THE MYSTERY OF SEX AND SEX-TRANSMISSION
I Those happy persons who do not perplex themselves concerning the intrinsic causes behind all physical phenomena see it as only "natural" that two parents of opposite sex should produce offspring of both sexes. And yet it is not only a great mystery, but, on the face of it, it is an anomaly that a child who may possess an admixture of all the physical and mental characteristics of its two parents, bears, nevertheless, the sex and the sex-characteristics of one only. Sex, male or female, breeds true in nearly every case; the rare exceptions merely emphasising the rule. The mystery deepens when we realise that every individual is a product of countless such admixtures of the qualities, throughout countless generations, of countless forefathers and foremothers. And although such a man or woman may hark back to any one, or more, of the traits of his or her innumerable forbears, he or she, nevertheless, "breeds true" in the factors of sex and sex-characteristics. Long and closely biologists have pondered these many and involved problems. How is it, they inquire, that an embryo bred of two parents of opposite sex develops the sex of one only of these? How is it that the mother, who belongs to one sex only, produces—and produces Sex is regarded by the new Mendelian school of biologists as that which is known as a "Mendelian factor." And to follow the argument to its conclusions, a few simple words about the Mendelian theory of Heredity are essential to those unacquainted therewith. * * * * * About forty years ago, a German monk, Mendel by name, was struck by the facts that in his bed of edible peas certain plants grew tall, while others remained dwarf; that the blossoms of certain plants were white always, while those of others were always coloured. He made a number of experiments in crossing the plants, with a view to discovering the law of inheritance by way of its operation in hybrid varieties. Briefly, the results of his experiments—which have since been repeated and confirmed by many later observers—were as follows: There are plants that are tall and can transmit only Tallness to offspring. There are plants that are dwarf and can transmit only Dwarfness to offspring. So too, there are plants of white blossom or of coloured blossom that can transmit, respectively, only White or Coloured blossoming to offspring. When a Tall is crossed with a Dwarf plant, however, or a Coloured with a White plant, strange to say, the hybrid offspring of this cross shows one only of these opposite traits, to the exclusion of the other. No intermediate, or mixed, forms are produced. Thus, a Tall crossed with a Dwarf produces only Talls. Plants of Coloured flower crossed with those of White flower give only Coloured flowering varieties. A yellow In the cross between plants of opposite traits, one set of traits appears thus, exclusively, in the hybrid offspring. These traits—because they dominate growth and development—Mendel styled "Dominant." While those traits which are dominated by the other and opposite traits and do not appear in offspring, he styled "Recessive." On further breeding, a new and stranger thing happens, however. Because when such hybrids—plants bred of parents that had borne, respectively, "Dominant" and "Recessive" characteristics, but with the parental Dominant traits so overpowering the Recessive traits of the other parent that these latter are submerged and concealed—When these hybrids are crossed with other hybrids like themselves, both the Dominant and the Recessive traits of the original parents reappear in offspring. The tall hybrids resulting from the cross between Tall and Dwarf plants, when crossed with other tall hybrids of similar origin, produce both Tall and Dwarf plants. So with Colour, and with the other so-called "Contrasted Traits." It becomes evident, therefore, that although the Dominant traits of Tallness and Colour overpower in the growth and development of the second generation of plants, the Recessive traits of Dwarfness and Whiteness, these latter traits are submerged only, and are neither impaired in their values, nor destroyed. In the third generation, under different conditions of mating, the original Recessive, and submerged, traits re-appear, and reveal themselves in offspring-plants as the Dwarfness or the Whiteness that had characterised their grandparents. Mendel assumed that such hybrid plants—offspring of a Dominant and of a Recessive parent—produce two varieties of sex-cells, or gametes, and that one order of But any individual sex-cell, or gamete, cannot (according to his view) bear both Dominant and Recessive traits. The Dominant traits and the Recessive traits of the respective parents he regarded as being segregated, absolutely, in one or in the other set of sex-cells produced by hybrid varieties. And of these, the cells bearing Dominant traits are able to transmit Dominant traits only to offspring; while the cells bearing Recessive traits transmit Recessive traits only to offspring. II Now, Biology shows that plants and living creatures develop from a single microscopic cell, formed by the union of two half-cells, of which each half was contributed by one of the two parents. Clearly then, a hybrid plant is one that has sprung from the union of two half-cells, one of which bore the Dominant traits of one parent, while the other bore the Recessive traits of the other parent. But because Dominant traits overpower Recessive traits in development, the cross between a tall plant and a dwarf plant produces tall offspring only—Tallness being a Dominant trait which overpowers the Recessive trait of Dwarfness. So too, the cross between a plant bearing coloured and a plant bearing white flowers produces offspring bearing coloured flowers only—Colour being Dominant over the Recessive Trait of Whiteness. But because the Recessive traits of Dwarfness and of Whiteness were only overpowered in the plant-development, by the Dominant traits of Tallness and Colour, but were neither lost nor impaired in stock, hybrid plants that had shown only Dominant traits in It is seen, therefore, that in plants, when a cell bearing Dominant traits mates with one bearing Recessive traits, the Dominant characteristics so overpower the Recessive that these latter lie latent, and concealed, in the resulting plant. But when a cell bearing Recessive traits mates with another cell bearing Recessive traits, the resulting plant (its growth and development not over-ridden now by the more assertive Dominant traits) is able to develop its Recessive characteristics. * * * * * These interesting and significant laws of plant-heredity and constitution, discovered by Mendel in peas, have since been found by many expert observers to hold true as regards other species of plants; as too in poultry, in mice, and in rabbits, and moreover, in the hereditary transmission of human characteristics. In Heredity and Variation, Dr. Saleeby points out that in the mating of a black with a white rabbit, some of the offspring will be black like one parent, some white like the other, and some grey—a blend of the colours of both parents. In the last case, the Dominant trait of Blackness, derived from one rabbit-parent, blends in the fur of the rabbit-offspring with the Recessive trait of Whiteness, derived from the other rabbit-parent; a grey rabbit It is as though one should take a spoonful of black pepper and a spoonful of white salt, and thoroughly mix them. A drab "pepper-and-salt" mixture will result. But neither pepper nor salt will have changed its colour or its properties one iota. Could they be separated out again, each would be precisely as it had been before mixing. So it is with the Dominant and the Recessive traits in living organisms. They commingle intimately, but each retains its original and intrinsic quality. All the diverse and beautiful varieties of vegetation and the loveliness of flowers, in form and colour, result from multiple associations in hybrid-plants, of those which are known as the "Contrasted Traits" of parent-stock. III The lay reader need not perplex himself with the problems and phenomena of Mendelism. All he requires to remember are its three leading principles. Firstly, that in the world of Life, plant and animal, living attributes are divided into two contrasting orders. Secondly, that of these two orders of so-called "Contrasted Traits" ("Contrasting Traits" would be a fitter phrase), the two groups are as absolute and opposite in character and in significance as are the plus and the minus signs of Algebra, the Positive and the Negative To sustain her equilibrium by a counterpoise of dual and contrary factors, physical and vital, Nature must preserve these factors absolute and unchangeable as the constitution and the opposite attraction of The Poles. But in order to produce her countless progressive variations of form and attribute, physical and vital, she assembles these contrary factors in countless progressively complex combinations, co-operations and correlations. It is conceivable, therefore, that the infinite gradations and variations of form and attribute found in the world of living creatures are, as in the world of plants, phenomena of the ever further differentiation and more complex combination, in the hybrid offspring of two parents, of two orders of Contrasting Traits, transmitted by the respective parents. In all their multiple associations and diverse developments, however, the two Sets of Traits remain unchanged, precisely as do the individual elements of chemical combinations. Variations in species result, accordingly, not from change in the essential traits, but from changes in the modes and the degrees of the commingling of these in organisms; and in the modes and degrees of their ever more complex associations in such. Tallness, being an impulse toward extension, can never be Dwarfness, which is an impulse toward contraction. Black can never be White. Square can never be Round. Yet two opposite traits, both influencing development, may come to a mean, or poise, in an individual organism; as is seen in the grey offspring of a black rabbit mated with a white rabbit. But it is a counterpoise merely of contrary factors. The traits of Blackness and Whiteness remain absolute and unalterable. If now, the reader has grasped these leading principles of Plant-biology, he is in a position to follow the new application of them to Human Biology which I now venture to present. Without going into details of physiology, it may be stated that the principles of reproduction are so identical in plants and living creatures as wholly to justify argument from one to the other. The only differences are in degrees of structural complexity as organisms rise higher in the scale of development, and demand, accordingly, more complex organs and functions for the more perfect manifestation of their characteristics; as also for the transmission of these to offspring. It may be repeated, however, that Mendelian law is found to hold good in humans, both in the hereditary transmission of normal characteristics and in the hereditary transmission of the abnormal traits of disease and degeneracy. Increasing complexities, structural and functional, are indispensable to the presentment of the attributes of the higher species, Man. But such complexities are, nevertheless, continuous with and have sprung out of the simplicities of lower and rudimentary organisms, precisely as the branches and leaves and flowers of a plant are continuous with and have sprung out of its roots. A vital and important biological detail (to be considered later) is that plants are not, as living creatures are, differentiated into a right and a left-side, identical in construction. Another is that plants are self-fertilising. With the lower animals, plural births are the rule. And in these, the still crude and imperfect differentiations of the Contrasting Traits allow of piebald and other modes of chequered colour and amorphous construction. The higher the organism, the more complex are the biological requirements for its pre-natal development, as for its post-natal nurture. The functions of Parenthood, both physiological and psychological, are always IV As already mentioned, Sex is regarded by the large and ever-increasing order of the adherents of Mendel as a "Mendelian factor." But in applying Mendelian truth to humans, I venture to think the applications have not been carried to their ultimate and most momentous conclusions. Because, given the keynote to the Principle of Duality in the phenomenon of the Contrasting Traits found manifesting in plant-heredity and constitution, the duality of the Human Sexes, with their respective orders of Contrasting characteristics, suggests itself as being analogous. Human attributes, physical and mental, are seen, like those of plants, to group themselves into two distinct categories, the Male and the Female sex-characteristics, primary and secondary. And these, though wholly contrary in nature and in trend, are found—precisely as occurs in plants—linked together in the hybrid offspring of the two parents from whom they were, respectively, derived; blending in a temporal unity, but remaining, nevertheless, unchanged in their essential differences; coming to means and counterpoises in individual organisations, yet nevertheless preserved distinct and unalloyed in these, as is shown by their emergence, unaltered, in offspring of opposite sexes. As a hybrid plant is the product of two parents And at once a solution of the many baffling presentments and problems of Sex presents itself—of the enigma of man with Woman potential in him, of woman with Man potential in her; a key to the mysterious Duality of human biology and psychology, with its conflict of battling impulses, its harmonies of blending attributes, its innumerable and diverse developments in proportions, in means, in extremes; in normalities, eccentricities, deviations and reversions. And the analogy between the two orders of Traits—in Plant-life at the lower end of the scale of species, and in Human life and psychology at the higher end—suggests that the ever-increasing complexity of organisation and faculty which has characterised Evolutionary Progress, has had for aim, as it has had for method, the ever further differentiation and more perfect segregation, but, nevertheless, the ever closer and more intricate association of the contrary factors of Maleness and Femaleness. In the lower organisms—plant and animal—the two groups of Traits are but crudely differentiated as characteristics distinguishing one sex from the other. In such lower organisms, Sex-development is merely rudimentary; the first foreshadowings in Life of two intrinsic orders of Essential Attribute, the progressive evolution whereof reveals two contrary trends in physiological and psychical inherences. Like Light and Darkness, Heat and Cold, Sex is a phenomenon of Dual states which manifest by way of relativity. Without Maleness, Femaleness has no significance—no existence, in fact. And the converse. And in the lower and rudimentary forms of existence, in proportion to their degrees of undevelopment, the dual The evolution of Species and the evolution of Sex have been so absolutely co-incident in biological progress, indeed, that we are forced to perceive them as cause and effect; or, rather, as one and the same thing. And the evolution of Sex has meant, of course, the ever further divergence and the more complex specialisation, in form and in function, of the characteristics of the one sex from those of the other. V On still closer consideration, it appears, moreover, that the evolution of Sex has meant pre-eminently the evolution of the female sex—the slow and gradual emergence and development, in species, of female characteristics, as, in course of Evolution, these have freed themselves and have risen ever further into evidence from long subjection by the stronger, fiercer, more assertive—in a word, the Dominant—traits of the male. (A conclusion as singularly interesting, I think, as it is instructive, in view of modern Feminist doctrine and aims, which make, not for the culture and the ever further evolutionary development of the Woman-traits in woman, but, on the contrary, for a reversion to earlier cruder states of the subjection in her of her Woman-traits by those male Dominant ones, which, as the hybrid offspring of a male and of a female parent, every female creature inherits from her father, together with the Woman-traits she inherits from her mother. There is seen here the irony that woman has, by long ages of biological development, released herself from sociological In the new and profoundly interesting light thrown by Mendel on some previously unsolved problems of heredity, the reason for the long subjection of woman, biological and sociological, becomes clear. Because, given the key-notes of Tallness and Colour as Dominant traits, one identifies these, at once, as traits of Maleness; the greater stature of male creatures and the richer colour of their fur and plumage in the lower species pointing unmistakably thereto. Dwarfness (or lesser stature) and Whiteness (or lesser colour) are Recessive, and are obviously Female traits. The plant of Dominant type, though still bi-sexual, is making for a male genus; the Recessive type is making for a Female genus. White creatures are so feminine in general effect that it seems an anomaly when they are males. The converse is true of black creatures. The black horse is stubborn and restive; the white, gentle and submissive. White poultry are prolific in egg-production; white cattle are good milkers—a female characteristic. Jersey cows are both small in size and pale of colour. The male sex stands presumably for Dominance. And his positive, or objective, traits overpowering the negative, or subjective, traits of Recessiveness, prevail accordingly in early biological development. The female sex stands for Recessiveness. Her less assertive traits yield and recede into the background before those of the Dominant male. In stature, in strength, and in colour, and in the allied mental attributes, he holds the foreground in form and in function. The reason being that his rÔle in Life is adaptation to environment. The male, therefore, in his masculine rÔle of Adaptation, with his Dominant traits making fiercely for the Primal physical development may be said, thus, to have derived its first impulse from those fierce and fighting male-proclivities which characterised it in the epoch of that early savage struggle with environment whence Species emerged. Only with further evolutionary progress, do the female traits manifest as personal characteristics, secure survival, and find increasing exercise and sway. The tigress is only less fierce, less strong, and less savage than the tiger. Primal woman was only less fierce, less strong, and less savage than the male. It is only, indeed, in the maternal function and relation that the female traits of both tigress and primal woman awake, and find justification, impulse, and scope for development. And while the material progress which has led to modern Civilisation resulted from Adaptation to, and of, environment, and derived its impulse from the male proclivities of strength, assertiveness and intelligence, the moral progress thereof may be said to have derived its impulse from the evolution of the female sex-characteristics. Because the evolution of Woman-traits has meant the ever further tempering and counterpoising of the fiercely active and aggressive male propensities, by the more passive and self-surrendering qualities of the female. Judging the respective characteristics of the sexes by their widely-differing rÔles in the most important of Tigress or savage woman, her struggle with the rough conditions of primal existence is only less fierce and less strenuous than her mate's. It demands the positive male-qualities (which manifest first in stature, strength and pugnacity) only less in degree than does his, therefore. The negative female qualities which, manifesting first in passivity and surrender, detract from her fierceness and activity, would have made for extinction of species had they not been defended by those of her fighting mate, as too by the male-traits she herself had inherited from her fighting father. They could only evolve, accordingly, precisely in proportion as they were sheltered behind the male dominant powers. The tiger shelters his tigress only during her maternal phases, however. Her cubs brought forth, suckled, reared, and thrust into the jungle to fend for themselves, she must fight her own battles for food and existence. And her brief maternal phases being all too short for more than the scantest development of female traits—which derive their fullest impulse in their exercise as mother-traits—she remains a tigress merely, and produces tiger offspring With the further advance of progressing species, savage woman has evolved from savage brute to savage woman by way of such increasing shelter and protection by her Dominant mate as have permitted the slow and gradual evolution of the Recessive Woman-traits in her; and thereby the evolution of the Woman-sex. Her maternal phases and the unfitnesses of these become ever more prolonged and incapacitating; her offspring demands ever longer periods of suckling, devotion and care, as both she and it rise higher in the scale of organisation. Thus, Sex has evolved in the male by response to the ever-increasing claims upon him, by the female and by offspring, of his traits of protective chivalry and intelligent effort. And Sex has evolved in the female by response to the ever-increasing claims by offspring upon her, of her traits of devotion and ministry. The evolution of the Woman-attributes has been rendered possible only by that protection accorded by the male to the female as the due of her maternal unfitnesses; securing thus for her and for offspring a more privileged and kindlier environment. Environment which, evoking less of fight and physical stress, enabled her inherent milder, self-surrendering Recessive traits to emerge, to unfold, and to function increasingly in life and heredity. And in the degree of her advancing evolution, the male evolved. Because, just as in her earlier hybrid constitution, the Dominant male-traits she had inherited from her father, submerging the Recessive female-traits she had inherited from her mother, made her, for long Æons, more male than she was female, so now, with their progressive evolution, the Recessive female-traits not only made her ever more woman, but, transmitted in ever fuller measure to her sons, increasingly tempered, Thus, with advancing Evolution, the female sex-characteristics have engendered, in both sexes, qualities of quietism and subordination, to temper those of force and aggression; amenities of gentleness, forbearance and affection, to soften assertiveness, turn the edge of strife, and fructify intelligence. Thus, human civilisation has been fostered and furthered. In the hybrid creature that every man and woman is, are grouped two sets of Contrasting Traits, or Sex-characteristics: traits Dominant, or male, and traits Recessive, or female. And in the complex human hybrid, these traits, ever increasing in complexity of constitution and further diverging in trend, are associated in ever more close and complex poise and counterpoise as both become more intensified and intelligised. Man is a hybrid in whom the male Dominant traits derived from his father prevail in impulse and development over the female Recessive traits derived from his mother. Woman is a hybrid in whom the maternal Recessive traits prevail in impulse and development over the male Dominant traits she has inherited from her father. The Woman-traits (which, as said, reach their highest culmination in mother-traits), become in man paternal traits; modified mother-instincts which move him not only to love, in addition to providing for and protecting offspring, but, transfiguring all his other characteristics, move him to philanthropy, amity, tolerance and altruism in his dealings with his fellow-creatures. |