|
|
|
|
|
by s_tec
1524 days ago
|
|
I'm not the OP, but I'll bite. For many species, males have a higher standard deviation across a variety factors. There are biological reasons for this, since males are more disposable than females for reproduction. Think of one rooster for a dozen hens - this is still a viable flock, even if the other roosters get eaten. Nature can experiment more with males simply because the stakes are lower, and sometimes those experiments are worthwhile. [edit: Turns out this is not true for birds, so I learned something!] Now, if you have two normal distributions with the same average and area but a tiny difference in the standard deviation... well, let's not go there because the math is too politically incorrect. [edit: And besides, many other factors affect outcomes besides genetics, so I do believe we should keep policies gender-unbiased as a matter of principle]. |
|
Note that birds do not have mammalian sex chromosomes - males have ZZ and females have ZW - and females have been measured to have greater variability in birds.
So there is not really a biological reason as you say -- it just happened to go one way or the other in the past, and now different trees of species are stuck that way.