Y chromosome

[Watchfulwaiter]

To avoid current derail of thread about Dr Em

It just goes to show how you can tip the discussion using language. If you want to say men are bad, call the Y chromosome "degraded". Or, to say they are good, say their Y is more highly evolved. Same thing, value laden language to create a particular narrative.

Who's said die
Agree @goosefoot, always been interested on how language can be manipulated to tip a bias
Which is why people might not like it when I do question stuff, but as I said on the other thread (think it was the other one) that I'm not about to blindly take everything I read as truth.
Thanks to the more knowledgeable posters than me, it's really interesting reading actual informed posts as opposed to it being a thread people have just agreed with or been needlessly worrying over

Good grief. This thread is barking.

It's not only happening in humans. This rodent species has lost the Y chromosome but still shows sexual dimorphism.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190131101022.htm

Those rats have lost an X chromosome as well as the Y. Both male and female have a single X.

Their system isn’t working out for them; they are an endangered species.

There are several other interesting sex-determination mechanisms. Platypuses are downright weird.

Here's an article by Jenny Graves who wrote the first paper on the degradation of the Y chromosome. Here's what she has to say about it:

"The X bears about 1,600 genes with varied functions. But the Y has hardly any genes; maybe 50, and only 27 of these are in the male-specific part of the Y. Many are present in multiple copies, most of them inactive, lying in giant loops of DNA. Most of the Y is made of repetitive “junk DNA”. Thus the human Y shows all the signs of a degraded chromosome near the end of its life."

theconversation.com/sex-genes-the-y-chromosome-and-the-future-of-men-32893

"Junk" and "degraded" are obviously synonyms for streamlined.

You seem to be suggesting that I was making a point other than this is interesting in the context of this discussion. Which I think it is.

My understanding is that being male is a high risk strategy : more prone to disease and death from conception onwards, more likely to have congential and developmental problems (and perhaps more importantly be more significantly affected). BUT also much more likely to have a genius level IQ, be faster, stronger and more orginal thinkers.

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

the Y chromosome has just 4.6m years left before it disappears completely
Nevermind
The human race won't survive that long.

Bernard
Males are actually faster though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

excuse wiki

wider range of IQ so more likely to have a learning disability but also chance of exceptional intelligence. I don't think this is new or especially controversial.

Also fairly well accepted that most men are faster and stronger than most women...

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.

If the Y chromosome contained nothing but the genes for sexual differentiation it would still be enough to cleave the entire human race into two distinct biological classes.

Also, those 16,000 genes on the X chromosome are also present in males. Females have duplicate X chromosomes; they do not have a chromosome that males do not possess. That means they are less prone to X-linked conditions like colour blindness: one copy compensates for errors in the other. But only one X chromosome is active in each cell. Those cells aren’t bursting with 16,000 extra genes manufacturing double the amount of protein.

You seem to be suggesting that I was making a point other than this is interesting in the context of this discussion. Which I think it is.

Sorry, but after 24 hours arguing with another poster who thinks men are composed entirely of human garbage I tend to get a bit snippy.

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.

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

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.

sakura184

If you are trolling: top marks

If you are serious: get help

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

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.

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 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.

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.