Poll: Have you ever had your sex chromosomes directly examined?

Recommended Videos

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Every time the subject of transgenders or transsexuals come up, sooner or later someone makes the statement that they only believe you can actually change your sex if you change your chromosomes as well.

I personally have never understood why this matters, and it all seems to be a weird kind of reductionist philosophy that doesn't make much sense.

But let's just say we accept this as true. Your actual sex is determined solely, and exclusively by your chromosomes.

If that is true, how many actually know what sex you are? I know many of you will make the assumption that if your body has certain organs, your genes, surely must match what you can see.

But since you were assigned a sex at birth, and in the process of assigning this sex, it is very unlikely your chromosomes were ever tested, I can almost guarantee most of you have no idea what your chromosomal sex is.

So... If we take it for granted that the chromosomes are the final word on what sex you are, the question is pretty simple.

How many of you here know what your actual sex is, and aren't just taking a wild guess without any evidence?

Results should be quite amusing.

I'm guessing those of you who know your 'true' sex will be almost non-existent.

------------------------
Edit: I should probably clarify that my main point is whether any of the people that think genes matter actually know what theirs say about them.

So, to that end, if you'd like to comment, could you say whether or not you think genes are important in determining if someone is male or female? (Or something else perhaps)

Edit no. 3:
Since it's still not clear to many people, this whole thing is meant to be taken as a refutation of the idea that something which is basically invisible like your genes could be more important than all the traits which are blatantly obvious.

It's supposed to counter the argument that if you look like one sex, that you could in fact be something completely different, based solely on an invisible trait that most people have never had measured.

Does it make sense yet?


It's come to my attention that quite a few people don't get what I'm asking, or why I'm asking it.

I'll see if I can make it any clearer.

Whenever the subject of transsexuals, transgenders, or similar issues arises, one argument that always seems to derail the actual question is, what makes someone male, and what makes them female?
And... Can this be changed?

Those that argue that you cannot possibly change your sex/gender (there's usually also arguments about what gender means exactly) come up with the idea that you cannot change your sex unless you can change your chromosomes.
They then tend to argue that your chromosomes are absolute proof of your sex.
But, if this is the case, you would assume that when your birth certificate is written, and you are assigned a particular sex for legal purposes, that the only thing anyone checks is your DNA.

Yet, in practice, DNA is never considered unless you have some kind of obvious abnormality.
This means the vast majority of people actually have no idea if the sex they appear to be, and are considered to be legally actually matches with their DNA.

They assume this is true, and that's usually a reasonable assumption to make, but they don't actually know.

The reason for the poll therefore, is to check how many people actually know anything about their DNA.
And by association, whether it can really be considered reasonable to argue that your DNA is even relevant to your sex, let alone the most important thing.

In addition, I'm curious what people think about this.
How important do you consider DNA? Is it irrelevant? Does it overrule everything else?
Or something in-between maybe?
If you had conclusive evidence that your DNA says you are actually the opposite sex to what you so far have assumed (based on all other evidence) that you are, would you agree that this legitimately means you (and everyone else around you that thought so too) were wrong all along?

Just how important is DNA when most people have no idea what their own, or anyone else's DNA really says?

I hope that's clearer than the previous version. (if not, let me know. You can compare them by clicking the spoiler at the top of the post.)

So far I don't seem to be able to get the correct point across.
Feel free to read what I've tried to say previously, but until I can figure out a better way of putting it, I'll forgo trying to explain the reasons for this poll.

The results are quite interesting regardless though.

I'll get back to you on this when I can explain the issue a bit better.
 

DazZ.

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2009
5,542
0
41
No but I have a penis and can impregnate people.

Enough evidence for me.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Volf said:
no, I know what I am, I don't need a test.
OK, but that's not the point.

This is in response to people that insist that 'you are your genes' is somehow meaningful.
So, if you know what you are, and don't think you need to be tested, then clearly you disagree with the idea.
Nothing wrong with that.

I'm mainly just interested to know if the people that think this matters are even aware of what their own genes say they are...
 

CODE-D

New member
Feb 6, 2011
1,966
0
0
I was born and have a fully functional amazing penis, I am a man.
But if I had to choose, I would always choose to be a man, its just awesome.
(and I think your overthinking it and if others think of genes directly as sex, they need to just look down their pants)
 

Suicidejim

New member
Jul 1, 2011
593
0
0
Well, from my various masculine attributes, such as, quite importantly, my penis, and lack of abnormalities often caused by the intersex/other chromosome variations, I can pretty definitively conclude that I am indeed XY, and therefore male.

Your point seems to be a little vague and hazy, you might want to work on clarifying it a bit more, because at this rate all you're going to get is either confused or wise-ass answers.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Suicidejim said:
Well, from my various masculine attributes, such as, quite importantly, my penis, and lack of abnormalities often caused by the intersex/other chromosome variations, I can pretty definitively conclude that I am indeed XY, and therefore male.

Your point seems to be a little vague and hazy, you might want to work on clarifying it a bit more, because at this rate all you're going to get is either confused or wise-ass answers.
You might have a point.

That point being that you are inferring you are male from your attributes, which is the usual way of doing things.
You (presumably) don't actually know if your genes are XY or not. But it's reasonable to assume they are.

The reason I made this, is there seem to be a group of people who like to turn the logic on it's head, and say :

You are male if your genes contain the XY sex chromosome arrangement. Whatever else is going on doesn't make any difference as long as this remains true.

Yet, how many people actually know what their chromosomes are? You say you're inferring an answer...

Anyway, I'd clarify it if I knew a better way of putting it. Any ideas?
 

HardkorSB

New member
Mar 18, 2010
1,477
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
But since you were assigned a sex at birth
I think that developing a gender happens a few months before birth.
Also, the word "assigned" feels wrong for this sentence :)
 

Payned

New member
Oct 19, 2011
12
0
0
Quick thingy, having a monosomy/trisomy doesn't make you "intersex". Sex is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome and not by the number of X chromosomes. Of course you can have some genetic anomalies (such as with Klinefelter's Syndrome XXY), but it doesn't make you "partly the other sex". Just thought I'd clear that up, as it could possibly offend some people who read this thread.

OT I haven't had a formal test but we did look for barr bodies (which form when more than one X chromosome is present in a cell) in our own cells and I couldn't find any which means that I'm almost definitely XY.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
HardkorSB said:
CrystalShadow said:
But since you were assigned a sex at birth
I think that developing a gender happens a few months before birth.
Also, the word "assigned" feels wrong for this sentence :)
OK... Looks like I'm starting to develop a list of points that are unclear about my OP.

But to clarify what I meant there, irrespective of what you are biologically (however you want to define that.), when you were born, a doctor looked at you, and based on what they saw, wrote your sex on your birth certificate.

And it is what's written on your birth certificate, rather than your actual biology that determines your legal status, and it probably influenced a lot of things about how people treated you as you were growing up.

I said 'assigned', because that's what I meant. (Although it's more of a legal & social thing than a biological one.)
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Payned said:
Quick thingy, having a monosomy/trisomy doesn't make you "intersex". Sex is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome and not by the number of X chromosomes. Of course you can have some genetic anomalies (such as with Klinefelter's Syndrome XXY), but it doesn't make you "partly the other sex". Just thought I'd clear that up, as it could possibly offend some people who read this thread.

OT I haven't had a formal test but we did look for barr bodies (which form when more than one X chromosome is present in a cell) in our own cells and I couldn't find any which means that I'm almost definitely XY.
Interesting. However, don't several of the known intersex conditions contradict the idea that the Y chromosome determines sex? That's kind of the whole point of the poll to some extent.

being 'partly the other sex' depends entirely on the definition of sex. Certainly if you state (as you do) that the Y chromosome determines sex, you get a very neat answer. It's just not one that really makes much sense, except as an extreme form of reductionism.

Since you seem to know something about the subject however, can you have an abnormal set of sex chromosomes without being considered intersex?
If so, what are the criteria for a person being intersex?

(Aside from which, as far as I understand the subject, It's not the Y chromosome as much as it is a specific set of genes found on the Y chromosome. Development along either path depends on genes spread all over the genome, most of which are shared between both sexes regardless.)

Anyway, since anything other than XY or XX is a genetic abnormality, why would that not constitute being intersex (genetically speaking at least).

(As to the poll, it's a separate answer because it's unusual, and because of the purpose of the poll, lumping in such things as XXY, X0, XXX, or anything else with the 'male' and 'female' groups would render the intent behind the poll largely meaningless.)
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
What a lot of people aren't aware of is that in rare cases there are XY people with female bodies as their body didn't respond to male hormones in the womb, and XX people with male bodies because a small part of the Y-chromosome containing the testis-determining factor accidentally got grafted onto one of the X's. Usually these people are infertile or don't have properly developed genitals, but it shows that genetic sex doesn't always equal physical sex.
 

Loner Jo Jo

New member
Jul 22, 2011
172
0
0
I'm a little confused on your point, I guess. I mean, as far as I know, I have all the required organs that make me female. I've never had a doctor say there was anything physically wrong with my reproductive organs and they have been checked out. You're right in the sense that I can only assume I'm an genetically female based upon the presence of female reproductive organs. However, genetic abnormalities in relation to sex are rare and I believe that most people who do suffer from some sort of mutation like that have indicators that would have been detected eventually. Considering I am well past puberty, I think there at least a 99% chance I am genetically female. (And yes I did pull that number out of my ass, but you get the point.)

As for your point that genes don't determine everything, you're right to an extent. They do create the slate that you are built from. However, people mess with what their genes say all the time. Genes determine hair and eye color, but people get their hair dyed and colored contacts. Genes determine height, but women (and sometimes even men) where shoes that increase their height. When it comes to transsexuals, yes, they are genetically a certain sex. However, biologically, they undergo the processes necessary to change that sex using hormones and eventually surgery. It's a rather silly argument to say that only genes matter because many people try to defy their genetic code in one way or another.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Loner Jo Jo said:
I'm a little confused on your point, I guess. I mean, as far as I know, I have all the required organs that make me female. I've never had a doctor say there was anything physically wrong with my reproductive organs and they have been checked out. You're right in the sense that I can only assume I'm an genetically female based upon the presence of female reproductive organs. However, genetic abnormalities in relation to sex are rare and I believe that most people who do suffer from some sort of mutation like that have indicators that would have been detected eventually. Considering I am well past puberty, I think there at least a 99% chance I am genetically female. (And yes I did pull that number out of my ass, but you get the point.)

As for your point that genes don't determine everything, you're right to an extent. They do create the slate that you are built from. However, people mess with what their genes say all the time. Genes determine hair and eye color, but people get their hair dyed and colored contacts. Genes determine height, but women (and sometimes even men) where shoes that increase their height. When it comes to transsexuals, yes, they are genetically a certain sex. However, biologically, they undergo the processes necessary to change that sex using hormones and eventually surgery. It's a rather silly argument to say that only genes matter because many people try to defy their genetic code in one way or another.
Hmm. More confusion. I'm going to have to look at re-writing the OP to get the point across better.
All of what you're saying is correct.

However I created this thread in response to a recurring theme I'd come across in certain discussions.
People who claim that genes are all that matter.
My question therefore works from the premise that the people that believe this are correct.

I then ask, if this is correct, how many people actually then know what they really are? Because if almost no-one knows their genetics, then how can it really be that important in determining what sex you are?
 

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
Never been tested, then again I have no idea what kind of scenario would entail such a test being necessary. Though for all I give a shit about gender, my genes may just as well call me a hermaphrodite for all the difference it would make.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
Although I have never been tested, I carry all the classical traits of a standard XY male. Especially the hairiness, oh god the fucking hairiness. I swear by my early 30's I'll be able to go to any fancy dress party as Chewbacca by simply turning up.

If the opportunity arose, I'd be interested in getting my genetic sex tested, because science, however I doubt it would reveal anything surprising.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
OmniscientOstrich said:
Never been tested, then again I have no idea what kind of scenario would entail such a test being necessary. Though for all I give a shit about gender, my genes may just as well call me a hermaphrodite for all the difference it would make.
There's really only two common reasons why it's ever tested for.
The first is if some unusual symptoms (usually strange physical development or fertility problems) lead to the conclusion that you may be intersex. Genetic testing is done to help determine if this is part of the problem or not.

The second is that it's a routine test for anyone about to be treated for transsexualism. Before they prescribe hormones, or even consider surgery, or do anything else at all, they again check this, to verify whether you may have some kind of undiagnosed intersex condition. (Because you're not supposed to treat a person with an intersex condition as though they were a transsexual - Kind of splitting hairs really, since the hormonal and surgical tools used in either case are pretty similar, but they are considered medically distinct situations, and the overall theory behind the respective ways they are treated is different, regardless of the practical techniques involved.)
 

Amethyst Wind

New member
Apr 1, 2009
3,188
0
0
I didn't even know there was such a thing. Hmm, if it's free to find out then I'd be interested. many lulz could be had by dropping 'oh, by the way my genes are female-coded' into a conversation. Or many. Or just using it as a way to freak out the charity beggars who try to stop me in the street. I have lots of arrows in that quiver already but one more couldn't hurt.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Zantos said:
Although I have never been tested, I carry all the classical traits of a standard XY male. Especially the hairiness, oh god the fucking hairiness. I swear by my early 30's I'll be able to go to any fancy dress party as Chewbacca by simply turning up.

If the opportunity arose, I'd be interested in getting my genetic sex tested, because science, however I doubt it would reveal anything surprising.
Lol. I've always found human body-hair a massive disappointment. Animals tend to have a nice layer of fur...
The ideal according to some is for humans to be completely hairless.
Yet instead, many of us have just enough hair to be really annoying and stupid-looking, but nowhere near enough to look decently furry the way animals do.

I mean, what's the point of that?

Still, it's true... It's very unlikely there's any surprises, but sometimes, finding out just because you can can still be interesting.


Amethyst Wind said:
I didn't even know there was such a thing. Hmm, if it's free to find out then I'd be interested. many lulz could be had by dropping 'oh, by the way my genes are female-coded' into a conversation. Or many. Or just using it as a way to freak out the charity beggars who try to stop me in the street. I have lots of arrows in that quiver already but one more couldn't hurt.
Hehe. That would be very amusing. It'd be incredibly unlikely, but assuming it were true, I like your idea a lot. XD