> “It is very upsetting for people who have grown up and lived for years believing that they are of a particular sex to suddenly discover that they are actually of the opposite sex. This can be a relief but can also be a loss. For most people it comes as a shock that upends their whole identity. Coping with this can take years,” I find this statement odd. Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determi…
It's about sex, not gender. And it's about Scandinavia, not the USA.
More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
121–130 of 231 posts
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#122Very interesting. Relates to conversations I've had recently regarding trans people in sports. Turns out that conversation isn't simple, because gender is way more complex than the binary M/F options society has tried to act like it is. Between reasons like in this article, or being born intersex, etc, there are definitely people with female chromosomes who have competed in men's sports, or people with female sex org…
Coming from a place of curiosity not knowledge with this. Is it not true that strength roughly matches testosterone levels and that is bimodal in the population? Could what we call women’s sports today not be defined on that axis instead?
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't know what is a disorder is or not when you don't know whats "normal" I hesitate to wade into this discussion, but in the case of the conditions listed in the article there are a number of additional symptoms and medical difficulties that go along with the genetic variants. It's not a simple matter of confusion about sex. As for "normal": The biological systems involved are not functioning normally because a g…
Your answer is recursive and sort of leaves the question unanswered, so my reply is kinda an repetition of what i already asked: How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom ?)
Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androgens. That receptor serves numerous functions in not only humans but across countless other species.
For an analogy, imagine you're trying to plug a device into an outlet in your country. Yet it doesn't fit. When you look at the prongs you discover it actually has 6 prongs pointing in random directions and can't possible fit into any standard outlet in your country. In fact, you can't even see how it would possibly work at all in any outlet anywhere because it doesn't make sense. It's safe to say that the connector isn't "normal". That's basically what's happening here. There's a clear and obvious version of what's typical, and it's likewise clear when a rare variant can't be observed to have some differences that can't possibly work. Meanwhile you can go anywhere else and observe typical plugs inserted into typical outlets and they're functioning typically.
There is a very clear "normal" in this case and it's easy to see how the receptors are supposed to work. Call it "typical" if that makes you feel better, but the medical community isn't using these terms for judgment or scorn.
There's a movement to pretend like we can't call anything "normal" lest we hurt someone's feelings. Yet most of these patients are discovered prior to the age of 10 (e.g. pre-puberty) because they seek treatment for various symptoms that they recognize as "not normal".
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 99th percentile trans woman would be competing with other people who have 99th percentile biological advantages, is what I'm trying to say.
99th percentile men will beat 99th percentile women in sports 100% of the time. There is no fairness.
Is it enough to remove the advantage? I can't begin to say. But acting like its as simple as "99th percentile men competing against 99th percentile women" are pretty clearly arguing in bad faith.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in biology is really binary anyways. Male and female are just useful groupings because we’re a sexually dimorphic species, but as with anything in nature, that’s mostly a spectrum anyways, with strong representations at the anchoring ends.
I mean having an X or Y are pretty damn binary. DNA strand has binary pairs (A-T, C-G). The resulting codons have anitcodon pairs. Then within biological functions you have the parasympathetic system vs the parasympathetic system which do opposite things across the whole body, pro vs anti inflmmatory agents, activators vs inhibitors nearly on every level of biology. Its actually rather astounding how much binary pair…
On the other hand, the XX vs XY karotype (chromosome set) is just very strongly correlated with sex.
The master switch for sex determination in humans (and most mammals) is the SRY gene, usually found on the Y chromosome. Its presence or absence determines whether a developing embryo takes the path towards producing sperm or producing eggs.
SRY can migrate to the X chromosome (resulting in males with an XX karotype) or can be broken by mutation (resulting in females with a XY karotype, usually infertile because other stages of development of the reproductive system depend on having two X chromosomes).
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean having an X or Y are pretty damn binary. DNA strand has binary pairs (A-T, C-G). The resulting codons have anitcodon pairs. Then within biological functions you have the parasympathetic system vs the parasympathetic system which do opposite things across the whole body, pro vs anti inflmmatory agents, activators vs inhibitors nearly on every level of biology. Its actually rather astounding how much binary pair…
Having and X or Y (or even multiple of each, as some people do, XXY and XYY are real, even single X or Y too) is binary, what's not binary is how it doesn't perfectly correlate with the sex (not even getting into gender here) that the person in question belongs to.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#127> “It is very upsetting for people who have grown up and lived for years believing that they are of a particular sex to suddenly discover that they are actually of the opposite sex. This can be a relief but can also be a loss. For most people it comes as a shock that upends their whole identity. Coping with this can take years,” I find this statement odd. Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determi…
I don't believe that is true (but I am certainly outside of my expertise). As far as I understand it, sex chromosomes (specifically the Y chromosome) are responsible for genitalia differentiation, but the relevant genes of the chromosome needs to be expressed for it to happen. Whether it's the Y chromosome itself that is inactive, or genes on the other chromosomes that supress it I have no clue about.
No expert but I thought there was a few to several cases along these lines.
To my understanding chromosomes are never responsible for anything, they are a container for genes, and some genes are likely to live on particular chromosomes, so talking about chromosomes being responsible is never 100% correct, so a bad level of abstraction when talking about corner cases.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are coming from a good place, but it is better to not compare our imaginary and implausible concerns (like discovering we’re a giraffe or from another planet) with real problems that people might actually have. I think you actually would have a lot to think about if you found out that you were a giraffe, but we don’t really have to seriously contend with that possibility or what it means. Yes, it is good…
>with real problems that people might actually have. But it's not a real problem, that's my point. The infertility is obviously, but that's not the identity issue here. Most people with infertility issues don't have a sex or gender identity problem, but a medical one. Insofar as your genes matter in regards to your sex, they can only matter in what they express, and that's already done. It's like someone telling you…
I dunno. People end up with aspects of their identity that they have trouble contending with, in any case. I neither want to downplay that nor make it seem like a bigger deal than it ought to be. If the researcher is reporting that people are having trouble coming to terms with it (the genetic information specifically and in isolation), then it is a real problem, but I think I agree that it shouldn’t be. And also, it is a short quote by the researcher and not super detailed, so maybe it is actually the case that people are taking a while to come to terms with the medical meaning anyway.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but does that make it any less "real"?
First because there is absolutely no objective way to define races in their coloquial meaning. So they don't exist. The only race we can truly define is homo sapiens sapiens.
This is a pretty controversial statement. Even studied anthropologists disagree with this.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition. Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development. Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion…
that's doing a lot of heavy lifting. i don't mean to single this specific instance out, but i think therein lies a key component of the "controversy" - human beings allow themselves to believe that there is an implied or intentional order (God, "science" or something else guiding things). this may be the case, or it really may just be the eventual result of evolution over a long-enough time period.
personally... if there is a god/s worthy of worship, i can't fathom trying to interpret their will or intent of what "should" be, and i believe anybody who claims to know is either suffering from grandiosity, or a liar. that's why i don't treat arguments of "should" that come from an implied knowledge of the meaning of life very seriously. the only "should" i really think matters is that we "should" treat each other with respect and stop trying to box people into neat categories based on our disdain of their outward expression of their own lived experience.