- Sperm is as alive as ova: not alive. What is alive is the combination of the two, after some development.
- Both gametes contribute genetic material the same way.
- Their respective lines are as continuous.
> So, maybe the name change is to honour those soon dead?
Of course, the name change has sociological / political reasons. It cannot have such biological roots since the policies around names were there way before we discovered this stuff. I'm afraid the reasons why we keep the male name in many places are simpler and way less poetic.
One's a full cell with mitochondria, cell wall, and so on. The other just delivers genetic information. There's no symmetry.
For example, all your mitochondria and its dna come from the female line. None from the male.
But this part:
> The cells which divided then, are the same cells as now
Seems quite wrong. Ova of one woman obviously contains part her DNA, not her mother's unchanged.
Now, I didn't know about the mitochondria part, interesting, thanks for teaching me!
The sperm is absorbed, the dna integrated, but the cell itself, all of the cell aspect is from the woman.
Our DNA is certainly there, but that's not the same as a continuous line of cells.
Anyhow, it's one way to view things.
When you think of it, women live forever, men die. 4B or whatever years ago, life arose. The cells which divided then, are the same cells as now. Women come from an egg, which divided over and over, cells specializing, including dividing and specializing as her eggs/ova which she is born with.
The end result is that those cells are a continuous line, billions of years old. Men contribute sperm, genetic material, but no living cell.
In a sense, women are immortal. Men die.
So, maybe the name change is to honour those soon dead?
(Yes, I know, weird take on it. It's Monday, I'm allowed.)