Bitch: On the Female of the Speciesby Lucy Cooke
Rating: ★★★★
isbn: 9781541674899
Publication Date: July 14, 2022
Pages: 369
Genre: Science
Publisher: Basic Books
Studying zoology made Lucy Cooke feel like a sad freak. Not because she loved spiders or would root around in animal feces: all her friends shared the same curious kinks. The problem was her sex. Being female meant she was, by nature, a loser.
Since Charles Darwin, evolutionary biologists have been convinced that the males of the animal kingdom are the interesting ones—dominating and promiscuous, while females are dull, passive, and devoted.
In Bitch, Cooke tells a new story. Whether investigating same-sex female albatross couples that raise chicks, murderous mother meerkats, or the titanic battle of the sexes waged by ducks, Cooke shows us new evolutionary biology, one where females can be as dynamic as any male. This isn‘t your grandfather’s evolutionary biology. It’s more inclusive, truer to life, and, simply, more fun.
Now this is what I was looking for when I read the page rage inducing Invisible Women, albeit a much more narrowly focused version. Lucy Cooke looks at the theory of evolution from the perspective of the female of the species. She had the anecdotes, she had the data, and she had the sources. She writes with humor but without the bitterness. I was both fascinated and frankly, often appalled, at what nature has done to the anatomy of some species’ females (I’m looking at, and cringing hard, at you laughing hyena). Lots of this got read out to MT, because I wasn’t going to suffer those visuals alone.
The book isn’t perfect; there were at least two instances of Post hoc ergo propter hoc early on in the book, and an overall logical fallacy in the premise, which is that because there are many examples throughout the natural world of non-binary (in terms of sex not gender) species, then therefore sexually binary systems do not exist. This is false. Mammals are sexually binary (NOT GENDER): one sex can give birth, and the other cannot. Mammals cannot naturally change their sex, as many non-vertebrates, fish, birds, and reptiles can. Mammals cannot naturally procreate via parthenogenesis (Bible aside), like some non-vertebrates, birds and reptiles (and amphibians) can. So arguing that we need to see the whole of nature as non-binary is misleading at best and scientifically inaccurate at worst. Moreover, the larger overall fallacy of the book is that arguing that we need to remove binary bias from biological research, is itself a binary argument (ie, the world is either binary or it’s not). Some species are sexually binary, and some aren’t. One size does not fit all.
My other complaint was more of a niggle: throughout the text, Cooke and the scientists she speaks with often emphasise that the practice of sex for non-reproductive purposes has been widely documented, which is factual as far as it goes, but of all the reasons hypothesised for this non-reproductive sex, every one of them were transactional, which to me isn’t any different than sex for reproduction purposes. It was disappointing that no one cited thought that perhaps it was just done for the fun of it.
My final niggle is that Evolution, or Darwinism, is a theory, not a law, and it feels like scientists conflate the two in their writing. A theory is meant to evolve as new discoveries are made and is therefore fluid – but this is, more often than not, my constant complaint whenever it comes to natural science writing.
It doesn’t sound like it, but I really did enjoy reading this book and I’d recommend it to anyone who is interested in both science and the sexual bias in it.
*Note bene: at no point in my review did I intentionally touch on non-binary gender because gender issues are irrelevant to the nature of this book. For the record, a person should let their flag fly whatever that flag looks like but it’s none of my damn business and I don’t want anyone to try to make it my business.
