This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

X and Y titles; sexual implications?

#51Twilight_SonataPosted 7/3/2013 9:37:31 PM
Lord0bsidian posted...
the claim that the x chromosome induces females...

...is not one that I think anybody is making? At least I'm definitely not. What I'm saying is that it's more complicated than that, as genetics tend to be. As for the rest of that paragraph, I would submit that it only has that implication if you're under the impression that having X and/or Y chromosomes alone is enough to make one biologically male or female, which is not the case as there are many intersex possibilities.
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at male and female as a binary, black-or-white question. But it's not. It's more complicated than that. Even the idea that male and female are "opposite" misses the whole story.

it's clear that having the y is both necessary and sufficient for male development

That is not totally true. It is possible for an individual with XX chromosomes to develop as male, and it is also possible for an individual with XY chromosomes to develop as female. Biological sex is actually not as well defined or easy to pin down as most would believe.
#52Lord0bsidianPosted 7/4/2013 12:12:18 AM
Twilight_Sonata posted...
At least I'm definitely not. What I'm saying is that it's more complicated than that, as genetics tend to be. As for the rest of that paragraph, I would submit that it only has that implication if you're under the impression that having X and/or Y chromosomes alone is enough to make one biologically male or female, which is not the case as there are many intersex possibilities.
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at male and female as a binary, black-or-white question. But it's not. It's more complicated than that. Even the idea that male and female are "opposite" misses the whole story.


everything you just said is totally misleading and reeks of postmodernist obscurantism. sex chromosomes are exactly what determine sex. sure, you can have some autosomal mutation that happens to interfere with the pathway down the line, but what starts off the pathway in the first place are the genes on the sex chromosomes. also, are you counting not having any abnormalities as a requirement? that's like listing having no bugs as a feature for a piece of software.

and i guess having a mother who's a roided up bodybuilder could also interfere by flooding the fetus with exogenous hormone, but does that count as proof that sex chromosomes are ineffective? i don't think i need to point out that a big part of the sex determination pathway is regulating hormones. so answering yes would be like kicking over a table and saying "that crappy table can't even stay upright."

as for your "spectrum of intersex," there's always a boundary. even in a continuum. you can analyze gonadal tissue histologically if you have to.

Twilight_Sonata posted...
That is not totally true. It is possible for an individual with XX chromosomes to develop as male, and it is also possible for an individual with XY chromosomes to develop as female.


in cases with normal autosomal genes, xx males come from sry segments, ie y chromosome material, that get transposed on to x chromosomes during crossover and xy females are from either sry mutations or mutations of things sry affects.
---
The internet: where men are men, women are men, and lolis are the FBI.
#53Twilight_SonataPosted 7/4/2013 3:48:54 AM
Lord0bsidian posted...
everything you just said is totally misleading and reeks of postmodernist obscurantism.

And what you just said reeks of an unwillingness to apply critical theory to science, an unfortunate trend common to many who hold science as gospel as don't even realize it. Always remember that just because you read something in a scientific journal doesn't mean that it covers the whole story. Scientists are humans who make human errors and have human biases that need to be examined and question if science is to successfully fulfill its purpose. Neither I nor anybody else should accept "That's just argle-bargle!" as a rebuttal, no matter how fancily it's worded.
#54Lord0bsidianPosted 7/4/2013 9:14:59 AM
except i told you exactly why it's argle-bargle in the rest of the post with reasoning, which is literally the definition of critical thinking. when did i ever source my conclusion directly from literature? all my reasoning has been based on observational data from actual specimens, for which i see you don't have any rebuttal. instead you choose to focus on the superficial while carrying on about gray areas and the evils of structuralism like postmodernists do whenever they're confronted about their bs.
---
The internet: where men are men, women are men, and lolis are the FBI.
#55Twilight_SonataPosted 7/4/2013 10:38:08 AM
Well, from your tone and poorly constructed arguments, it's clear to me that this has stopped being an informative discussion and started being a thinly-veiled, faux-intellectual ****-swinging contest, which I have no interest in participating in. Have a good day.
#56Misdreavus573Posted 7/4/2013 10:51:09 AM
It's. Not. CHROMOSOMES.
#57Lord0bsidianPosted 7/4/2013 4:52:41 PM
Twilight_Sonata posted...
Well, from your tone and poorly constructed arguments, it's clear to me that this has stopped being an informative discussion


no, it stopped being an informative discussion when your position changed from "the x chromosome is just as important as the y because..." to "there's too many degrees of sex, therefore it's impossible to classify anything."
---
The internet: where men are men, women are men, and lolis are the FBI.
#58Twilight_SonataPosted 7/5/2013 2:58:52 AM
Lord0bsidian posted...
your position changed

It really didn't. All that happened was that you decided to exaggerate my position into a caricature because that was easier for you to try to dismiss via ridicule. "It's not as simple as most people think that it is." is not the same as "It's impossible." Despite your assertion, I'm not saying the latter but rather the former. What I do think is futile and wrong-headed is the attempt by many to reduce everything to a binary when there's no actual need to, but that's not the same thing at all.
#59Lord0bsidianPosted 7/5/2013 12:23:21 PM
that doesn't mean a binary or bipolar system is never appropriate. also, i've been explaining why it isn't that complicated but you haven't addressed any of that. you've just been repeating your assertion so what does that make you?
---
The internet: where men are men, women are men, and lolis are the FBI.
#60Twilight_SonataPosted 7/7/2013 2:00:24 AM
Lord0bsidian posted...
that doesn't mean a binary or bipolar system is never appropriate.

I'm not saying that a binary or bipolar system is never appropriate. I'm saying that it's not appropriate here. That's not the same thing.