Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than two sexes

[Alyrium Denryle]

Accidental Double Post, but I will make the best of it.

We still dont have the human genome fully annotated. We have the raw sequence, and some genes are mapped. However, we dont know what everything does, and we certainly dont have all the regulatory and developmental pathways mapped out. What we do know is that development is a mess of cell-signaling, free-floating gene-product gradients used to set up patterns, positive and negative feedback loops that can either activate or inhibit...it is a mess. One gene can code for several different proteins through differential splicing of its exons (coding regions between introns, or non-coding regions) and any one signaling protein (or any hormone) can have numerous effects, depending on what cell and what receptor-mediated signaling pathway it latches on to.

[Flagg]

This is why I don't give advice often. No matter how right I am or how apt it is, it goes ignored. I'm a saaaaad panda.

[biostem]

Even if we knew the ins and outs of every gene or segment of DNA, you still can't discount various life experiences that may giver a person a shove one way or the other. Heck, it is feasible that one particular person could be so influential in another person's life that the latter person gains a sort of affection toward that person that may drive them toward seeking romantic relationships with others of that sex, (or a similarly bad experience could hypothetically push one away toward such an interaction).

In short, understanding our biology is only part of the equation...

[Simon_Jester]

This is why I don't give advice often. No matter how right I am or how apt it is, it goes ignored. I'm a saaaaad panda.

Eh, I'll say it straight, you were right and I was wrong. It's a pattern behavior of mine, and I'm trying to learn from the experience.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even if we knew the ins and outs of every gene or segment of DNA, you still can't discount various life experiences that may giver a person a shove one way or the other. Heck, it is feasible that one particular person could be so influential in another person's life that the latter person gains a sort of affection toward that person that may drive them toward seeking romantic relationships with others of that sex, (or a similarly bad experience could hypothetically push one away toward such an interaction).

In short, understanding our biology is only part of the equation...

There is precisely zero evidence of that, and every piece of evidence points to a strictly biological explanation.

[biostem]

Even if we knew the ins and outs of every gene or segment of DNA, you still can't discount various life experiences that may giver a person a shove one way or the other. Heck, it is feasible that one particular person could be so influential in another person's life that the latter person gains a sort of affection toward that person that may drive them toward seeking romantic relationships with others of that sex, (or a similarly bad experience could hypothetically push one away toward such an interaction).

In short, understanding our biology is only part of the equation...

There is precisely zero evidence of that, and every piece of evidence points to a strictly biological explanation.

What I'm saying is that one's sexual leaning may not be 100% one way or the other, and that if someone is kind of borderline, life experience may serve to sway them one way or the other.

[Flagg]

This is why I don't give advice often. No matter how right I am or how apt it is, it goes ignored. I'm a saaaaad panda.

Eh, I'll say it straight, you were right and I was wrong. It's a pattern behavior of mine, and I'm trying to learn from the experience.

Was more talking to the other guy. When I stop laughing at people and actually get angry, I try to take a break and am successful some of the time in doing so.

So I'm not going to contradict the moderator by saying the timing of your post was good, but I'm also not going to say that your post was incorrect in content.

[Axton]

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).

Easy there, fuzzy little man-peach, mm? Wanna go to a club where people wee on each other? Or would you rather instead read the article? It says exactly what I said it does.

Enough of your dishonesty, Axton. Post some evidence for your claims.

This existence of this thread is evidence of my claims. If it was "biologists" plural, and if the claim was anything but a novelty, the article wouldn't be news and the thread wouldn't exist.

[Axton]

And by the way, when I say 'read the article', I mean really read it. Attentively. It cites exactly one biologist, one biology student and the nebulous "some scientists".

And yes, as you read further down, it is in fact talking about chimaerism (or chimerism) and DSDs and reclassifying them as normative conditions in order to manufacture a nonexistent "spectrum" when they are, in fact, genetic anomalies.

[Lord Insanity]

Despite the brick wall I have found this thread fascinating to read. Thanks to the professionals for imparting your wisdom to those of us that actually listen.

I do have a question. Unless I am missing something, men have all of the genes for both male and female sexual traits. (xy chromosomes). Women would only have the genes for female sexual traits (xx chromosomes). If that is correct, wouldn't men have a much higher probability of having an inter-sex condition?

Somewhat related to that, back on page 3 Alyrium mentioned the population in Dominican Republic. Several people don't get their burst of developmental testosterone until puberty rather than in the womb. Does that population have a higher percentage of inter-sex conditions?

[madd0ct0r]

Lord insanity - a better mental model is that women dobt have y chromosones, so the y chromosone cant have anythibg critical on it With twice as many differibg copies of critical genes and their sex genes, women might even be at higher risk:)

But it can also be a matter of semantics. There is an example in the op of XY women capable of conceiving. Would that individual count as male or female in your survey?

[Formless]

Somewhat related to that, back on page 3 Alyrium mentioned the population in Dominican Republic. Several people don't get their burst of developmental testosterone until puberty rather than in the womb. Does that population have a higher percentage of inter-sex conditions?

I had never heard of it before, but I looked up what Alyrium was talking about and the answer to your question is that it is an intersex condition. They are called "Guevedoce," which literally translates as "testicles/penis descends at age 12." Up until that age they outwardly appear female with a vulva and so forth, though sometimes with ambiguous genetalia. However, it actually has nothing to do with hormones. Due to a genetic defect they have a deficiency in an enzyme important to male development in the womb that would normally interact with all the testosterone they are recieving. Said enzyme has no role in female development, though. They have (internal) testicles the whole time, which is important at puberty because the testicles generate testosterone. Apparently, the reason that their genitals finally develop into male parts at age twelve is that their body is exposed to both testosterone and a lesser known (to the general public) but powerful androgen called DHT which finally generates enough of the enzyme to cause growth of the penis and descent of the testes out of the body. Their parts are usually fully functional, though sometimes a bit too small to really have sex (something that can be corrected with medical intervention). Also, they almost always have somewhat small prostates, which was important since the discovery of this fact and its underlying cause lead to the development of drugs to help treat enlarged (but non-malignant) prostates in men with other conditions.

Also, like with other intersex conditions and like in cases such as David/Brenda Reimer (where doctors tried to force a sex change on the poor kid out of a misguided notion that it would cover up a botched circumcision), they are almost always uncomfortable identifying as female and usually embrace a male identity once they hit puberty. Usually.

The condition is mainly found in a particular area of the Dominican Republic probably because way back when a particular town was founded someone must have had the condition, leading to either the Founder Effect or a Genetic Bottleneck effect. Statistics with small populations can do weird things. But its not only found in the Dominican Republic of course: apparently there are a few cases in Papua New Guinea as well, and some scattered cases across the globe.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Despite the brick wall I have found this thread fascinating to read. Thanks to the professionals for imparting your wisdom to those of us that actually listen.

I do have a question. Unless I am missing something, men have all of the genes for both male and female sexual traits. (xy chromosomes). Women would only have the genes for female sexual traits (xx chromosomes). If that is correct, wouldn't men have a much higher probability of having an inter-sex condition?

Somewhat related to that, back on page 3 Alyrium mentioned the population in Dominican Republic. Several people don't get their burst of developmental testosterone until puberty rather than in the womb. Does that population have a higher percentage of inter-sex conditions?

Well the whole thing in the DR is an intersex condition. Even after they reach their Final Form (could not help it), they ejaculate from a hole at the base of the penis, sometimes have ambiguous genitals in childhood, and often have small prostates and/or small penises...

So yes.

Also: Thank you Formless, I was pulling them from memory earlier.

Also, females DO have the vast majority of the genes for male sexual traits. The Y chromosome is really really stripped down, it is basically a trigger for male development and a few genes regulating sperm production. The rest is done on the somatic chromosomes. As for your question, I am not sure. There are certainly more transwomen than transmen, and one of the more common described conditions with a known cause is androgen insensivity syndrome, which creates XY males who are absolutely female in all respects but fertility. However to fully answer your question II would have to look up the statistics on dozens of conditions.

[Lord Insanity]

Well apparently my assumption regarding x and y chromosomes was all wrong in the first place. It has been almost 20 years since I took biology. I did ace it which is probably why I can mostly follow this thread in the first place. (In my experience most people forget most of what they learn 3 seconds after they graduate.) Thanks for the answers.

[Ralin]

There are certainly more transwomen than transmen,

Is this actually proven? I always figured it was a matter of trans women being more visible/getting more attention.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There are certainly more transwomen than transmen,

Is this actually proven? I always figured it was a matter of trans women being more visible/getting more attention.

Yeah. The Amsterdam Gender Dysphoria clinic keeps records. It is about a 3:1 disparity.

[LaCroix]

Actually the Y chromosome has degenerated (due to not being able to pair up with a second, unlike the X in female generations) to the point its really mostly garbage with a few traits left. Most importantly SRY, which makes us a sperm producer...

Somewhere down the line, it's quite likely that it might athrophy to the point that it loses these traits, as well, meaning that infertility will become a problem down the evolutionary path...

Funnily, it can happen that SRY gets copied over to the X, as well, which gives us the XX male. Not the "47,XXY", or "46,XY/47,XXY" of Klinefelter, but a true 46,XX. Fully masculine genitalia, functional, but infertile due to low sperm count.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9010000117

It is not unreasonable that sometime down that path, some other quirk happens, and we get fertile XX males.

This can slo happen in the other direction - a girl in my class was a XY female. Had to get some shots or pills to get puberty started once she was 16, as far as I remember. Basically looked like a more boyish version of Avril Lavigne until she got them.