[vikramkr]

That's not actually a thing. Very few trees we plant have specific male vs female plants. One of the few that does that gets brought up in this context, ginko, tends to have male trees preferred because the fruit kind of reeks. Ginkgo fruit is also toxic so you really don't want masses of it getting washed into local waterways in ecosystems the tree isn't native to - not a great time for the local wildlife. A significant supermajority of all the rest of the trees that you plant in cities are gonna have male and female flowers on the same plant or male and female structures within the same flower.

[niemandhier]

Cool, I did not know that this is so disputed a quasi factoid. Thanks for cleaning my brain!

Germany has “Baumkataster” which are databases for public trees in cities, they save all kind of tree metadata but gender is missing …

https://hub.arcgis.com/search?tags=baumkataster

[simiones]

I do think you mean sex, not gender - trees don't really have a gender or gender expression. Either way, it would be rather irrelevant, as most trees planted in cities have both male and female flowers (oak, birch, most conifers), or even hermaphroditic flowers (citrus).

[IAmBroom]

Great, now I have to hate trees for being gender-fluid, too?

I just spent $500 on gay conversion therapy for my dog! /s

[marcosdumay]

It's not really disputed. It's something that happened in one small place or two that people insist on repeating on the internet as if it's some universal thing.

[dwa3592]

thanks for this clarification. until today i was under the impression that they planted male trees only because they looked prettier and weren't as messy as the female ones (to reduce the cleaning bill of the local municipal)