this extremely long post, i want to stress once more that we need a term to express the experience of species identity, similar to how gender is discussed in transgender communities. species identity is not the same as biological species, and its crucial to be able to freely describe this experience with our own vocabulary. the way things are, biological species is too important of a concept to dismiss its meaning entirely, which is why we often face ridicule and skepticism when discussing it outside of alterhuman circles. the way we define "species" in our community (in which species = identity) is quite different from how most people usually understand the term (in which species = biology), and i think this misunderstanding is in part what leads to doubt when we talk about our experiences with others. so by changing the way we talk about species identity, we could get more people to understand what we really mean, instead on assuming based on the words we use.