Cost of sex - a bargain!

Whenever I try and see the 'cost of sex' argument, I run up against the
problem that *my* ways of conceptualizing the issues don't have a
problem with the "two-fold cost", in terms of how this allows females
to subvert the sexual process and take all the pickings (maximal
genetic representation) for herself. Whenever I scribble down the
process, I write things like a chemical equation (ex-biochemist) or
flowchart (computer programmer). I have to account for everything, and
double up the things that need doubling up in order to compare like
with like for the 'inputs' and 'outputs' of the process. This sounds
like a cheat, and draws guffaws because the formulations are
unconventional, and my means of expressing them eccentric. But I
struggle to see why I am wrong, and now I know - I'm not. (Crank alert!
If you've lost interest, I'm sure Nashton has something interesting to
say elsewhere).

OK, I'm not going for Argument by Doodle, and you would be right to be
skeptical of some armchair spread*** jockey: let's see if I can sell
this:

The traditional formulation (eg Futuyma) of the Cost of Sex is that a
female who goes through the rigmarole of producing two offspring with a
feckless partner(s) is obviously being exploited. If the male
contributes nothing but sperm, and she is doing all the hard work, she
might as well do all the hard work for herself. The male's genes are
parasites on her efforts, and she can churn out whole copies of herself
twice as often. Because daughters are produced twice as fast every
generation, males are doomed, and will be swamped.

It's this last bit I struggle with: How? My perspective is a
selfish-genetic one, and I think the current formulation is looking too
hard at individual success. 16 clones can outcompete 16 assorted males
and females? In what way? Confuse them to death?

Well, if an average female can produce four offspring, the 'defector
gene' gets into sixteen grandchildren if they all survive. The
ancestral gene only gets into four, because of the presence of males,
according to Futuyma and everyone else.

But where could an ancestral/defector gene reside? This is a
fundamental fact of genetics - in order to get into a female, it has to
reside anywhere other than on a Y. Besides the Y, there is nothing to
choose between a male and a female gamete. Therefore, as a locus, it
must exist in every organism, male or female. As a variant, the version
which is mutated is trivial. The locus has changed function, and its
success must be judged in that light, NOT as any old doubled variant
from the ancestral genome.

It has not ensured that it gets a 2-to-1 advantage over anything. It
gets copied into every daughter; whatever resides at that locus in
every sexual gamete gets copied too, and does not inhibit the sexual
process.

The complete representation of 'femaleness' within the non-Y part of a
male genome leaves little room for a genetic benefit to defection. You
can't rebel against yourself. This also means I don't have to be
particularly ingenious with any handwaving model I may come up with for
the 'defector gene's precursor. Whatever it is, males carry it too,
or at least half of it if XX pairing is significant.

A functional variant of the 'ancestral' allele of the defector gene
must be carried by every descendant of the sexual, if they are fertile
- all 16 of 'em, male and female. There may be allelic variation
within those 16, but that affects selection amongst those 16, not
between the ancestral and the defector. If there are selective
differences between the ancestral and defector populations, they are
nothing directly to do with this allele or any of its variants. The
defector gene has gained nothing. 16 female bodies instead of 8 male/8
female. Wow.

The defector *has* given a copy guarantee to any allele which has been
hijacked into this process, but this is not major. If an allele only
exists in every second gamete produced, it will only be in half the
sexually produced bodies, whereas every selected individual in the
defector population will gain a 100% guarantee that the alleles will be
passed down the line.

These are not *her* alleles any more, they are just alleles - and never
were exclusively female ones. They are variants at a locus possessed
by every gamete. Common variants don't get twice as many copies in
the 2nd asexual generation - they can come from males too, over in
sexual land. It's just rare ones that get the 2-for-1 effect. And why
are they rare? There are some genes you don't want to double. If they
are less 'fit' than the average wild-type, you don't really want
a 2:1 payoff, ta very much.

Sexuals can eliminate the poor performers, and concentrate the better.
Asexuals can too ... veeeery slowly.

They are all tested by selection, as they occupy the same niche, sexual
or asexual. Selection doesn't know they are asexuals; neither do
they. The asexual population will win a round if the genome promotes a
success against alternatives in the sexuals, and lose if there is a
failure. But while the asexual population is small, any statistical
benefit of 2-for-1will (?) be tiny, and averaged over the whole genome,
successes would not be sure to always outweigh failures. This
population seems very vulnerable to drift.

Have I got this right?

.