PDA

View Full Version : The Genetics of Sex Determination



rms2
11-24-2015, 06:22 PM
" . . . [S]cientists now regard biological sex as a spectrum rather than simple male/female identification."

What "scientists" are those? :puke:

Megalophias
11-24-2015, 06:47 PM
" . . . [S]cientists now regard biological sex as a spectrum rather than simple male/female identification."

What "scientists" are those? :puke:
Biologists?

Of course the vast majority of people are straightforwardly male or female biologically, but there are exceptions. You can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman - a very feminine-looking but sterile woman, to be precise. Though statistically speaking it's far more likely that this was just a regular guy that the archaeologists identified wrong.

rms2
11-24-2015, 06:56 PM
Biologists?

Of course the vast majority of people are straightforwardly male or female biologically, but there are exceptions. You can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman - a very feminine-looking but sterile woman, to be precise. Though statistically speaking it's far more likely that this was just a regular guy that the archaeologists identified wrong.

Read the quote. Biological sex is not a "spectrum", not as a general rule, despite the existence of disorders.

Megalophias
11-24-2015, 07:07 PM
Read the quote. Biological sex is not a "spectrum", not as a general rule, despite the existence of disorders.
Well sure, it is goofy to call a highly bimodal distribution a spectrum, the guy is probably blowing smoke. If that was your point than I fully agree. I just wanted to point out that it is possible that this person really was one of those in-between types.

rms2
11-24-2015, 07:16 PM
I ride the train to work and have often seen as a fellow rider a gentleman who is balding, clearly has a beard that he shaves each day, and a fairly deep voice. But skeletally the man is very slight, short in stature, and, to my eyes, kind of built like a girl. I think a couple of thousand years from now, if archaeologists of that time recover his skeleton, they might at first think they have found a female.

GailT
11-24-2015, 07:59 PM
Read the quote. Biological sex is not a "spectrum", not as a general rule, despite the existence of disorders.

What you call "disorders" is in fact the "spectrum" referred to by some scientists. I don't want to debate which terminology is more accurate, but I think the key point is that you cannot assume a perfectly binary distribution when evaluating individuals or ancient remains.

lgmayka
11-25-2015, 02:53 AM
You can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman - a very feminine-looking but sterile woman, to be precise.
Not according to the obvious modern (Y-chromosome) definition of woman. If one chooses to use the now-obsolete phenotypical definition composed before anyone knew much about DNA or fetal development, you are correct that such a developmental disorder does (very rarely) occur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome). However:
---
The gonads in these women [sic] are not ovaries, but instead, are testes; during the embryonic stage of development, testes form in an androgen-independent process that occurs due to the influence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. They may be located intra-abdominally, at the internal inguinal ring, or may herniate into the labia majora, often leading to the discovery of the condition.
...
These women [sic] are thus born without fallopian tubes, a cervix, or a uterus, and the vagina ends "blindly" in a pouch.
---

But to get back to the ancient DNA issue: Because the CAIS disorder is so rare, to apply that label to an ancient skeleton based on the presence of a peacock feather is not parsimonious, to say the least.

rms2
11-25-2015, 03:01 AM
What you call "disorders" is in fact the "spectrum" referred to by some scientists. I don't want to debate which terminology is more accurate, but I think the key point is that you cannot assume a perfectly binary distribution when evaluating individuals or ancient remains.

Well, among humans, reproduction is accomplished in a binary fashion. That is the function of sex: reproduction. There is no third sex in the so-called "spectrum" that does not represent a disorder.

DMXX
11-25-2015, 03:20 AM
While it is true there's evidence suggesting the binary social paradigm isn't universal (alongside evidence that early humans were polygamous before shifting towards monogamy), the biological paradigm is essentially binary (Megalophias' caveat holds true for certain).

As far as I'm aware, no consensus view among the various disciplines of the "hard sciences" have emerged declaring the vestigial nature of the male-female biological sex paradigm (99% of humans develop during embryogenesis and exhibit phenotype sexual dimorphism in the same largely binary fashion). I'll notch this up to either an error on the reporter's part, or the forced transfer of terminologies or concepts in some of the "soft sciences" (possibly for political reasons, straying far too off-topic).

An elementary approach addresses this readily, in a sense. None of us required a third individual from a third subset of humanity to be produced (i.e. mother, father and Bruno Mars). All of us are invariably the products of two parents (female and male).

Gender/sexual orientation is an entirely different kettle of fish, as alluded to earlier. The "spectrum" descriptor certainly applies for orientation as per the Kinsey report of the 80's and all the work that has followed. That's firmly off-topic, in any case.

Krefter
11-25-2015, 03:23 AM
Well, among humans, reproduction is accomplished in a binary fashion. That is the function of sex: reproduction. There is no third sex in the so-called "spectrum" that does not represent a disorder.

This sounds right. I don't know the scientific meaning of disorder, so I don't know if it should be called a disorder or abnormal. The "Harper road woman" was infact a man, unless he was a one in a million, and there's a 99.9% chance he identified and behaved as male. Feathers don't mean he was effeminate, in ancient Roman culture it wasn't associated with females as zamyatin13 pointed out. Lots of Native American men and women put feathers in their hair, so.....

To conclude this, we can all agree he should not be called a she as the article and one of the authors did. Does anyone dis agree?

Megalophias
11-25-2015, 05:52 AM
Not according to the obvious modern (Y-chromosome) definition of woman.
Well, I define someone who looks, acts, behaves, and identifies as a woman and lacks any male characteristics as a woman, even if karyotypically male; to me it seems bizarre to define someone's sex by their possessing a stretch of DNA that could code for that physical sex when it isn't actually doing so. But since the world for some reason refuses to accept my Big Book of Totally Obviously Correct Definitions of English Words as authoritative I suppose you may choose to do otherwise.

But it seems we are all in violent agreement about the facts of the matter in any case.

Lank
11-25-2015, 03:46 PM
Intersex individuals, while rare, aren't "one in a million". The reason why they are relatively unknown to most people in the modern world (and often confused with transgender people, who just have a different gender identity than their biological sex), and even many medical professionals, is not that they are super rare. People who tend to be familiar with similarly rare conditions (say, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis), are often not at all familiar with intersex folks.

There is the stigma, but then there's the important fact that they are often surgically "corrected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_intersex_surgery) shortly after birth (often male ---> female, since the procedure is more simple), so they can be raised as either male or female. But later in life, some of them have the issue of not identifying with the sex they were surgically reassigned to as infants.

GailT
11-25-2015, 03:53 PM
Well, among humans, reproduction is accomplished in a binary fashion.

That was true 20 years ago, The technology is changing rapidly.

rms2
11-25-2015, 03:57 PM
That was true 20 years ago, The technology is changing rapidly.

I was speaking of the natural, biological, unenhanced process, absent intervention or circumvention by technological means. Things often change, and not always for the better.

vettor
11-25-2015, 05:07 PM
Intersex individuals, while rare, aren't "one in a million". The reason why they are relatively unknown to most people in the modern world (and often confused with transgender people, who just have a different gender identity than their biological sex), and even many medical professionals, is not that they are super rare. People who tend to be familiar with similarly rare conditions (say, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis), are often not at all familiar with intersex folks.

There is the stigma, but then there's the important fact that they are often surgically "corrected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_intersex_surgery) shortly after birth (often male ---> female, since the procedure is more simple), so they can be raised as either male or female. But later in life, some of them have the issue of not identifying with the sex they were surgically reassigned to as infants.

Since all humans are initially conceived as females, the issue is when, does the Y chromosome kick start, usually to be "normal" its about 6 weeks into conception.
Any delay , will cause "intersex, a-sex etc "


a video to remind you all we all began as females
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Kdoja3hlk

Just to finalise, the Jenner person will always have a y chromosome. So it will be known as a man regardless of sex change etc.

and..........IMO, if God had a sex.........it must be female:behindsofa:

J Man
11-25-2015, 05:29 PM
Since all humans are initially conceived as females, the issue is when, does the Y chromosome kick start, usually to be "normal" its about 6 weeks into conception.
Any delay , will cause "intersex, a-sex etc "


a video to remind you all we all began as females
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Kdoja3hlk

Just to finalise, the Jenner person will always have a y chromosome. So it will be known as a man regardless of sex change etc.

and..........IMO, if God had a sex.........it must be female:behindsofa:

Genetically though isn't the sex of a baby determined right away in that the father either contributes an X or a Y chromosome to the mother's egg which results in the creation of an embryo? Physically we all may look female at the very start of our mother's pregnancies though.

vettor
11-25-2015, 06:02 PM
Genetically though isn't the sex of a baby determined right away in that the father either contributes an X or a Y chromosome to the mother's egg which results in the creation of an embryo? Physically we all may look female at the very start of our mother's pregnancies though.

maybe you should check other such programs, to conclude

Remember, this is a conceptual issue – if one were to say “men came before women” they would be more correct to say “women came before men”, though medically they would both be technically wrong (the embryo is often referred to as a proto-female; I’m just saying that it’s more female than male, not that it’s definitely female). That’s also why males have nipples, which pretty much serve no purpose.

I think the only other males that have nipples is the ape family


Some here will get too macho to discuss this issue .................not speaking about you, So I will not discuss this anymore, please need to check for themselves.

Megalophias
11-25-2015, 06:29 PM
We are super off-topic here, mods feel free to delete this or maybe we could make another thread


Genetically though isn't the sex of a baby determined right away in that the father either contributes an X or a Y chromosome to the mother's egg which results in the creation of an embryo? Physically we all may look female at the very start of our mother's pregnancies though.

Normally, yes. But biological processes in general are absurdly complex and there are inevitably errors sometimes. So you may end up with one X chromosome only, or 2 Xs and a Y. Or you could have an X and Y, but the SRY sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome (that produces male development) is broken, so you end up (mostly) female. Or you have 2 X chromosomes but the SRY gets accidentally copied onto one of the X chromosomes so you end up developing as (mostly) male. And having the genes for something does not mean those genes will necessarily do their job!

People may like to divide absolutely everyone into two sexes by some arbitrary criterion for their philosophical comfort, but in practical terms no one is going to make a CAIS person use the men's washroom.

(This is just how mammals operate, of course. A tree will happily reproduce sexually with another tree, with itself, and asexually, all at the same time. Crocodiles can develop into different sexes depending on temperature. Fungi often have multiple sexes. Some fish change sexes over their lifetimes. Birds have ZZ males and WZ females and can give virgin birth. For some lizards normal reproduction is gratuitous lesbian sex followed by virgin birth!)

rms2
11-25-2015, 06:35 PM
. . .

People may like to divide absolutely everyone into two sexes by some arbitrary criterion for their philosophical comfort, but in practical terms no one is going to make a CAIS person use the men's washroom.

. . .


And some folks like to point to fairly rare disorders as if they were common enough to call into doubt the ordinary and hardly arbitrary division of humans into male and female because it suits a modern political point of view that offers them philosophical comfort.

Megalophias
11-25-2015, 06:54 PM
And some folks like to point to fairly rare disorders as if they were common enough to call into doubt the ordinary and hardly arbitrary division of humans into male and female because it suits a modern political point of view that offers them philosophical comfort.

I'm not sure how the existence of intersex people could support or invalidate a *political* viewpoint, but certainly one could use the existence of intersex people to defend one's mistaken sexing of human remains. :)

rms2
11-25-2015, 07:01 PM
I'm not sure how the existence of intersex people could support or invalidate a *political* viewpoint, but certainly one could use the existence of intersex people to defend one's mistaken sexing of human remains. :)

You did not stick with the topic of sexing human remains in your prior post but accused "people" of liking to divide "absolutely everyone into two sexes by some arbitrary criterion for their philosophical comfort". That is why I brought up those who, for their own philosophical comfort, on the other hand, overemphasize relatively rare disorders to call into doubt the ordinary and hardly arbitrary division of humans into male and female.

Lank
11-25-2015, 07:11 PM
And some folks like to point to fairly rare disorders as if they were common enough to call into doubt the ordinary and hardly arbitrary division of humans into male and female because it suits a modern political point of view that offers them philosophical comfort.
It's possible to acknowledge that the vast of majority of people can be split into two sexes, while at the same time realizing that some do not fit into this simple division. I don't see the need to make this into a political issue. I don't think that is what the good number of intersex people that exist deserve. The (unnecessary, as I see it) need to categorize everyone into one sex or the other, seen in this thread with the mocking of the superficially female, genetically male individual, has consequences.

That's how a large number of intersex folks ended up with their genitals mutilated from birth, with only about half of the genetic males in this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421518/) accepting a female identity as adults. At that point, it's too late for them to regain their genitals because someone decided they had to be male or female. I don't see why they can't just be accepted the way they are, and the same goes for transgender people.

Megalophias
11-25-2015, 07:16 PM
You did not stick with the topic of sexing human remains in your prior post but accused "people" of liking to divide "absolutely everyone into two sexes by some arbitrary criterion for their philosophical comfort". That is why I brought up those who, for their own philosophical comfort, on the other hand, overemphasize relatively rare disorders to call into doubt the ordinary and hardly arbitrary division of humans into male and female.

"People" as a general tendency, not "all people", like to categorize things, and the exceptions and transitional forms give us headaches. This is normal human behaviour and applies to everything, not just sex. People can argue for an hour about whether a song is "really" heavy metal or glam rock, or whether something is "actually" pink or just light red, whether something is a genuine new species or merely a variety.

I have never met anyone who denied that most people are straightforwardly male or female, and I can't imagine what they would hope to gain by claiming something blatantly in contradiction to observable reality, but I'm sure it has happened. The frequency of intersex people is obviously irrelevant to any argument hinging on their mere existence. It would be relevant to a cost-benefit analysis over what kind of medical coverage to extend to them, that kind of thing.

rms2
11-25-2015, 07:18 PM
It's possible to acknowledge that the vast of majority of people can be split into two sexes, while at the same time realizing that some do not fit into this simple division. I don't see the need to make this into a political issue. I don't think that is what the good number of intersex people that exist deserve. The (unnecessary, as I see it) need to categorize everyone into one sex or the other, seen in this thread with the mocking of the superficially female, genetically male individual, has consequences.

That's how a large number of intersex folks ended up with their genitals mutilated from birth, with only about half of the genetic males in this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421518/) accepting a female identity as adults. At that point, it's too late for them to regain their genitals because someone decided they had to be male or female. I don't see why they can't just be accepted the way they are, and the same goes for transgender people.

You end by conflating biological disorders with a psychological disorder, i.e., gender dysphoria. I don't think anyone here said anything about acceptance or non-acceptance, and the only "mocking" that was done was of the writer of the original article and her apparent bias.

This topic has already been made into a political issue. Too late to put that genie back in the bottle.

Lank
11-25-2015, 07:37 PM
You end by conflating biological disorders with a psychological disorder, i.e., gender dysphoria. I don't think anyone here said anything about acceptance or non-acceptance, and the only "mocking" that was done was of the writer of the original article and her apparent bias.
Gender dysphoria is not separate from biology just because it's most apparent in the behavior of transgender people (rejecting their gender identity), and not their superficial physical properties. Considering how early they often end up rejecting their assigned gender identity, it's obviously something deeply imprinted, perhaps due to the influence of hormones in the womb.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed too far.

paulgill
11-26-2015, 08:49 PM
Gender dysphoria is not separate from biology just because it's most apparent in the behavior of transgender people (rejecting their gender identity), and not their superficial physical properties. Considering how early they often end up rejecting their assigned gender identity, it's obviously something deeply imprinted, perhaps due to the influence of hormones in the womb.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed too far.


Imprinted or abnormal exposer to opposite sex hormones, pesticide, plastics, etc. during development?

Lank
11-26-2015, 09:01 PM
Imprinted or abnormal exposer to opposite sex hormones, pesticide, plastics, etc. during development?
The high concordance rate from twin studies indicates some sort of congenital etiology. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Biological_causes):


Genetic variation, hormones, and differences in brain functioning and brain structures provide evidence for the biological etiology of the symptoms associated with GID. Twin studies indicate that GID is 62% heritable, evidencing the genetic influence or prenatal development as its origin.[21] In male-to-female transsexuals, GID is associated with variations in an individual's genes that make the individual less sensitive to androgens.[1]

Afshar
11-27-2015, 07:46 AM
Its really simple, they don't see the difference between X Y. But nowadays sexuality is more of a mental than physical state. With all the trans this trans that and with without headlights, no machinery or offline machinery all the scientists forgot that men have Y and women have X.

thetick
12-03-2015, 06:04 AM
...all the scientists forgot that men have Y and women have X.

That's not true. Men have an single X and a single Y chromosome and women have two X chromosomes.