Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than two sexes

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, Thanas, should've known better. Didn't inflame him intentionally, should have known better than to think he was sentient.

Either you are a pure troll (in which case you do whatever you do for totally alien reasons)...

Or you are literally too stupid and obtuse to even comprehend what others are saying or to listen to factual statements about science and philosophy. And you've got this fetish about how 'bluff and honest' or whatever you are, which is acting as armor for your own ignorance. Because whatever you've already learned, you've parsed that into a little brick of opinions that you consider 'facts,' and you can't even comprehend when other people tell you things that contradict that stupid little brick.

So I suppose this is you, failing the Turing Test. Goodbye for now.

[Axton]

So... you apologize for flaming, then dedicate the rest of your post to flaming? Is that... are you serious?

[Axton]

In any case: Biologists, plural, do not think there is a spectrum of genders. One biologist has confused genetic mosaicism with a "spectrum" of genders. That's all the article says.

[Flagg]

So... you apologize for flaming, then dedicate the rest of your post to flaming? Is that... are you serious?

He didn't apologize for flaming. He apologized for "enflaming" aka "riling you up". Then he did more of that by flaming you.

[Axton]

Well, he tried. Points for effort.

[Flagg]

Well, he tried. Points for effort.

Yeah. As someone who has a rep for losing his shit and going off the rails, my advice to you would be to take a week or 2 break from posting. Just my 2 cents.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In any case: Biologists, plural, do not think there is a spectrum of genders. One biologist has confused genetic mosaicism with a "spectrum" of genders. That's all the article says.

Actually, we do. In the sense that there is plenty of naturally occurring variation in sex (the state, and the act), and this variation is informative, we dont hand-wave it away. Gender variation in humans is naturally occurring, it is stable in human populations and is not selected out. It is also not new. Go back into historical records and you find transpeople.

What we are looking at is probably an evolutionary spandrel. I was too pissed to go into this before, but I am going to explain a simple concept for you.

Development is a mess, everything we have is built on stuff that came before. In order to function our development and genome have byproducts. Like the space between sets of arches.



We have a sex determination and development system that is regulated in a very complicated manner, there is enough spaghetti code and recursive feedback loops in there to make an engineer commit ritual suicide.

As an example, take the Fraternal Birth Order Effect with homosexuality. The more older biological brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay, irrespective of whether you are raised with them or separated at birth. The reason for this is that the immune system pre-dates the placenta, but mom's immune system protects the fetus, so women basically get immunized against androgen receptors in the brains of their male offspring. This is why you see way more homosexuality in mammals than anything else. It is not the whole reason why it exists, part of it is genetic (likely a byproduct of some other genetic or developmental process; we know some of the loci, we dont know what they do yet), but it is a significant contributor.

Or behavioral syndromes in crabs. Male fiddler crabs come in a few behavioral flavors. Bold individuals who are filled with testosterone and are aggressive toward other individuals, and evict them from their burrows, and shy individuals who are not. As a side effect, the bold individuals tend to get picked off by predators more often because they are outside their own burrows more frequently, have a shorter flight distance from predators, and leave their burrows faster after fleeing from predators. This is a side effect of the mechanism by which their aggression toward other crabs is regulated, and it cannot be changed by selection very easily because that particular regulatory pathway is highly conserved. Aggression and a devil-may-care attitude toward predators cannot be decoupled without domino effects that would certainly be deleterious.

The cold logic of natural selection means that anything that decreases fitness should get selected out. Transgenderness without other specified intersex conditions tends to decrease reproductive success. It is not the result of one-off mutations that re-occur. The rate of occurrence is too high for that. So something keeps it around. Either it is directly beneficial (which seems implausible), indirectly beneficial (say, beneficial to kin in some way), or the system that creates it cannot be modified by selection very readily because it is critical to some other process which is highly conserved.

It is NOT an aberration, corruption, or anything else. It simply is. Like the space between a pair of arches.

[Axton]

What keeps it around is the other result of our evolutionary development -- technology. Being tool-using primates, we have achieved such a high proliferation and advancement of tools that we have largely exempted ourselves from natural selection. That's why we have 'gluten-allergic' humans in the first world, for example. Ever notice there aren't a lot of gluten allergies, lactose intolerance, or peanut allergies in the third world? Did you ever wonder why that is?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What keeps it around is the other result of our evolutionary development -- technology. Being tool-using primates, we have achieved such a high proliferation and advancement of tools that we have largely exempted ourselves from natural selection. That's why we have 'gluten-allergic' humans in the first world, for example. Ever notice there aren't a lot of gluten allergies, lactose intolerance, or peanut allergies in the third world? Did you ever wonder why that is?

No. It is not.

Something like being trans has a negative effect on reproductive success--not due to death from predators or the privations of the environment--but due to a lack of reproduction. Sometimes it is death from suicide or being beaten to death, but typically it is just non-reproduction.

That is what tool use helps us with. Tool use does not "exempt" us from sexual selection, or the natural selection that keeps us evolving as a social species. Hell, until very recently it did not help us against infectious disease.

Your argument here is an irrelevant red-herring that simply proves you dont know what natural selection is or how it works.

[Axton]

What keeps it around is the other result of our evolutionary development -- technology. Being tool-using primates, we have achieved such a high proliferation and advancement of tools that we have largely exempted ourselves from natural selection. That's why we have 'gluten-allergic' humans in the first world, for example. Ever notice there aren't a lot of gluten allergies, lactose intolerance, or peanut allergies in the third world? Did you ever wonder why that is?

No. It is not.

Something like being trans has a negative effect on reproductive success--not due to death from predators or the privations of the environment--but due to a lack of reproduction. Sometimes it is death from suicide or being beaten to death, but typically it is just non-reproduction.

Exactly. It's a non-reproducible genetic error. But why does it continue to manifest? Because first-world human beings are not sufficiently genetically diverse.

That is what tool use helps us with. Tool use does not "exempt" us from sexual selection, or the natural selection that keeps us evolving as a social species. Hell, until very recently it did not help us against infectious disease.

And as recently as that, intersex conditions and body dysmorphic disorder were vanishingly rare. They've become more prevalent the more advanced and the more pervasive technology gets.

Your argument here is an irrelevant red-herring that simply proves you dont know what natural selection is or how it works.

Incorrect. My argument makes perfect sense in light of technological advancement and technological pervasiveness. The first world's technological development has divorced the first world from natural selection; as a result, genetic anomalies are more common in the first world than ever.

But back to the OP: "Biologists", plural, are not acknowledging a "spectrum" of gender. It's one biologist confusing genetic mosaicism with a "spectrum." OP article and the headline spawned from it are either comically inept or deliberately deceptive.

[Zixinus]

What keeps it around is the other result of our evolutionary development -- technology. Being tool-using primates, we have achieved such a high proliferation and advancement of tools that we have largely exempted ourselves from natural selection. That's why we have 'gluten-allergic' humans in the first world, for example. Ever notice there aren't a lot of gluten allergies, lactose intolerance, or peanut allergies in the third world? Did you ever wonder why that is?

That's because they don't eat those foods there, they eat other foods that they are used to. For example, rice does not have gluten. Gluten intolerance is on the rise globally because Asian countries are now eating wheat-product next to rice, where previously that was only rice and thus there was no gluten intolerance to be had. I don't know about peanuts because nobody knows what causes the allergies.

Lactore tolerance isn't a "weak" trait created by civilization either. It is actually the opposite: it is a civilization adoption. Go to a hunter-gatherer tribe who have lived like their ancestors did since time immemorial and guess what: they'll be lactose intolerance. You don't even need to go to a jungle to find such people, most people in China are lactose intolerant. Are they somehow "degenerative"? No, they simply don't have genes to take advantage of lactose.

[Axton]

What keeps it around is the other result of our evolutionary development -- technology. Being tool-using primates, we have achieved such a high proliferation and advancement of tools that we have largely exempted ourselves from natural selection. That's why we have 'gluten-allergic' humans in the first world, for example. Ever notice there aren't a lot of gluten allergies, lactose intolerance, or peanut allergies in the third world? Did you ever wonder why that is?

That's because they don't eat those foods there, they eat other foods that they are used to. For example, rice does not have gluten. Gluten intolerance is on the rise globally because Asian countries are now eating wheat-product next to rice, where previously that was only rice and thus there was no gluten intolerance to be had. I don't know about peanuts because nobody knows what causes the allergies.

Lactore tolerance isn't a "weak" trait created by civilization either. It is actually the opposite: it is a civilization adoption. Go to a hunter-gatherer tribe who have lived like their ancestors did since time immemorial and guess what: they'll be lactose intolerance. You don't even need to go to a jungle to find such people, most people in China are lactose intolerant. Are they somehow "degenerative"? No, they simply don't have genes to take advantage of lactose.

Gluten sensitivity is largely psychological. The only people that are genuinely gluten-sensitive are people with Celiac disease and similar disorders.

[Zixinus]

So? Yes, there are lot of idiots (or at best, misinformed) out there convinced that they have gluten sensitivity when they don't. Being gluten-free has become a stupid fad diet. There are people out there convinced that microwaves make food radioactive, or that only raw food is healthy and a heap of other bullshit.

It has no bearing on your original argument.

[Axton]

So? Yes, there are lot of idiots (or at best, misinformed) out there convinced that they have gluten sensitivity when they don't. Being gluten-free has become a stupid fad diet. There are people out there convinced that microwaves make food radioactive, or that only raw food is healthy and a heap of other bullshit.

It has no bearing on your original argument.

Arguments evolve as account is taken of fair points in opposition. Or, I ask again, would you rather I ignore points that are brought up so that you can complain about that instead? Pick one: complain that I "backpedal" when I concede fair points and adjust my position in accordance with those fair points, or complain that I "ignore points."

Pick one. Can't complain about both.

[Zixinus]

Arguments evolve as account is taken of fair points in opposition.

I am limiting myself of your arguments to only those that I have quoted (about food allergies/intolerance being a civilizational illness). I'll leave your other arguments I didn't quote to those who have already addressed them. This is actually part of the "no dog-piling" rule for the forum.

Or, I ask again, would you rather I ignore points that are brought up so that you can complain about that instead?

You didn't ask them in the first place.

Pick one: complain that I "backpedal" when I concede fair points and adjust my position in accordance with those fair points, or complain that I "ignore points."

I have yet to do either! Are you confusing me with someone else?

The article you linked shows a study of people who THINK they are gluten-intolerant and identify as such, only to be proven that they are not. Again, people can believe or even make up misinformation they sincerly believe. The human brain is weird that way. It mentions nothing about the SOURCE of the intolerance who genuinely have it. What does it have to do with food allergies/intolerances existing purely due to technological advancements?

[Axton]

Celiac disease and peanut allergies tend to manifest most prevalently in the first world, where technology is both more advanced and more pervasive.

[Zixinus]

Celiac disease prevalence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264942/

There is increasing awareness of celiac disease among non-European populations, including those in the Middle East. The disease was considered uncommon in the developing world until the 1990s, when the introduction of serologic screening tests resulted in increased rates of diagnosis in the Middle East, India, and North Africa, where the HLA-DR3-DQ2 haplotype is prevalent and wheat consumption is quotidian.17,18 The prevalence rates of celiac disease in North Africa and the Middle East are now thought to be similar to those of Western countries.

Bolding mine.

So it is geography and genetics that determine the cause, not level of technological communality.

Prevalence is also higher because diagnosis of the condition has improved. This is a common "false growth" when discussing medical conditions, the number of patients isn't what's increasing but the number of diagnosed patients. The same may be true for peanut allergies, see below.
The main reason of course is that Celiac disease is genetic and is spread by genes appropriately. It is not caused by civilization, it is only activated by it because civilization means eating wheat-products that contain it.

As for peanut alleargies: http://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/art ... -4551-6-21

While food allergies and eczema are among the most common chronic non-communicable diseases in children in many countries worldwide, quality data on the burden of these diseases is lacking, particularly in developing countries. This 2012 survey was performed to collect information on existing data on the global patterns and prevalence of food allergy by surveying all the national member societies of the World Allergy Organization, and some of their neighbouring countries. Data were collected from 89 countries, including published data, and changes in the health care burden of food allergy. More than half of the countries surveyed (52/89) did not have any data on food allergy prevalence. Only 10% (9/89) of countries had accurate food allergy prevalence data, based on oral food challenges (OFC). The remaining countries (23/89) had data largely based on parent-reporting of a food allergy diagnosis or symptoms, which is recognised to overestimate the prevalence of food allergy. Based on more accurate measures, the prevalence of clinical (OFC proven) food allergy in preschool children in developed countries is now as high as 10%. In large and rapidly emerging societies of Asia, such as China, where there are documented increases in food allergy, the prevalence of OFC-proven food allergy is now around 7% in pre-schoolers, comparable to the reported prevalence in European regions. While food allergy appears to be increasing in both developed and developing countries in the last 10–15 years, there is a lack of quality comparative data. This survey also highlights inequities in paediatric allergy services, availability of adrenaline auto-injectors and standardised National Anaphylaxis Action plans. In conclusion, there remains a need to gather more accurate data on the prevalence of food allergy in many developed and developing countries to better anticipate and address the rising community and health service burden of food allergy.

[Simon_Jester]

Alyrium, am I right to detect a certain irony in the following...?

Transgender people (particularly transmen) were probably more likely to reproduce in the ancestral environment than they are today. So talking about how it's some kind of genetic deficiency that wouldn't be passed on except for modern technology "coddling" people is particularly silly.

As you note, if a genetic defect truly existed in the ancestral human population, which would kill off people who had it, then evolution would have already weeded it out. So basically the only genetic defects we observe today are those caused as a side-effect of something else that increases fitness,* or those that can be caused by single specific mutations that can happen at random even if neither parent has them.**

And then of course there are things that are perfectly functional in the ancestral environment,*** which are then inexplicably called genetic defects by people who don't know anything about said environment.

So anything that could sanely be called a heritable genetic "defect" would no longer be present in our DNA at all, since it is insane to call something a "defect" if it works just fine, simply on the grounds that it has negative side effects under circumstances it didn't evolve for. And any widespread "defects" we observe in technological societies today are likely to be either developmental consequences of growing up in an environment very different from the ancestral one,**** or of mechanisms that are perfectly fit and actively increase fitness in the ancestral environment but are counterproductive today.*****
____________________

*(E.g. a gene that causes intense attraction to males and heightens reproductive odds in females becoming a 'gay gene' when it is passed on in males. There may be no net loss of "odds of having grandkids" for a woman who carries the gene, in which case evolution does not weed it out)
**(E.g. Down's syndrome, which you basically can't inherit directly, especially since it causes sterility in males, even though you can inherit risk factors for it, since a 5% chance of your child having Down's syndrome isn't a killer for odds of having grandkids, the way a 100% chance would be)
***(E.g. lactose intolerance, as Zixinus notes)
****(E.g. IF nearsightedness can be caused by spending a lot of time reading books and computer screens as a child instead of playing outside, that would be an example)
*****(E.g. obesity and hypertension caused because our brains instinctively crave suger, fat, and salt, and modern technology lets us create nigh-infinite quantities of easily obtained sugary, fatty, salty food, to the point where we can easily satisfy our food cravings on a regular basis, resulting a decline in physical fitness, with indirect consequences for reproductive fitness and lifespan. The mechanism is working as "intended" by the blind idiot god of Evolution, and we are considerably worse off for it)
____________________

He didn't apologize for flaming. He apologized for "enflaming" aka "riling you up". Then he did more of that by flaming you.

To be precise, I tried to dispassionately respond to what he'd said and explain something, because I hadn't quite given up on him. Then I gave up on him, because he failed the Turing Test in my book by how he responded to my last good faith effort. I'll admit it was kind of a pointless exercise, and in hindsight I regret taking him seriously "one more time" when he's basically conversing at a chatbot level of intelligence.

Memo to self: stop arguing with chatbots online. I really ought to learn that lesson.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But back to the OP: "Biologists", plural, are not acknowledging a "spectrum" of gender. It's one biologist confusing genetic mosaicism with a "spectrum." OP article and the headline spawned from it are either comically inept or deliberately deceptive.

This is a blatant lie, one that has already been debunked numerous times in this thread (which you have continued to ignore).

Enough of your dishonesty, Axton. Post some evidence for your claims. Show us some peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate gender is not a spectrum. Stop relying on irritating semantic games and actually present some evidence. Plenty has been presented before you in this thread, by Alyrium and others. Do you really think nobody notices when you completely ignore people's posts or points within those posts? Simply waving your hands and repeating your assertion that biologists agree with you is NOT evidence.

You've already been warned by a moderator for your behavior in this thread, if you don't wish to be summarily banned for constantly violating board rules I suggest you take some of the advice that other posters have been giving you. If you don't provide evidence or concede your arguments, you are in violating of board rules, and that is not looked kindly upon.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Exactly. It's a non-reproducible genetic error. But why does it continue to manifest? Because first-world human beings are not sufficiently genetically diverse.

You very obviously did not actually read my post, because genetic diversity did not come up. Are you having problems understanding the concept of an evolutionary spandrel? Do I need to explain it to you in words of one syllable?

Genetic diversity has nothing to do with it, and it is not an error.

And as recently as that, intersex conditions and body dysmorphic disorder were vanishingly rare. They've become more prevalent the more advanced and the more pervasive technology gets.

You have zero evidence for that, and you WILL provide evidence of it. Particularly because it goes against history we already know. Numerous aboriginal cultures had entire cultural constructs built around accounting for transpeople.

Incorrect. My argument makes perfect sense in light of technological advancement and technological pervasiveness. The first world's technological development has divorced the first world from natural selection; as a result, genetic anomalies are more common in the first world than ever.

And the guy with a Ph.D in biology is telling you that you are dead wrong. Our technology does nothing to stop natural selection from affecting traits that dont kill us. Transpeople dont reproduce typically, therefore natural selection should still be operational. They are still around, and have been for as long as we have a cultural memory. You are simply incorrect.

Stop repeating things I have already refuted. Your argument is not even logically coherent.

But back to the OP: "Biologists", plural, are not acknowledging a "spectrum" of gender. It's one biologist confusing genetic mosaicism with a "spectrum." OP article and the headline spawned from it are either comically inept or deliberately deceptive.

I dont give a shit about what the OP says or how bad science journalism is. I happen to know the general consensus of biologists and psychologists on this subject. I know, because I am a fucking biologist and it falls within my areas of expertise. You are wrong.

[Formless]

More evidence that Axton's understanding of genetic fitness is incomprehensibly flawed and naive: some gene sequences can both produce objectively harmful phenotypes (in other words, illnesses) and have a positive overall effect on fitness. Sickle cell trait is the most famous, of course. But for those who don't know, it can cause sickle cell anemia in those with both recessive alleles, but those with only one copy are more resistant malaria. So in those parts of (primarily) Africa where malaria is common, sickle cell trait is actually an advantage over the more "normal" hemoglobin genes, and thus about a fourth of the population in those places have sickle cell trait despite the genetic risk of anemia.

In other words, the prevalence of malaria is more hazardous to health and fitness (in the genetic sense) than sickle cell anemia, leading to a counter-intuitive selective pressure for an apparently negative trait.

[Zixinus]

The thing about being transgender as a genetic trait is that it is a good example of evolution's blind, idiotic, frugal-conservative behavior: it is a bad trait but not bad enough to seriously impair reproduction so it still floats around because biology is weird. There are numerous other such conditions, just not as politicized. Back problems that cause pain and discomfort but not stops us from working is another example.
Being transgender will cause psychological stress on people, but it does not prevent reproduction. A guy with a girl brain can still have sex and have children and vice versa. Social and other pressure would encourage them to do so. There could be animals that are transgender but we can't know because they aren't familiar with the concept nor can they express it.

What I find a little funny is that only in modern, treating society it is where it would be an actively negative fitness trait. Consider that treating transgender people actually would be STOPPING the spread of transgender genes because we cannot do gender-reassignment surgery with giving the corrected sex fully-functional (in the reproductive sense) genitalia. So in a way, curing transgender people is actually fully-consensual self-removal from the gene pool. So if being transgender has a key genetic component and we cure all transgender people by giving them their desired gender, they may disappear after enough generations by pure benevolence (unless of course transgender people start working around the problem or someone figures out how to give them reproductively-useful organs).

Of course, looking into it seems that genes are a factor and there is no clear cause that makes people transgender. But I just find the thought amusing.

[Terralthra]

Zixinus, it's incredibly likely that like most complex mental traits, there's no gene for being a trans person. There are likely a large number of genes which, when combined in a certain way, and with the absence of others, produces one of a number of trans or intersex phenotypes. I'm not a biologist, so I can't give you a list, but I imagine there are any number of genes which encode for what would be stereotypically masculine traits associated with testosterone and other androgens in a woman: aggressiveness, assertiveness, explosive upper body strength. A couple of those genes and a woman may be more likely to reproduce, but accumulate a bunch all in the same brain and they push the brain under the valley and into the other peak of the bimodal gender graph.

That's a hypothesis. I'm sure Alyrium will be by in a bit to correct my poorly-formed impressions.

[Zixinus]

For the record: when I say genes for transgender are a "bad" trait, I mean that they are ones not beneficial to the host. Not that such genes are evil.

Zixinus, it's incredibly likely that like most complex mental traits, there's no gene for being a trans person.

That's what I (tried) to say. Genes might be just one factor over many. It is actually possible that a man having feminine brain may be a symptom of being transgender rather than the cause.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The thing about being transgender as a genetic trait is that it is a good example of evolution's blind, idiotic, frugal-conservative behavior: it is a bad trait but not bad enough to seriously impair reproduction so it still floats around because biology is weird. There are numerous other such conditions, just not as politicized. Back problems that cause pain and discomfort but not stops us from working is another example.
Being transgender will cause psychological stress on people, but it does not prevent reproduction. A guy with a girl brain can still have sex and have children and vice versa. Social and other pressure would encourage them to do so. There could be animals that are transgender but we can't know because they aren't familiar with the concept nor can they express it.

What I find a little funny is that only in modern, treating society it is where it would be an actively negative fitness trait. Consider that treating transgender people actually would be STOPPING the spread of transgender genes because we cannot do gender-reassignment surgery with giving the corrected sex fully-functional (in the reproductive sense) genitalia. So in a way, curing transgender people is actually fully-consensual self-removal from the gene pool. So if being transgender has a key genetic component and we cure all transgender people by giving them their desired gender, they may disappear after enough generations by pure benevolence (unless of course transgender people start working around the problem or someone figures out how to give them reproductively-useful organs).

Of course, looking into it seems that genes are a factor and there is no clear cause that makes people transgender. But I just find the thought amusing.

Uh....correction.

Being trans in all probability does seriously impair reproductive success. But if it is the occasional byproduct of a critical process that is conserved, that does not matter. Say there are 15 genes that interact with eachother during brain development, each with a few small polymorphisms which are beneficial on their own, but if the genetic lottery means you get a specific combination or if you have five older male siblings, you end up a transwoman if genetically male. Or if genetically female, you could end up being unusually fecund, and the fitness benefit (for your mother) outweighs the fitness cost.

Zixinus, it's incredibly likely that like most complex mental traits, there's no gene for being a trans person. There are likely a large number of genes which, when combined in a certain way, and with the absence of others, produces one of a number of trans or intersex phenotypes. I'm not a biologist, so I can't give you a list, but I imagine there are any number of genes which encode for what would be stereotypically masculine traits associated with testosterone and other androgens in a woman: aggressiveness, assertiveness, explosive upper body strength. A couple of those genes and a woman may be more likely to reproduce, but accumulate a bunch all in the same brain and they push the brain under the valley and into the other peak of the bimodal gender graph.

That's a hypothesis. I'm sure Alyrium will be by in a bit to correct my poorly-formed impressions.

Something like that is pretty plausible, yeah.