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

[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.

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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I think I heard a story of a young boy who, despite having a penis, had been raised by his family as a girl. I'm not sure whether or not it was because he was born with partial genitalia or parts of both, but he seemed perfectly happy and it wasn't as if he had gender identity disorder or thought of himself as a girl. He just liked dressing up in women's clothes and generally being like a girl.

 

[Cavan]

I fail to see why people try so hard to convince other people on this.

Trying to attack what people are comfortable and at least in most cases correct in assuming about 'themselves', is not an effective way of doing anything. Saying "can you be 100% sure of this" is in argument I have seen over and over in so many situations and it never helps.

The other thing I see constantly (and am guilty of, sadly ;_ are analogies that are deliberately or unintentionally misleading towards either direction.

 

[Frizzle]

It may be because I've been drinking Margaritas (mmm) but the first thing I thought of when I read the OP was "what's in a name?" Does it really matter what you are genetically? If you can impregnate then you're good. If you can get pregnant then you're good. If you can't do either, then something got jacked up along the way, and oh well shit happens.

I don't quite understand why you would want to genetically test something other than "oh i can't have babies because my DNA thinks I'm something different than the parts it gave me." In which case, something got jacked up along the way.

 

[TheRussian]

No, I think my physical anatomy is good enough for me.

 

[Do4600]

There is no reason for a test of that kind unless an abnormality is suspected. That being said it's safe to say that almost all men are genetically male and all women are genetically female, just on the statistical evidence alone. Disjunction of that kind is rare, so tests aren't necessary, it's a very safe assumption that unless somebody is having serious issues without cause that their genetic background is what it appears to be. Just as not everybody needs to have a heart biopsy to know that their heart is functioning.

DNA controls all physical characteristics and to an extent the chemistry of the brain. We still have no clear idea what causes people to have an inexplicable need to be the opposite sex. It's an abnormality, a mental and emotional condition. I almost feel it's a matter of degrees removed from believing you are a polar bear, and everyday you wake up and realize you aren't a polar bear and feel discomfort and emotional torment because of it. It's necessarily a delusion. The treatment that we've used is to change that persons structural appearance to fit that delusion, we validate the delusion, and then the person can live a nearly normal life. To most people however it's just as absurd as waking up and putting on polar bear make-up before heading to the office, it's still a delusion and people can't be forced to accept a delusion.

I have nothing against transgender people, I recognize that it's painful to wake up in somebody else's body everyday, but in the same way it's difficult for people to accept a physical lie.

 

[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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

 

[CrystalShadow]

There is no reason for a test of that kind unless an abnormality is suspected. That being said it's safe to say that almost all men are genetically male and all women are genetically female, just on the statistical evidence alone. Disjunction of that kind is rare, so tests aren't necessary, it's a very safe assumption that unless somebody is having serious issues without cause that their genetic background is what it appears to be. Just as not everybody needs to have a heart biopsy to know that their heart is functioning.

DNA controls all physical characteristics and to an extent the chemistry of the brain. We still have no clear idea what causes people to have an inexplicable need to be the opposite sex. It's an abnormality, a mental and emotional condition. I almost feel it's a matter of degrees removed from believing you are a polar bear, and everyday you wake up and realize you aren't a polar bear and feel discomfort and emotional torment because of it. It's necessarily a delusion. The treatment that we've used is to change that persons structural appearance to fit that delusion, we validate the delusion, and then the person can live a nearly normal life. To most people however it's just as absurd as waking up and putting on polar bear make-up before heading to the office, it's still a delusion and people can't be forced to accept a delusion.

I have nothing against transgender people, I recognize that it's painful to wake up in somebody else's body everyday, but in the same way it's difficult for people to accept a physical lie.

A physical lie? See, that's kind of what I'm getting at.

You aren't going to argue that a house with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms is actually a house with 4 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, just because that's how it was built, and that's what the blueprints say.

How is it therefore 'physical lie', if someone has a body that is physically one way, but genetically another?

Surely, it is the genetics that are 'lying', if anything? (Your genes caused you to be the way you are, but if you've had any other alterations for any reason, they aren't going to be in your genes.)

If you lost your arm in an accident, no appeal to genetics is going to convince anyone that your arm is still there.

Yet it seems to be taken for granted that someone whose body is largely consistent with a sex different to their genes is 'lying'?

OK... It would seem I have to rewrite things yet again. Let's see if it'll make sense this time.

 

[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.

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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

OK, so you clearly didn't care to read my argument about how I can determine my genotype, but only focused on the shallow metaphor why your argument says nothing relevant to the study of genetics.

I am not colour blind, that tells me I don't have the phenotype for colour blindness and being male I know that does in turn mean I know my exact genotype. My step father got blood type O- and that tells me that his genotype for blood got all the recessive alleles so there's only one possible genotype. I can say a lot of my genotype by using my phenotype. I know if I have had any operations to change my appearance so I can without a doubt know what my genotype concerning my gender is. If you bothered to read my post you will see that I admit that there are disorders that can make it hard to tell, but also that there are traits that distinguish their disorder. So I know for sure that I got XY, got any protests?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Let's put it this way: a man who gets gender re-assignment to become a woman isn't really a woman in the same way a person who puts in blue contacts and bleaches their hair isn't really blonde haired and blue eyed. Your genotype controls your naturally occurring phenotype. You can change the phenotype after the fact, but if the genotype doesn't change with it -- and with gender reassignment surgery, it doesn't -- you haven't really changed your sex, you've just changed the outward appearance to match that of a different sex. The person on the first page who said sex is different from gender had a point, too. You might be able to reassign your gender, but we're not currently at a point where it's possible to reassign your sex.

 

[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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

OK, so you clearly didn't care to read my argument about how I can determine my genotype, but only focused on the shallow metaphor why your argument says nothing relevant to the study of genetics.

I am not colour blind, that tells me I don't have the phenotype for colour blindness and being male I know that does in turn mean I know my exact genotype. My step father got blood type O- and that tells me that his genotype for blood got all the recessive alleles so there's only one possible genotype. I can say a lot of my genotype by using my phenotype. I know if I have had any operations to change my appearance so I can without a doubt know what my genotype concerning my gender is. If you bothered to read my post you will see that I admit that there are disorders that can make it hard to tell, but also that there are traits that distinguish their disorder. So I know for sure that I got XY, got any protests?

Yes actually. If you had understood the whole reason for this thread, you would know that it isn't about genetics to begin with.
Therefore, you saying my argument holds no relevance to the study of genetics, means you don't understand the reason I'm making it in the first place.

I think what's confusing people is that genetics has very little to do with the argument. It's supposed to illustrate the stupidity of a particular line of reasoning. Not demonstrate something about the science of genetics.

The whole, and only point of any of this, is that it is really rather silly to claim that your genotype overrules your phenotype.

Therefore, if your phenotype and genotype don't match for whatever reason (be that a natural cause or an artificial one), it makes no sense to argue that your phenotype is wrong, and your genotype is the actual 'correct' interpretation.

It should also be obvious from that premise, that knowing your phenotype, but not your genotype undermines the argument that your genotype tells anyone what you 'really' are.

 

[Do4600]

There is no reason for a test of that kind unless an abnormality is suspected. That being said it's safe to say that almost all men are genetically male and all women are genetically female, just on the statistical evidence alone. Disjunction of that kind is rare, so tests aren't necessary, it's a very safe assumption that unless somebody is having serious issues without cause that their genetic background is what it appears to be. Just as not everybody needs to have a heart biopsy to know that their heart is functioning.

DNA controls all physical characteristics and to an extent the chemistry of the brain. We still have no clear idea what causes people to have an inexplicable need to be the opposite sex. It's an abnormality, a mental and emotional condition. I almost feel it's a matter of degrees removed from believing you are a polar bear, and everyday you wake up and realize you aren't a polar bear and feel discomfort and emotional torment because of it. It's necessarily a delusion. The treatment that we've used is to change that persons structural appearance to fit that delusion, we validate the delusion, and then the person can live a nearly normal life. To most people however it's just as absurd as waking up and putting on polar bear make-up before heading to the office, it's still a delusion and people can't be forced to accept a delusion.

I have nothing against transgender people, I recognize that it's painful to wake up in somebody else's body everyday, but in the same way it's difficult for people to accept a physical lie.

A physical lie? See, that's kind of what I'm getting at.

You aren't going to argue that a house with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms is actually a house with 4 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, just because that's how it was built, and that's what the blueprints say.

How is it therefore 'physical lie', if someone has a body that is physically one way, but genetically another?

Surely, it is the genetics that are 'lying', if anything? (Your genes caused you to be the way you are, but if you've had any other alterations for any reason, they aren't going to be in your genes.)

If you lost your arm in an accident, no appeal to genetics is going to convince anyone that your arm is still there.

Yet it seems to be taken for granted that someone whose body is largely consistent with a sex different to their genes is 'lying'?

OK... It would seem I have to rewrite things yet again. Let's see if it'll make sense this time.

So you're talking about 20,000 some people world wide that have that abnormality, a sex reversal. I'm talking about the almost 19 million transsexuals world wide.

 

[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.

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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

OK, so you clearly didn't care to read my argument about how I can determine my genotype, but only focused on the shallow metaphor why your argument says nothing relevant to the study of genetics.

I am not colour blind, that tells me I don't have the phenotype for colour blindness and being male I know that does in turn mean I know my exact genotype. My step father got blood type O- and that tells me that his genotype for blood got all the recessive alleles so there's only one possible genotype. I can say a lot of my genotype by using my phenotype. I know if I have had any operations to change my appearance so I can without a doubt know what my genotype concerning my gender is. If you bothered to read my post you will see that I admit that there are disorders that can make it hard to tell, but also that there are traits that distinguish their disorder. So I know for sure that I got XY, got any protests?

Yes actually. If you had understood the whole reason for this thread, you would know that it isn't about genetics to begin with.
Therefore, you saying my argument holds no relevance to the study of genetics, means you don't understand the reason I'm making it in the first place.

I think what's confusing people is that genetics has very little to do with the argument. It's supposed to illustrate the stupidity of a particular line of reasoning. Not demonstrate something about the science of genetics.

The whole, and only point of any of this, is that it is really rather silly to claim that your genotype overrules your phenotype.

Therefore, if your phenotype and genotype don't match for whatever reason (be that a natural cause or an artificial one), it makes no sense to argue that your phenotype is wrong, and your genotype is the actual 'correct' interpretation.

It should also be obvious from that premise, that knowing your phenotype, but not your genotype undermines the argument that your genotype tells anyone what you 'really' are.

Please tell me you have never studied genetics at any level. Because if you have I will have to track down whoever taught you and teach that person about genetics.

Genotype is what gives us the phenotype in all cases. If one genotype isn't expressed in our phenotype it is because another gene disrupts it. Let's say if I had a gene coding for horns placed on chromosome 16 and a gene that disrupted my horn development on chromosome 4. In that case the chromosome with the most influence would be the one with the lowest number. So my phenotype would be that I didn't get horns, and that would be reflected in my genotype as well. You say this thread has nothing to do with genetics, yet your thread starting question is about chromosomes. You say that we can't say what our genotype is based on our phenotype and you couldn't be more wrong. Phenotype is not the same as appearance. Phenotype is all about genetics. If our phenotype doesn't seem to match our genotype it's only because we don't know our genotype.

 

[Do4600]

If you had understood the whole reason for this thread, you would know that it isn't about genetics to begin with.

Then why are you talking so much about genetics? Why is your poll about genetics? If it's not relevant to the issue you could have made the poll about what people ate for lunch and made the same point.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Let's put it this way: a man who gets gender re-assignment to become a woman isn't really a woman in the same way a person who puts in blue contacts and bleaches their hair isn't really blonde haired and blue eyed. Your genotype controls your naturally occurring phenotype. You can change the phenotype after the fact, but if the genotype doesn't change with it -- and with gender reassignment surgery, it doesn't -- you haven't really changed your sex, you've just changed the outward appearance to match that of a different sex. The person on the first page who said sex is different from gender had a point, too. You might be able to reassign your gender, but we're not currently at a point where it's possible to reassign your sex.

That's really just semantics about what is 'real' and what isn't.

If I got in a car crash, and lost my left arm, by the same reasoning I would still have 2 arms right?
My genes don't change, irrespective of whether I lose my arm, therefore it's still there?

No, obviously, I now have one arm less. Tasks that require two arms are no longer possible, so why would it matter if I 'naturally' have 2 arms or not?

Similarly, if someone has dyed hair and contacts, they don't 'really' have anything other than what you're seeing at that point.
They still look like they have blonde hair and blue eyes. There's no maybe about it at that point in time.

The reason you'd be able to argue otherwise is really mostly limited to the fact that contact lenses cannot be left in place indefinitely, and hair eventually grows out again (in whatever colour it has naturally.)
(And yes, if you end up having a child, your genes will of course affect what colour hair and eyes the child has)

Someone with gray hair meanwhile will probably never have any other hair colour ever again.
You can certainly ask what their hair colour used to be, but it's won't miraculously change back to what it used to be.
Nor will anything about them really be related to their former hair colour.


I guess what I'm getting at is an argument against the idea that something can 'really' be something other than what it appears.
The illusion is the reality, when 'reality' is as abstract as the reasoning that leads to needing to change the genotype to change your sex.

Think about it like this:

If I dye my hair, what are the practical consequences of this being 'fake'? (it'll grow out over time, and my children will have a different hair colour.)

If I change my sex, what are the practical consequences of this being 'fake'?
Not being able to have children? That's hardly unique to someone who changes their sex.

Meanwhile, if we speculate, and say it was possible to change my genes as well, what would this even accomplish?

If changing my phenotype already accomplishes a perfect change (it doesn't yet, but hypothetically speaking let's assume it could), what possible difference would it make to change my genotype as well?

That's what I don't get.

Why is changing the genotype relevant, unless doing so alters the phenotype, since this is what really determines what you are?

And, conversely, why is altering the phenotype insufficient, if the end result of doing any more than that would otherwise be identical regardless?

It's reducing a person's sex to a 'magic genome', even if this contradicts everything else about them.

How many things do you know of that are defined by some magic trait bearing no direct relation to their actual nature? Why is that a reasonable argument?

It just seems like the definition of what makes someone a specific sex is largely based on an irrational idea.
Which is why I was curious how many people would follow through with the implications of this irrational idea. But the point pretty much got lost along the way.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Some people will never see a MtF transsexual as a female, they were born male and that is it to them, genetics is a way of explaining that they are still of "male flesh" to them, framed in a scientific context, even if the reason is closer to "you were born with male parts and to me you will always be male".

Is that what your thread is actually about?

 

[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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

OK, so you clearly didn't care to read my argument about how I can determine my genotype, but only focused on the shallow metaphor why your argument says nothing relevant to the study of genetics.

I am not colour blind, that tells me I don't have the phenotype for colour blindness and being male I know that does in turn mean I know my exact genotype. My step father got blood type O- and that tells me that his genotype for blood got all the recessive alleles so there's only one possible genotype. I can say a lot of my genotype by using my phenotype. I know if I have had any operations to change my appearance so I can without a doubt know what my genotype concerning my gender is. If you bothered to read my post you will see that I admit that there are disorders that can make it hard to tell, but also that there are traits that distinguish their disorder. So I know for sure that I got XY, got any protests?

Yes actually. If you had understood the whole reason for this thread, you would know that it isn't about genetics to begin with.
Therefore, you saying my argument holds no relevance to the study of genetics, means you don't understand the reason I'm making it in the first place.

I think what's confusing people is that genetics has very little to do with the argument. It's supposed to illustrate the stupidity of a particular line of reasoning. Not demonstrate something about the science of genetics.

The whole, and only point of any of this, is that it is really rather silly to claim that your genotype overrules your phenotype.

Therefore, if your phenotype and genotype don't match for whatever reason (be that a natural cause or an artificial one), it makes no sense to argue that your phenotype is wrong, and your genotype is the actual 'correct' interpretation.

It should also be obvious from that premise, that knowing your phenotype, but not your genotype undermines the argument that your genotype tells anyone what you 'really' are.

Please tell me you have never studied genetics at any level. Because if you have I will have to track down whoever taught you and teach that person about genetics.

Genotype is what gives us the phenotype in all cases. If one genotype isn't expressed in our phenotype it is because another gene disrupts it. Let's say if I had a gene coding for horns placed on chromosome 16 and a gene that disrupted my horn development on chromosome 4. In that case the chromosome with the most influence would be the one with the lowest number. So my phenotype would be that I didn't get horns, and that would be reflected in my genotype as well. You say this thread has nothing to do with genetics, yet your thread starting question is about chromosomes. You say that we can't say what our genotype is based on our phenotype and you couldn't be more wrong. Phenotype is not the same as appearance. Phenotype is all about genetics. If our phenotype doesn't seem to match our genotype it's only because we don't know our genotype.

I did a biology class during my attempt at a physics degree. I didn't pay much attention to the exact meaning of various terms, but I did pretty well on the overall concepts. I don't generally care what, precisely a word means as long as it gets the point across, so forgive me if that offends your sense of literary exactness.

However, please don't confuse a word I borrowed from someone else who was using it a specific way with what I meant. I've mostly tried to avoid using technical terms such as phenotype and genotype, since I presume most of the people on the forum don't use them anyway.

If you cut of your arm, is that reflected in your genotype as well?

Do surgical alterations count as a phenotype (visible traits), or are they something else entirely?

If a surgical, cosmetic or accidental physical change can be considered part of someone's phenotype, then it implies that phenotype and genotype may not match.

Then again, perhaps that's not a phenotype. I only started using that term when someone else was using to imply it's the visible traits a living organism has.

In which case, you're nitpicking my incorrect use of a word, and (again), missing the point.
(Aside from which, it would also imply that a phenotype is almost as difficult to measure as a genotype. If 'visible traits' are not necessarily equivalent to a phenotype, then phenotype is an irrelevant concept in this discussion.)

The logic of this really should be self-evident, yet all I get is nit-picking about issues that avoid the actual question:
Does your genome have the last word on what you are, irrespective of all other evidence which would contradict this?
If so, how many people have actually followed through with what this implies?

This started to see how many people would follow through with the practical implications of an irrational premise.

If you still don't get it, there's no helping it. It's clearly beyond my ability to state correctly in whatever exacting terms you insist on.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Some people will never see a MtF transsexual as a female, they were born male and that is it to them, genetics is a way of explaining that they are still of "male flesh" to them, framed in a scientific context, even if the reason is closer to "you were born with male parts and to me you will always be male".

Is that what your thread is actually about?

Yes. That's it.

Clearly I'm not doing a very good job of it, but I was really seeing if I could confront people who try and frame their argument with science in that way if they could see the implications of that line of thought.

Of course, I assume many of the commenters in the thread don't think that to begin with, but I was also just genuinely curious how many people here knew their actual genetic identity, since it's rarely tested for.

 

[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.

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.

You can have an operation to make you appear a different gender than your genetic one, sure. You can be born with a disorder in your SRY gene that makes guys look like girls. They will appear to be girls from every kind of view, but if you know what to look for you can see there's something odd.

You have made a quite lengthy argument, but it all boils down to this. I can put on a hat and that doesn't change my genotype.

Yep.

But the reverse is the more important point.

My genotype does not determine if I have a hat on my head or not.

OK, so you clearly didn't care to read my argument about how I can determine my genotype, but only focused on the shallow metaphor why your argument says nothing relevant to the study of genetics.

I am not colour blind, that tells me I don't have the phenotype for colour blindness and being male I know that does in turn mean I know my exact genotype. My step father got blood type O- and that tells me that his genotype for blood got all the recessive alleles so there's only one possible genotype. I can say a lot of my genotype by using my phenotype. I know if I have had any operations to change my appearance so I can without a doubt know what my genotype concerning my gender is. If you bothered to read my post you will see that I admit that there are disorders that can make it hard to tell, but also that there are traits that distinguish their disorder. So I know for sure that I got XY, got any protests?

Yes actually. If you had understood the whole reason for this thread, you would know that it isn't about genetics to begin with.
Therefore, you saying my argument holds no relevance to the study of genetics, means you don't understand the reason I'm making it in the first place.

I think what's confusing people is that genetics has very little to do with the argument. It's supposed to illustrate the stupidity of a particular line of reasoning. Not demonstrate something about the science of genetics.

The whole, and only point of any of this, is that it is really rather silly to claim that your genotype overrules your phenotype.

Therefore, if your phenotype and genotype don't match for whatever reason (be that a natural cause or an artificial one), it makes no sense to argue that your phenotype is wrong, and your genotype is the actual 'correct' interpretation.

It should also be obvious from that premise, that knowing your phenotype, but not your genotype undermines the argument that your genotype tells anyone what you 'really' are.

Please tell me you have never studied genetics at any level. Because if you have I will have to track down whoever taught you and teach that person about genetics.

Genotype is what gives us the phenotype in all cases. If one genotype isn't expressed in our phenotype it is because another gene disrupts it. Let's say if I had a gene coding for horns placed on chromosome 16 and a gene that disrupted my horn development on chromosome 4. In that case the chromosome with the most influence would be the one with the lowest number. So my phenotype would be that I didn't get horns, and that would be reflected in my genotype as well. You say this thread has nothing to do with genetics, yet your thread starting question is about chromosomes. You say that we can't say what our genotype is based on our phenotype and you couldn't be more wrong. Phenotype is not the same as appearance. Phenotype is all about genetics. If our phenotype doesn't seem to match our genotype it's only because we don't know our genotype.

I did a biology class during my attempt at a physics degree. I didn't pay much attention to the exact meaning of various terms, but I did pretty well on the overall concepts. I don't generally care what, precisely a word means as long as it gets the point across, so forgive me if that offends your sense of literary exactness.

However, please don't confuse a word I borrowed from someone else who was using it a specific way with what I meant. I've mostly tried to avoid using technical terms such as phenotype and genotype, since I presume most of the people on the forum don't use them anyway.

If you cut of your arm, is that reflected in your genotype as well?

Do surgical alterations count as a phenotype (visible traits), or are they something else entirely?

If a surgical, cosmetic or accidental physical change can be considered part of someone's phenotype, then it implies that phenotype and genotype may not match.

Then again, perhaps that's not a phenotype. I only started using that term when someone else was using to imply it's the visible traits a living organism has.

In which case, you're nitpicking my incorrect use of a word, and (again), missing the point.
(Aside from which, it would also imply that a phenotype is almost as difficult to measure as a genotype. If 'visible traits' are not necessarily equivalent to a phenotype, then phenotype is an irrelevant concept in this discussion.)

The logic of this really should be self-evident, yet all I get is nit-picking about issues that avoid the actual question:
Does your genome have the last word on what you are, irrespective of all other evidence which would contradict this?
If so, how many people have actually followed through with what this implies?

This started to see how many people would follow through with the practical implications of an irrational premise.

If you still don't get it, there's no helping it. It's clearly beyond my ability to state correctly in whatever exacting terms you insist on.

Yes, a cut in your arm or a surgery does not reflect your phenotype. That is the first thing you have said that has been correct when I have discussed this matter with you. I have not tried to discuss the original post, but the content of what you posted on someone else's post a while back where you showed me that you don't understand the basics of genetics. Genetics is the only thing I have tried to discuss. However since you insist on me answering the original question too I will give you the response that we don't know how much our genes are reflected in who we are. Intelligence, coordination, physical appearances, personality and a lot of other things are in our genes. How we turn out is a large equation with too many variables to show the answer. If I cloned myself twice and put my clones in two different places where the conditions would be almost exactly the same with the exceptions of a few minor details, would they turn out the same? We don't know.

We want to believe that we're more than our genes and that genes don't make us who we are, but genes make up a lot of who we are. Those who study social anthropology and psychology will put the biology as a minor thing while biologists will disagree. The cold truth of it is that we don't know and there's no way to get a conclusive answer because we're unable to run a simulation complex enough.