>The problem is that males and females are essentially the same
>creature (subject to different hormone signals) and have co-evolved.
>If women had evolved non-sentient, men would have, too, because they
>basically have the same brains.
They both have the same nipples and breasts too, but they come out different. So your rationalisation that different brain sizes didn't happen because it wasn't possible doesn't cut much ice. Like I say, it didn't happen because it wouldn't have been any evolutionary advantage.
Pair bonding between women and men is an advantage however. Hence orgasm, which has been shown to play a part in bonding. The advantages of orgasm in terms of conception, which CB argues are its sole function, are actually minimal or non-existent. Far more crucial is what happens AFTER conception, the nurturing of the fetus (which necessarily involves that the mother prosper.) Then the long years of nurture, care and education of infant. It is a terrific advantage for the child to have two parents devoted to this task. The only mystery is why anyone would deny that this is the explanation. I think I've worked out CB, it seems to conflict with some kind of idealised version of primitive communism that he thinks it conflicts with.
> Of course, many women would argue that
>men _have_ evolved as non-sentient. This bias might be reinforced by
>the implausible codswallop above.
Clever. But I suppose if the male was only necessary for conception, then a non-sentient male would make much more sense than a non-sentient female for Homo Sapiens. In fact the male could even be genetically programmed to drop dead and stop wasting food and space, as soon as the task of conception was completed. (Which does happen in some mammals.)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas