Does X chromosome make you a "woman" and Y a man?
Discussion
Couple of interesting articles:
https://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gend...
I started doing some reading after seeing a YouTube clip where a spokesperson was dealing with some very aggressive questioning from a young woman who was offended that he referred to a man who identified as a woman, as a man. His response was "I can't change biology".
While I'm happy to refer to people however they wish to be referred to, it did make me think.
When all the political correctness is ignored and people’s feelings are left out of the mix, what’s the answer?
I would have thought that a Y chromosome makes you genetically male. Though you may hate it and live a X-centric life, you are still what you are, so the comment above made sense to me. However, on reading into it a little further, I must confess to being confused.
Have I been dazzled by science or are the articles right?
https://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gend...
I started doing some reading after seeing a YouTube clip where a spokesperson was dealing with some very aggressive questioning from a young woman who was offended that he referred to a man who identified as a woman, as a man. His response was "I can't change biology".
While I'm happy to refer to people however they wish to be referred to, it did make me think.
When all the political correctness is ignored and people’s feelings are left out of the mix, what’s the answer?
I would have thought that a Y chromosome makes you genetically male. Though you may hate it and live a X-centric life, you are still what you are, so the comment above made sense to me. However, on reading into it a little further, I must confess to being confused.
Have I been dazzled by science or are the articles right?
Using my secondary school biology and no googling if I remember correctly if you are a female you have XX chromosomes and if you are a male you have XY chromosomes. Chromosomes are molecules of DNA, so if you wanted to biologically test if someone was male or female without looking between their legs I think it would be a good measure.
This is also probably more appropriate for the lounge.
This is also probably more appropriate for the lounge.
This topic has been done to death. My understanding:
We would all benefit from having transgender members, or those with transgender close friends/family, who are comfortable discussing their own situations to explain better, as without this we are all on the outside looking and in and casting aspersions on something we don't fully understand.
I think we can all agree that those who are transgender have enough challenges to deal with without having to persuade the rest of us that we can call them Jane without checking their knickers first.
- Sex and gender are two different things. Sex is a biological aspect, gender is a social one. Generally, when people ask if you're male or female they're asking about your gender, not your sex, but as the two are so often the same they are often used interchangeably.
- The word "transgender" in itself is a bit of a giveaway on that - It means being of a gender "opposite to" (trans-) your sex. The corresponding term to refer to those who are the same gender as their sex is cisgender, with cis- meaning "on the same side as".
- The understanding of XY is male and XX is female completely disregards the array of intersex possibilities (XXY, XXYY etc)
We would all benefit from having transgender members, or those with transgender close friends/family, who are comfortable discussing their own situations to explain better, as without this we are all on the outside looking and in and casting aspersions on something we don't fully understand.
I think we can all agree that those who are transgender have enough challenges to deal with without having to persuade the rest of us that we can call them Jane without checking their knickers first.
As you say, leaving peoples feelings out of the mix etc... In a normal* human being each cell has 2 sex chromosomes and XX codes the human as female, XY codes the human as male.
HOWEVER, I know a very rare person who is genetically male but has female sexual characteristics except she has a much reduced uterus and no ovaries. It was discovered as a teen when she didn't start periods. So she is legally female since birth but genetically male... However she is a rare case with a medical explanation, she has never had a penis for example.
There are people trying to redefine the word gender as not-necessarily synonymous with sex. That irritates me. The changing of gender on legal documents, I find that an absurd concept. Trying to argue against science and claim being a healthy XY with a penis and testes doesn't necessarily mean you are male... Well that's just retarded.
I prefer a world where people can live as they wish so long as it doesn't harm anyone or involve anyone having to change their ways to accomodate your wishes. Me using the "wrong" pronoun doesn't stop you being who you are, much as it is no business of mine what your pants contain
HOWEVER, I know a very rare person who is genetically male but has female sexual characteristics except she has a much reduced uterus and no ovaries. It was discovered as a teen when she didn't start periods. So she is legally female since birth but genetically male... However she is a rare case with a medical explanation, she has never had a penis for example.
There are people trying to redefine the word gender as not-necessarily synonymous with sex. That irritates me. The changing of gender on legal documents, I find that an absurd concept. Trying to argue against science and claim being a healthy XY with a penis and testes doesn't necessarily mean you are male... Well that's just retarded.
I prefer a world where people can live as they wish so long as it doesn't harm anyone or involve anyone having to change their ways to accomodate your wishes. Me using the "wrong" pronoun doesn't stop you being who you are, much as it is no business of mine what your pants contain
- as in the sense "typical", "the statistical mode", like "humans have 2 legs"
Edited by donkmeister on Tuesday 14th August 13:12
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
Beati Dogu said:
You're either male, female, have the extremely rare genetic condition (described above), or are mentally ill.
Now that may be a "hate fact", but pandering to mental delusions really doesn't help people in the long run.
+1Now that may be a "hate fact", but pandering to mental delusions really doesn't help people in the long run.
XX Female
XY Male
- and genetic errors such as XXY Klinefelter's Syndrome https://www.medicinenet.com/klinefelter_syndrome/a...
There's no X or Y in LBTMGBGTQ(A-Z)2
Beati Dogu said:
You're either male, female, have the extremely rare genetic condition (described above), or are mentally ill.
Now that may be a "hate fact", but pandering to mental delusions really doesn't help people in the long run.
The World Health Organisation has stated that gender incongruence is neither a delusion nor a mental health disorder. The medical and psychological communities have been talking for some time about this, in addition to revising the condition in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in the same way the homosexuality was in the 1970s. They state this specifically because the change will help people in the long run.Now that may be a "hate fact", but pandering to mental delusions really doesn't help people in the long run.
World Health Organisation said:
Gender incongruence, meanwhile, has also been moved out of mental disorders in the ICD, into sexual health conditions. The rationale being that while evidence is now clear that it is not a mental disorder, and indeed classifying it in this can cause enormous stigma for people who are transgender, there remain significant health care needs that can best be met if the condition is coded under the ICD.
Source: http://www.who.int/health-topics/international-cla...World Health Organisation said:
Under current proposals to the ICD-11 working group, transgender identities would no longer be classified as “Transsexualism” under the category of "Mental health and disorders” but would be classified as “Gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood” under the category of “Conditions related to sexual health”. The proposed reclassification is expected to reduce the perception of illness and stigmatization of transgender people, and to lead the way for improvements in such course that transgender health can be understood, measured and addressed. The reclassification is also likely to positively affect how gender identity is viewed by society more broadly.
Source: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/95/2/16-183913...Amber Ault PhD and Stephanie Brzuzy PhD MSW said:
Gender identity disorder (GID) is probably the most widely contested diagnosis in the current DSM; APA's revision process provides social workers with the opportunity to weigh in on the debate about GID, and it is imperative that we do so. Social workers should support the elimination of GID from the DSM now, as we supported the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1970s. We argue that psychiatry's "institutionazation" of GID serves to reaffirm modern notions of normative gender and sexuality at moments when such notions are being contested. Social work's ethical stance to fight social injustice requires that the profession advocate the removal of GID from the forthcoming DSM-V. The"diagnosis"promotes and sustains discrimination against people who present nonnormative expressions of gender and discourages all of us from exploring and experiencing our full human potential.
Full article worth reading if you have an Oxford Academic login: https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/54/2/...Simpo Two said:
Dear god, it's worse than I thought. It's even got acronyms too, lots of them. All cooked up in the last 20 years I'll bet.
Just remember, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts.In another 20 years you may come to realise you fell on the wrong side of history, and if so you will have to explain to your children/grandchildren, why you belittled those who suffered social oppression. That is inspite of the professional judgements exampled above, and despite you having lived through, the turning of similar levels of ignorance which was aimed at the homosexual component in our society.
Your attitude to these new ideas has been held many times throughout history, and history has never judged decisions based in ignorance kindly.
Personally, as much as I admittedly struggle with the concept, I acknowledge I have no informed argument to contradict the experts, so I submit to the expert advice. Unless it changes of course.
Interesting that the authors of the paper - Amber Ault and Stephanie Brzuzy - are not scientist - they're lecturers in sociology or social sciences.
Here's one homepage: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/ambe...
Stephanie Brzuzy "continues to do research on transgender identities and social policy activism in the United States" - so she's an activist which is evident in the papers she's published (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2002797253_Stephanie_Brzuzy)
These are not people I'd trust to give an honest and impartial view on the subject.
Current research appears to suggest there are brain "abnormalities": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-biolog...
The issue I have with this area is that each person has only on set of experiences - their own. Nobody knows what it's like to be the opposite sex, but that's the only option available, and there's no way to determine whether it's right or not.
On top of this, there is also the higher suicide rates for transgender people, irrespective of what treatment they've had(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/)
I think it's one of those things that will be very difficult to fully elucidate the cause.
Here's one homepage: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/ambe...
Stephanie Brzuzy "continues to do research on transgender identities and social policy activism in the United States" - so she's an activist which is evident in the papers she's published (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2002797253_Stephanie_Brzuzy)
These are not people I'd trust to give an honest and impartial view on the subject.
Current research appears to suggest there are brain "abnormalities": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-biolog...
The issue I have with this area is that each person has only on set of experiences - their own. Nobody knows what it's like to be the opposite sex, but that's the only option available, and there's no way to determine whether it's right or not.
On top of this, there is also the higher suicide rates for transgender people, irrespective of what treatment they've had(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/)
I think it's one of those things that will be very difficult to fully elucidate the cause.
The excellent Radio Lab podcast did a series called "gonads" on this subject.
It's not quite a spectrum but it's certainly not binary either. There are a myriad of grey areas between xy and xx, biologically and its not that rare.
The most surprising thing is that I always assumed the chromosomes were shaped as xs and ys but apparently not, they're just blobs.
Anyone who tells anyone else what they are or how they should behave if they're not harming others is a
in my view.
It's not quite a spectrum but it's certainly not binary either. There are a myriad of grey areas between xy and xx, biologically and its not that rare.
The most surprising thing is that I always assumed the chromosomes were shaped as xs and ys but apparently not, they're just blobs.
Anyone who tells anyone else what they are or how they should behave if they're not harming others is a
in my view. I worked in Brighton for a dozen years or so and was bemused about gender and transgender almost from the word go. After a while you get a working handle on it and later, in my case much later, you crack it, so to speak.
The problem many people, including me for a time, have is to try and understand the situation from an historical, and personal, point of view. Once you just accept it, it all becomes clear.
Sex, in the sense of which sex you are according to biology, is unimportant. It is of no consequence. If governs who does what to whom in the clinch department, but outside of that it should be ignored.
If someone wants to identify as feminine then does it matter if they were born one way or the other? I now not only can’t see the problem, I can’t see the problem I had.
Many feminists don’t want men to be identify as female. I can see their point. However, if they want that, then they too must not identify as female either.
It used to be easier to tell men from women; the latter danced backwards. We were told that it was a bit more complicated than that and there was a whole department in the IOC to work out the sex of competitors. Even they had instances where there was strong doubt. If they can't tell, it seems odd that so many other people think they can.
As FredClogs says; if they don’t harm anyone, or scare the horses, why should anyone care?
At least now we have a choice, denied to our parents. I would still want to be a man as women have few advantages; apart from easier treatment by the courts, earning more money in tennis for less work, and . . . oh, want a minute. I’m going to have think about this.
The problem many people, including me for a time, have is to try and understand the situation from an historical, and personal, point of view. Once you just accept it, it all becomes clear.
Sex, in the sense of which sex you are according to biology, is unimportant. It is of no consequence. If governs who does what to whom in the clinch department, but outside of that it should be ignored.
If someone wants to identify as feminine then does it matter if they were born one way or the other? I now not only can’t see the problem, I can’t see the problem I had.
Many feminists don’t want men to be identify as female. I can see their point. However, if they want that, then they too must not identify as female either.
It used to be easier to tell men from women; the latter danced backwards. We were told that it was a bit more complicated than that and there was a whole department in the IOC to work out the sex of competitors. Even they had instances where there was strong doubt. If they can't tell, it seems odd that so many other people think they can.
As FredClogs says; if they don’t harm anyone, or scare the horses, why should anyone care?
At least now we have a choice, denied to our parents. I would still want to be a man as women have few advantages; apart from easier treatment by the courts, earning more money in tennis for less work, and . . . oh, want a minute. I’m going to have think about this.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 3rd September 09:56
You also have to differentiate the genotype from the phenotype.
In this question genotype is X and Y chromosome content, which isn't necessarily just XX or XY. As a few posters evidenced there are also XXY, XYY and others.
The phenotype is the physical expression of the genes; the majority of XX being female and XY being male. However, this isn't always the case, usually from other genetic faults resulting in certain things not happening in wks 6 -12 of a pregnancy (when sexual differentiation occurs in the human embryo).
The default mammalian sex development is female, so if a genotypical male has other genetic faults meaning they either do not produce testosterone, or the testosterone receptor doesn't work then the embryo would develop as phenotype female.
Occassionally oestrogen and progesterone receptors function as if they are testosterone receptors, so a female (XX genotype) embryo develops as male. Happens in about 1 in 20,000 live births.
So next time you're at a Premier league football match there's possibly 2 - 3 "blokes" in the crowd who are genetically female.
In this question genotype is X and Y chromosome content, which isn't necessarily just XX or XY. As a few posters evidenced there are also XXY, XYY and others.
The phenotype is the physical expression of the genes; the majority of XX being female and XY being male. However, this isn't always the case, usually from other genetic faults resulting in certain things not happening in wks 6 -12 of a pregnancy (when sexual differentiation occurs in the human embryo).
The default mammalian sex development is female, so if a genotypical male has other genetic faults meaning they either do not produce testosterone, or the testosterone receptor doesn't work then the embryo would develop as phenotype female.
Occassionally oestrogen and progesterone receptors function as if they are testosterone receptors, so a female (XX genotype) embryo develops as male. Happens in about 1 in 20,000 live births.
So next time you're at a Premier league football match there's possibly 2 - 3 "blokes" in the crowd who are genetically female.
Monty Python said:
Interesting that the authors of the paper - Amber Ault and Stephanie Brzuzy - are not scientist - they're lecturers in sociology or social sciences.
Here's one homepage: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/ambe...
Stephanie Brzuzy "continues to do research on transgender identities and social policy activism in the United States" - so she's an activist which is evident in the papers she's published (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2002797253_Stephanie_Brzuzy)
These are not people I'd trust to give an honest and impartial view on the subject.
Current research appears to suggest there are brain "abnormalities": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-biolog...
The issue I have with this area is that each person has only on set of experiences - their own. Nobody knows what it's like to be the opposite sex, but that's the only option available, and there's no way to determine whether it's right or not.
On top of this, there is also the higher suicide rates for transgender people, irrespective of what treatment they've had(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/)
I think it's one of those things that will be very difficult to fully elucidate the cause.
Sociology lecturers often identify as scientists. I know one who claims she is a scientist as it’s a social science. Here's one homepage: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/ambe...
Stephanie Brzuzy "continues to do research on transgender identities and social policy activism in the United States" - so she's an activist which is evident in the papers she's published (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2002797253_Stephanie_Brzuzy)
These are not people I'd trust to give an honest and impartial view on the subject.
Current research appears to suggest there are brain "abnormalities": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-biolog...
The issue I have with this area is that each person has only on set of experiences - their own. Nobody knows what it's like to be the opposite sex, but that's the only option available, and there's no way to determine whether it's right or not.
On top of this, there is also the higher suicide rates for transgender people, irrespective of what treatment they've had(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/)
I think it's one of those things that will be very difficult to fully elucidate the cause.
Pinkie15 said:
You also have to differentiate the genotype from the phenotype.
In this question genotype is X and Y chromosome content, which isn't necessarily just XX or XY. As a few posters evidenced there are also XXY, XYY and others.
The phenotype is the physical expression of the genes; the majority of XX being female and XY being male. However, this isn't always the case, usually from other genetic faults resulting in certain things not happening in wks 6 -12 of a pregnancy (when sexual differentiation occurs in the human embryo).
The default mammalian sex development is female, so if a genotypical male has other genetic faults meaning they either do not produce testosterone, or the testosterone receptor doesn't work then the embryo would develop as phenotype female.
Occassionally oestrogen and progesterone receptors function as if they are testosterone receptors, so a female (XX genotype) embryo develops as male. Happens in about 1 in 20,000 live births.
So next time you're at a Premier league football match there's possibly 2 - 3 "blokes" in the crowd who are genetically female.
INteresting!In this question genotype is X and Y chromosome content, which isn't necessarily just XX or XY. As a few posters evidenced there are also XXY, XYY and others.
The phenotype is the physical expression of the genes; the majority of XX being female and XY being male. However, this isn't always the case, usually from other genetic faults resulting in certain things not happening in wks 6 -12 of a pregnancy (when sexual differentiation occurs in the human embryo).
The default mammalian sex development is female, so if a genotypical male has other genetic faults meaning they either do not produce testosterone, or the testosterone receptor doesn't work then the embryo would develop as phenotype female.
Occassionally oestrogen and progesterone receptors function as if they are testosterone receptors, so a female (XX genotype) embryo develops as male. Happens in about 1 in 20,000 live births.
So next time you're at a Premier league football match there's possibly 2 - 3 "blokes" in the crowd who are genetically female.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff