>>113701588>Nobody is trying to argue that females produce eggs, dingus. The point is that it's dumb to try to define female as "the one that spends energy" and males as "the one that destroys". There are numerous, obvious counter examples you can't just softly sweep under the rug.Post them.
Current scientific consensus is:
1) Does it undergo a sexual reproductive method in which genes are exchanged between two or more individuals?
2) If so, does it produce eggs, sperm, or other?
3) If other, which contributes shorter genetic gamete strands?
4) If irrelevant, which species undergoes the higher energy cost involves with the the gestation process?
5) (Pending)
Following our existing model, Diamonds are the only known reproductive members. Three sisters and one mother share genes and other reproductive material and inject it into the earth. It develops into different subspecies based on the ground type, and the more Diamonds involved the superior the offspring.
They are “female” in that the only reproductive material is coming from them, like a kind of genetic exchange in which all participants fund the energy cost. Similar to some fungus, where gender comes with an asterisk; its exchanged genetic material during pathogenesis, or “sexual asexual reproduction”.
The second question is where the ground its injected to fits in; they are sapping life from it, but the context the show represents is draining a mystical life force. Does the soil count as food? A host organism, like wasps laying eggs in the body of still-living spiders? Are they “males” raping their genetic material into the “ female” like fruit flies which destroys the “female”? Or are they females laying liquid magic eggs into a burrow?
>And of course bacteria doesn't fit into such a dumb model.It literally does.
So do plants.
You don’t like it, go found your own scientific zoology. With blackjack, and hookers.
