Y chromosome

Although I don't think that the Y chromosome has regained any of its lost genes in the past twenty years.

Not saying it has but opinion might have changed from degraded to streamlined in that time.

Why would anybody nurture violence into men when it wasn't there before? Who nurtured them?

I didn't say I believe that the Y chromosome will whither and die, I said there's an argument that it will, made by geneticists. It's still up for debate.

do you really think men's behaviour is entirely nature? no nurture involved? I doubt there are any studies that can back that up

I think male violence is linked to the Y chromosome. It couldn't be any other way. Women simply aren't like that. If there's a non-biological reason for men behaving the way they do I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't know if that's because of it's degraded status, but its degraded status is a fact.

If you have any more up to date research decomposing composers feel free to share it. Although I don't think that the Y chromosome has regained any of its lost genes in the past twenty years.

"You just copied and pasted the biography of someone who studied Skippy the Bush Kangaroo."

LOL she's an emeritus professor in ecology and evolution and she's studied the Y chromosome directly. Do your qualifications match that?

Your slip is showing.

I note that the two posters who believe the Y chromosome is inferior, and that it will whither and die, repeatedly express a negative view of men.

Those of us who stress the importance, and continued necessity of the Y chromosome don’t feel the need to express an opinion on men one way or the other.

One side is clearly displaying motivated reasoning.

Erythronium

I will undermine arguments when they are complete bunkum. Why wouldn't I?

You are adhering to a theory that was published what 20 odd years ago at least?

What do you think if the source of men's lethal and sometimes genocidal violence, Always?

Let me guess, it’s on that chromosome that, by your own reckoning, contains nothing but human shit?

What do you think if the source of men's lethal and sometimes genocidal violence, Always?

Feel free to do your own research if you want to undermine the argument decomposing composers. I've noticed it's tactic - go for the source when there isn't much else of an argument to be made. It's been standard across at least three threads I've been on now.

Erythronium

When was that research done? Only she'd be in her 70s now wouldn't she? Is her research current or are you relying on 20 or 30 year old studies?

I think Sakura is addressing the question, which even feminists almost never ask, is what is wrong with men?

And Sakura is starting from the premise that men are genetically inferior, and looking for answers in the chromosome that differs in men, and bringing in a lot of pseudoscience that sounds a lot like what I’d expect to hear from David Duke or Louis Farrakhan when talking about another group.

I'll stick with Jenny Grave's description, given that she wrote the paper on it and has this substantial CV to back up her opinions:

"Professor Jenny Graves received a BSc Hons from the University of Adelaide in 1964 and an MSc in 1967. Her research for these degrees involved the inactivation of the X chromosome in marsupials. She then received a Fulbright Travel Grant to go to the University of California, Berkeley to work with Professor Dan Mazia. She received a PhD in 1971 for her work on the control of DNA synthesis. In 1971, Graves returned to Australia as a lecturer in genetics at La Trobe University. Her research interests focused again on marsupials and she became involved in gene mapping. Her current research involves investigating the organisation, function and evolution of mammalian sex chromosomes and sex determining genes. She is also interested in comparative genome mapping. Graves became professor of genetics at La Trobe in 1991, and became a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 1999. In 2001 she took a position at the Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University as head of the Comparative Genomics Research Unit."

We might not reproduce. We might die out because of the Y chromosome. Pesky men, eh?

And if feminists don't think it's ironic to discover that the Y chromosome is "shrivelled" (to quote the Smithsonian magazine) when men have spent millennia telling us that women were inferior and the second sex, or not even human, then I don't know who will.

Maybe you're missing the point.

No, I’m not

You're calling the Y chromosome streamlined, when the more accurate term is "degraded".

It’s not degraded. It has shed unnecessary genes.

The question for science, which is indeed up for debate, is whether the degradation will continue.

Tell me how we will reproduce. Tell me how natural selection will select for a condition that will bring about human extinction. Explain the evolutionary advantage of infertility. Explain that mechanism to me.

I think Sakura is addressing the question, which even feminists almost never ask, is what is wrong with men? Why are they so violent and destructive? Why do they create wars and genocide, why do they rape the female counterpart of their species or sexually abuse children? Why are paraphilias almost exclusively male? Why is our whole world on the brink of destruction because of the nuclear weapons they developed and distributed widely and have even used. These are questions that feminists need to be thinking about and coming up with answers for. Life on our planet depends on it.

If we really want to get pedantic then yes, in females, one X is inherited from each parent. And there’s the pseudoautosomal region that isn’t insctivated. That’s why women with Turners Syndrome (one X chromosome so one SHOX gene) tend to be short and men with Klinefelter’s (an extra X chromosome, so an extra SHOX gene) tend to be lanky. These regions are present on both the X and the Y and undergo recombination just like genes in the autosomes.

I’ll say this one last time because if people haven’t got it by now I’m wasting my time: It’s not about the number of genes, it’s what they do.

Maybe you're missing the point. You're calling the Y chromosome streamlined, when the more accurate term is "degraded". The question for science, which is indeed up for debate, is whether the degradation will continue.

A good example of men's complex is this idea that men are fully human and women aren't

There's a thread on this right now

So men's toilets keep their picture of a man

And women's toilets end up unisex with a picture of a human and a person in a dress, presumably a woman cause women aren't real after all

All going back to the patriarchal reversal that males are fully human people and women aren't

sakura184

If you are trolling: top marks

If you are serious: get help

BUT also much more likely to have a genius level IQ, be faster, stronger and more orginal thinkers.

The jury is still out on the first but when it comes to physical advantages (strength, speed) pretty much everyone but TRAs and their allies find that undeniable.

The brain thing seems to be more about variation than a statistical advantage. Same mean intelligence but a wider variation: ie more at each extreme. More male geniuses but also more men with learning difficulties.

But as I say, the jury is still out on that.

Also it's not a duplicate by definition the 2 sex chromosones come from one parent each whether XX or XY

Not completely true always coming home females often show partial lyonisation and will have parts of the "inactive" X chromosones which are activated. This generally speaking gives XX women better verbal skills, more resistance to disease and some protection from cardiovascular disease (rates of learning disability are higher and life expectancy is lower in turner's syndrome). Yes of course 1 X is sufficient but tbe second X does confer some protection.