Bee mating dances are basically an insect version of this, according to Prof Pischedda

Earlier this week, Barnard hosted a talk with Biology Professor Alison Pischedda and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Professor Rebecca Jordan-Young on unconventional sexual behavior that is, in fact, backed up by biology. New Bwogger Chenoa Bunts-Anderson was in attendance to learn about flies, the Olympics, and the Jersey Shore.

At Monday night’s event From the Faculty Lounge: Biology and the Sexes, Professor Alison Pischedda, Assistant Professor of Biology at Barnard College, discussed her research on sexual behaviors. As a Freshman, I still hold all the bushy-eyed enthusiasm and hope not yet crushed by Midterms. So, when I saw an event publicizing discussions on sexuality and possibly frogs (disclaimer: the poster was deceiving) I jumped on the opportunity to attend. (Pun intended).

“The traits that make a male with the highest reproductive success are not the same as those a female uses to reach reproductive success,” Pischedda explained. This means that the fittest males will not always have the fittest offspring. Her research on this topic has been highly controversial, sparking outrage amongst those that prescribe to the belief that ideal offspring made “fit” males sexually desirable. Pischedda made her discoveries through examining the mating and offspring of Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, Professor Pischedda’s test subject of choice. The reasons for an animal’s choice of sexual partners is still unclear, as research has provided no definite answers. However, it is now understood that the fitness which defines natural selection does not define sexual selection.

Although this may be controversial research, Pischedda published her initial findings way back in 2006 (when Hannah Montana was still a thing). In recent years, more scientists have been accepting Pischedda’s data as an opportunity to redefine old notions of sexual selection; however, pushback has been present from the start. Professor Rebecca Jordan-Young, the Chair of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College and the second speaker at Biology and the Sexes, discussed the bias towards sex-related data and non-conforming populations in science.

“The biology of sex is complex,” Jordan-Young first proclaimed, daring the room to open their minds to the nuances of gender and sexuality. In a field where it can be hard to find female representation and where we’re taught to accept socially approved scientific notions, diverse research into sex can be stifled. These are exactly the sorts of issues Jordan-Young has faced through her research into testosterone testing in the Olympics, which is used to exclude women who may not fit traditional characteristics of femininity. Testosterone is tested through blood samples and if a woman has levels considered above average, she’s forced to take testosterone suppressants. The targeting of elite female athletes who have hyperandrogenism (naturally produce extra testosterone) or are intersex (individuals who present both female and male genes–therefore producing above average levels of testosterone) forces us to consider how we define men and women.

Jordan-Young states that, “We can conceptually separate [the female and male genders].” However, at this point in time there’s no definite way to measure differences. Many individuals fall on biological or social spectrums that challenge classic gender roles. Therefore, Jordan-Young argued, testing for testosterone, which isn’t supported by a wide body of research, proves to be incorrect and damaging to non-traditionally categorized athletes.

Ultimately, both Professor Jordan-Young and Professor Pischedda warned that scientists must be careful of biases and blind belief in the preconceptions of gender, sex, and women’s roles in sexual practices and scientific research. “We have to be careful to not fall into the trap,” Professor Pischedda advised.

Many of the presumptions that determine traditional male and female roles in society are built upon a unifying thought: Men are more promiscuous than women. It turns out that’s not exactly true. Pischedda and Jordan-Young both described the prevalence of female promiscuity and non-monogamous behavior in their research. For example, Pischedda described that animals such as songbirds that were previously considered monogamous will actually have multiple sexual partners during periods when they are separated. This means that females have more control over reproductive partners than previously thought. Therefore, many of the conventions surrounding female sexuality limits scientific exploration. As Professor Jordan-Young explained, “Gender is a political structure, a power structure.”

An idea central to Pischedda’s discussion was the sexiness of test subjects. Fruit flies, being… well, flies, aren’t exactly known for their charisma. This makes them far less attractive than the patterns speckling a tropical bird or the brash strength of an elephant. Many people hear sexual selection and think “elk in the forest fighting each other for access to females.” However, Pischedda argues that flies are the perfect controllable representatives for the general animal kingdom, as they mimic many of the same mating rituals as larger, sexier animals. For example, she compared the mating dances of bees, birds, and Jersey Shore actors showing off their abs.

During discussions on societal influence to human gender research, Professor Pischedda just had to admit that “I think I’m very glad that I work with fruit flies and don’t have to make inferences [about humans].”

Ultimately, this event showcased the active discussion on gender and sexuality in science at Columbia in the world. In a period of time largely defined by strides in LGBT rights, the election of Donald Trump, and increasingly diversifying educational institutes, this event further highlights the importance of frank discussions on sexuality and gender. Additionally, the event had great free food.

Super-Senior Frat Boy via Pexels