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

[tthor]

I'm shocked and dissapointed that nobody's made the "very large peice of evidence" joke yet. For shame escapist, for shame.

OK lesson time: the X chromosone actually contains all the information for both sexes. Yes, if you're female you have a full and complete set of genes for growing a penis in every cell.

Huh... that was a very poorly constructed sentance.

The Y chromosone is (and pease do feel free to laugh) fairly short and unimportant, containing little of any worth. For the most part it consists of genes that activate the male parts of the X chromosone and repress the female parts. For the advanced student, there a few Y chromosone genes that make totally unrelated protiens, but as far as each are concerned in determining gender, all Y does is flick the Male/Female switch on X.

Why did I go through that? Well, to prove how your body is your DNA, it can't be any other way. If you are male then you have an XY chromosone confiiguration, you MUST have one X to provide the base code and one Y to alter the X chromosone in the right way (for those people out there who are... well, like me, then yes technically it's possible that the X chromosone could have spontaniously mutated to create a male human, but the chance of that happening is so small that the amount of 0s involved would probaby crash the internet or something equaly as spectacular). Likewise if you're female then you MUST have and XX configuration, because a Y chromosone would have altered the X and made you male (and you need the second X for some more complicated reasons involving protien levels, I won't go further into it but if you're healthy and female, you have both Xs).

As such, looking down while naked provides as good a check of your gender-determining DNA as looking in a mirror provides for your eye-colour-determining DNA. Yes, you could ask the question "what if you have green eyes but your DNA actualy codes for blue eyes?! You're not who you think you are!" but that's not going to happen. If you have green eyes, you have green-eye DNA. If you have a penis (and none of the uncommon but very obvious genetic diseases associated with strange XY chromosone configurations) then you have one Y and one X chromosone.

Can you tell I'm studying genetics? I'm very subtle about it.

huh, so you have an XX chromosome configuration, but have male parts? so are you for the most part male physically/mentally but just technically having XX chromosome, or do you have some female traits as well? (just curious about this genetic mutation, don't mean to come off as rude or anything)

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

If your sex chromosomes are fucked up, you can't reproduce, I believe, and your body acts all funky. My body works just fine and I have no genital problems. So I'm quite sure my chromosomes are fine.

 

[Scabadus]

(for those people out there who are... well, like me, then yes technically it's possible that the X chromosone could have spontaniously mutated to create a male human, but the chance of that happening is so small that the amount of 0s involved would probaby crash the internet or something equaly as spectacular).

huh, so you have an XX chromosome configuration, but have male parts? so are you for the most part male physically/mentally but just technically having XX chromosome, or do you have some female traits as well? (just curious about this genetic mutation, don't mean to come off as rude or anything)

I assume you're referancing the part of my post I left in? That's a joke; good habbit to put a couple in longer posts... perhaps bad to put one that you have to be an expert in a subject to understand, in a post explaining that very subject. Sorry. To clarify: it really is technically possible for an X chromosone to mutate in that way, but that chances are so low that it can safely be said that it won't happen in the entire span of human existance. Not one generation, not "one in a billion billion," I really do mean every human, ever, past and future. I'm just the sort of person annoying asshole who would, if somebody else said the mutation would never happen, say "well, technically..."

It's similar to the old quantum mechanics joke about a man going to a bar every night and ordering a beer and a wine, drinking the beer but eaving the wine next to him in front of an empty seat. Eentually the bartender cracks and asks him why he never drinks the wine. "Oh, well I'm a quantum physisist, you see," says the man, "and any night now the atoms of air on that seat could spontaniously change into the most beautiful woman I've ever seen." The bartender looks confused and gestures around the room, asking why the man doesn't try asking out one of the women sitting alone. The man scoffs and replies, "well, what are the chances of that?"

 

[Random Fella]

Ahh, I've learnt about this recently in biology
Interesting because you can have a male xx and female xy and so forth who are no different in any way (can reproduce as said sex ect...)
Really interesting stuff when you think about how it is just one gene that changes us, the activation of the activation gene testosterone
It has actually made me think maybe I should get it tested, I know I have all the functional parts of a male and so forth, but I could have a missing y gene with transcript testosterone onto the x.
It wouldn't really change anything, but would be quite interesting to find out

 

[Random Fella]

If your sex chromosomes are fucked up, you can't reproduce, I believe, and your body acts all funky. My body works just fine and I have no genital problems. So I'm quite sure my chromosomes are fine.

Actually no, a male can have xx chromosomes and a female could have xy chromosomes and not differ from said sex in any way.
It's all about the testosterone gene being mutated onto the x, or the y chromosome missing the gene through deletion.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Why would even need to be tested? Don't you know what you genetically are? I am confused and sorry OP if your wall of text covered what I just said but I really couldn't bring myself to read it.

 

[William Ossiss]

Cue Gattaca-ish future!

When I look for a potential relationship, I look for someone with different genetic heritages than I. See, I have this weird thing where I want to make something new, with my genetics added in there. So I ask what heritages they have and base if I would date them on that. A whole bunch of other things come into the equation, such as what kind of person they are, but this is after the genetics.

Gattaca!

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

The way they tested me was when I came out, they saw I had a penis. That test works for pretty much all humans, as such testing infants any other way is pointless.

 

[Vryyk]

No but I have a penis and can impregnate people.

Enough evidence for me.

That's a good way to put it. Also, reading that made my buddy drop his cigar in his lap laughing.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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

Well yea your 23 chromosome set determans what organs form (not what gender you identify yourself as just what organs form). Those organs have spcific genders assigned to them. I personly think it has more to do with mental mindset but a baby can't articulate or even underdstand that mindset so organs are a good place to start and by extension the chromosome.


I hope you take this as constructive criticism but it appears your approaching this from the view of a flat earthier, or creationist. That we cant trust scientist or High school biology that tells us XX forms Female genitalia(ovaries,functional mammary glands,ecd.) and XY forms male genitalia(prostate,testicals , and so on). that unless we test our own genes we cant use this criteria because we cant know if that's true for every person. Yes I realize that your trying to convey that people are more then the organs there born with but can you try and do it in a way that dose not boil science down to "Well you don't know because you never tested it".

I appreciate that it may seem a little bizarre, but I got here from observing a line of reasoning that makes a mockery of science anyway.

If you take reductionism to an extreme, what you get is usually nonsensical.

The point is, if someone says:

"I won't believe you're really a woman/man unless you can change your genes"

The obvious question is:

"You seem fairly certain what you are. But if genes are as important as you say they are, do you actually know what you yourself are?"

I know that sounds weird.

I guess you'd have to first appreciate the kind of arguments people were throwing around to understand why this would have any meaning.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Are you trying to (in a very round about way) trying to argue karyotype over phenotype? Or are you just being stupid?

I'm actually trying to point out how stupid it is to go with karyotype over phenotype.

To this end, my whole point is that the people that argue this in all likelyhood don't even know what their karyotype is.

If karyotype is so important in determining a person's sex, why is it rarely checked?

That this is stupid, IS the whole point.

Because I've run into far too many people that make arguments that depend on the idea that karyotype matters much, much, more than phenotype.

It surprises me that so many people fail to notice that this is a refutation, and not an endorsement of the idea, when I've done my best to make that as explicit as possible.

 

[Phasmal]

Nope, never been tested.
But I appear female, own boobs, vajayjay and have had periods so I'm pretty sure.
(Never been pregnant though, so who knows??!!?!)
Lol.

Genes are not really important at all imo. Its what you yourself think and feel that you are. If you want to say you're a female but you were born with male sex organs how does it affect me in any way, shape or form?

 

[Yopaz]

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?

Unless you have any abnormalities in your attributes then you don't have a disorder in your gender chromosomes. I know for sure what chromosomes I have even though I haven't been tested. There are always signs even if there are cases where girls have XY and the SRY-gene got screwed up and made a girl turn into a boy.

 

[Piorn]

It wouldn't really change anything for me if I turned out to be a genetic female. It'd be unfortunate that I can't have kids (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong), but besides that, why bother?

 

[grimgor42]

If you're born with a penis, you're a man, if you're born with a vagina you are a woman. accepting anything less than this is a futile struggle with reality. You can drastically change your appearance, but then you are just living a lie. Men who become "women" can't have kids, women who become "men" can't knock people up. If such physiological differences don't enter in to the definition of genders then there wouldn't be a point in them being defined as different. Everyone needs to deal with this, and if you don't want to, or can't, sucks for you.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I'm shocked and dissapointed that nobody's made the "very large peice of evidence" joke yet. For shame escapist, for shame.

OK lesson time: the X chromosone actually contains all the information for both sexes. Yes, if you're female you have a full and complete set of genes for growing a penis in every cell.

Huh... that was a very poorly constructed sentance.

The Y chromosone is (and pease do feel free to laugh) fairly short and unimportant, containing little of any worth. For the most part it consists of genes that activate the male parts of the X chromosone and repress the female parts. For the advanced student, there a few Y chromosone genes that make totally unrelated protiens, but as far as each are concerned in determining gender, all Y does is flick the Male/Female switch on X.

Why did I go through that? Well, to prove how your body is your DNA, it can't be any other way. If you are male then you have an XY chromosone confiiguration, you MUST have one X to provide the base code and one Y to alter the X chromosone in the right way (for those people out there who are... well, like me, then yes technically it's possible that the X chromosone could have spontaniously mutated to create a male human, but the chance of that happening is so small that the amount of 0s involved would probaby crash the internet or something equaly as spectacular). Likewise if you're female then you MUST have and XX configuration, because a Y chromosone would have altered the X and made you male (and you need the second X for some more complicated reasons involving protien levels, I won't go further into it but if you're healthy and female, you have both Xs).

As such, looking down while naked provides as good a check of your gender-determining DNA as looking in a mirror provides for your eye-colour-determining DNA. Yes, you could ask the question "what if you have green eyes but your DNA actualy codes for blue eyes?! You're not who you think you are!" but that's not going to happen. If you have green eyes, you have green-eye DNA. If you have a penis (and none of the uncommon but very obvious genetic diseases associated with strange XY chromosone configurations) then you have one Y and one X chromosone.

Can you tell I'm studying genetics? I'm very subtle about it.

Good. I haven't studied genetics, but I knew pretty much all of that.

Whether random mutations are likely isn't really important though. (You might find this amusing though: http://www.gendercare.com/library/italiano_paper3.html - XY gonadal dysgenesis certainly took me by surprise. It's probably not caused by a mutation, but considering the implications...)

Anyway, the whole thing is supposed to be read as a refutation of the idea that some invisible traits matter more than what's visible.

It's not this argument: If you have green eyes, maybe you actually have the genes for brown eyes, and you just don't know it.


It's not supposed to prove anything about the probability of things not matching up. Instead, it's meant to illustrate the stupidity of claiming the obviously visible traits a person has must be 'wrong' if they disagree with their genetics.

(It's a bit like saying someone who has dyed their hair red actually has black hair, because their genes say so.
Hair dye is not natural. But this person still has red hair. And no appeal to genetics will change the fact that their hair is red at that point in time, and not black.)

That may sound stupid, and it is. But I have genuinely seen people argue with that kind of logic.

"Your brown hair isn't actually brown. I can't prove it isn't, but I assume some invisible trait makes it so."

Anyway... I'm getting a bit lost trying to get the real purpose of this thread across clearly... As evidenced by the number of people missing the main point entirely.

 

[CrystalShadow]

If you're born with a penis, you're a man, if you're born with a vagina you are a woman. accepting anything less than this is a futile struggle with reality. You can drastically change your appearance, but then you are just living a lie. Men who become "women" can't have kids, women who become "men" can't knock people up. If such physiological differences don't enter in to the definition of genders then there wouldn't be a point in them being defined as different. Everyone needs to deal with this, and if you don't want to, or can't, sucks for you.

Genetics doesn't directly affect any of that.
Aside from which, being infertile can happen for any number of reasons, and isn't usually grounds for declaring someone sexless, so why would it be grounds for arguing that a person's sex cannot be changed?

My point is, how is genetics proof of your sex, and proof of the inability to change your sex, when most people have absolutely no idea what their genetics are?

 

[Relish in Chaos]

No, I?ve never been tested, but your gender identity determines your gender. When you go through sex reassignment, you have, for all intents and purposes, matched your sex with your gender identity, thus your gender (yes, there's a difference between gender and sex; look it up).

If they look like a woman and say they?re a woman, I?m going to go ahead and say that she?s a woman, regardless of whether or not she's got a penis. Genitalia does not necessarily determine your sex. A lot of "natural" women are infertile, don't have many periods, or none at all.

So even though I?ve never been tested (since I don?t need to be), I and everyone else consider myself a male, with a penis. If there?s something different in my chromosomes and I?m actually legally a woman or partly one, then it?s not a big deal. It?s not going to drastically affect my life or anything.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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?

Unless you have any abnormalities in your attributes then you don't have a disorder in your gender chromosomes. I know for sure what chromosomes I have even though I haven't been tested. There are always signs even if there are cases where girls have XY and the SRY-gene got screwed up and made a girl turn into a boy.

That's still not quite the point though.

IF you have a case where someone obviously has an appearance (phenotype) that contradicts their genes (karyotype), is it reasonable to argue that the genes matter, and the appearance of this person does not?

That was the whole, and only starting point for this thread.
The question that arose, is a result of the fact that if anyone did have an appearance and genes that were completely contradictory, they wouldn't know about it, because you don't usually have your genes tested unless there's something obviously wrong.

Thus, the question: Do you know what your genes say you are? Because if a person is going to claim that appearance doesn't matter, but genes do, then why would it be alright to assume appearance predicts genetics?

To be clear about the kind of thing that really leads to this argument:

Person A:A transsexual tries to change their sex.
Person B: That's impossible.
Person A: Why?
Person B: Because they can't get pregnant/get someone pregnant.
Person A: Why would that matter? Besides, medical advances could make that possible in the near future
Person B: Well, they still couldn't change their genes! And if you can't change your genes, you can't change your sex.
Person A: But if someone meets all the other criteria, why would genes matter?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's not about whether genes and appearance match, but the assumption that even where they don't, the genes are more important.
But if someone can have the traits of something other than what their genome says (however that came about), then obviously appearance cannot predict genetics.
And if that's the case, how many people know their own genetics?
(And, ultimately, why is it relevant?)

In any event, while I don't seem to be able to get my point across, the poll results are still interesting in their own right.
So... Whatever.

 

[IzisviAziria]

If you're born with a penis, you're a man, if you're born with a vagina you are a woman. accepting anything less than this is a futile struggle with reality. You can drastically change your appearance, but then you are just living a lie. Men who become "women" can't have kids, women who become "men" can't knock people up. If such physiological differences don't enter in to the definition of genders then there wouldn't be a point in them being defined as different. Everyone needs to deal with this, and if you don't want to, or can't, sucks for you.

On rare occasion, at birth, children are born with either partial genetalia or parts of both. And doctors will meet with the parents (or parent, or guardian, if that's all that's available) and discuss options with them. They have the option to leave it, or to choose one gender or the other in which case, some surgery happens, reshaping them to be more definitively a single gender.

I'm sure plenty of these children never knew about it, have grown up their entire lives knowing themselves only as one gender, and that one gender is all that counts or matters to them. Would you tell a "man" who had this happen, who has lived his entire life, whom everyone he knows considers to be a man, that he is in fact not a man because he was not definitively born with a penis and only a penis?

There are plenty of men that cannot create fertile semen. Are you to then tell them they are not men because of this? Are women that are barren somehow less "woman" because of it?

Things get sticky when you try to narrow things down like that. I realize that the neat, orderly boxes your parents described to you for everyone on the planet to fit within are quite comforting, but at some point, you've got to accept that the lines around those boxes are pretty damn hazy.