9am on Radio 4: Start the Week - sex and gender

[nauticant]

A muddled title, The genetic gender gap, but it sounds like they've got scientists on to talk about science rather than to arm twist them into science denial.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h2c0

Women are faring better than men in the coronavirus pandemic because of their genetic superiority, according to the physician Sharon Moalem. He tells Kirsty Wark that women live longer than men and have stronger immune systems because they have two x chromosomes to choose from. In his book, The Better Half, Moalem calls for better understanding of the genetic gender gap and for a change to the male-centric, one-size-fits-all view of medical studies. ...

The programme will be repeated at 21.30 tonight in a shortened form. Looks promising.

He was also saying that the cells with the different genes activated actually work together. This is interesting. I have no idea how this works and how he found it out/measured this. It would be interesting to read his work for this.

I didnt think either of them sounded nervous.

I was incredulous that Wark actually asked whether people's treatment for certain illnesses should depend on their biological sex (rather than their gender ID). Yes, yes it should Kirsty.

My heart sank when he used 'assigned sex at birth' but to be fair it was in response to a question about trans. So I guess he just automatically fell into line with the bullshit language. Like Pavlov's dogs.

Just one other thing I’ve just remembered - from a low-brow source, sorry - about basic physiological differences due to male and female chromosomes...

A couple of years back, on one series of Bear Grylls’ The Island, you know when they are all cast away on a Pacific island and have to hunt and fend for themselves - climatic conditions caused an unusual shortage of potential food (fish). As a result, all the participants ended up virtually starving. Even more than usual on this programme.

After a certain point, it was only the women who were able to do anything physical (fetch wood, water, try and hunt, etc.). It was posited (not sure by whom) that this was because of women’s fat reserves, which gave them a much longer-lasting supply of energy to draw upon.

If I remember, it may have been the episode when the group was initially divided into a team of men and a team of women. The series - and in fact some other seasons of the show - featured some seriously impressive strong females - characters I remember much more clearly than the male participants.

Anyway, just thought I’d throw this into the discussion!

If we have any geneticists here, I'd be interested in further information (in Noddy terms, though, I'm afraid!) on what Gina Rippon said quite early on - something like, when she was a student it was stated as fact that if you have two copies of a chromosome (as women do for all 23 pairs and men do for 22 out of the 23), then quite early in development the body switches one off and only works from the other one. She seemed to imply it was thought that was quite random and the body might switch off a perfect chromosome and work from one with problems.

If I understood that part correctly, Sharon Moalem is saying that this is now known to be incorrect and that the body always has the option to go back to copy number 2 if there's a problem with number 1. Hence women having far fewer health problems deriving from faulty X chromosomes than men, because men only have one X chromosome and women have two.

The bit I didn't follow was why that led women to have more autoimmune problems than men.

Interesting that the Y chromosome has very few genes on it and lots of them are concerned with making sperm swim, if I heard that bit correctly.

I would like to know more too. We used to have the basic dominant recessive model, then I understood they thought other genes appeared to be switched on more randomly. Now this is saying that both genes may work together.

We used to have @BowlofBabelFish who used to explain things well but I think she may be back at work now.

The bit I didn't follow was why that led women to have more autoimmune problems than men

I found this in The Atlantic when I was looking for the same thing, Gasp0de. Can’t vouch for the science but it summarises the ‘pregnancy compensation hypothesis’ as a reason for this difference between men and women. It is written quite clearly and is based upon an article published in a genetics journal:

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/women-autoimmune-diseases-pregnancy/591901/

I remember posts from BowlofBabelfish too. They were excellent.

Thanks, @nauticant, I skimmed that yesterday. Fascinating stuff.

I did listen to it again and one thing I particularly didn't like is how towards the end both of the guests acknowledge that people "have a gender" as something distinct from a sex. The sense of what they were saying came across more of it being a "gendered soul" than a personality preference.

I realise that they were most likely using "gender" as a short-hand term and that to publicly go against the concept of gendered souls can destroy a career, but any sense of gender being a part of one's being makes me uncomfortable and does provide support to an ideology.

Like Pavlov's dogs

Yes it is like that, isn't it.

I thought the autoimmune link was due to the ability to be pregnant etc. Some women have an immune issue that rejects pregnancy. Some autoimmune issues become better during pregnancy too. Breasts are believed to have evolved from the immune system and certainly have been shown to make antibodies in response to baby's snot on the areola.

It's also thought That we are too clean and don't have enough parasites which would keep an over active immune system busy.

I particularly didn't like is how towards the end both of the guests acknowledge that people "have a gender" as something distinct from a sex. I am not sure anyone actually said what they meant by 'gender' either. It seems to have many varied meanings beyond learning foreign nouns.

They didn't. They know that if you're going to discuss gender you soon find yourself either needing to speak in religious terms or you speak in clear reality-based terms and get denounced as a heretic.

Publicly using "gender" in the sense of "whatever you want it to mean" is the best way to avoid risking a career and anyone but the bravest tends to go along with that. I don't blame them.

I saw this scientist Sharon Maolem in the last couple of days on twitter, and remembered hearing him on this radio 4 program, so looked up this thread. He is being unequivocal about the need to recognise sex and not use the word gender in its place.

"Why is the 'Gender Data Gap' in medicine dangerous?

Because the real data gap in medicine pertains to sex (M+F). So why are activists using 'gender', when the correct word in this case is 'sex'?

Sex is not gender...."

" Biological sex in mammals is binary (M/F). With all our advancements in genetics/medicine we currently have no way to change an individual's biological sex.

So why does this matter?" this thread continues here mobile.twitter.com/sharonmoalem/status/1348580691022393345

He is arguing with people who are directing him to the" science vet" thread about how sex is all spectrumy wectrumy.

I might be wrong but I get the impression that he's only recently appreciated what's been going on in the way biology is being represented for policial aims.

Manderleyagain
I totally agree, only just realised it's an old thread when I saw I'd commented. On twitter now he's much more challenging of 'gender pseudo science'.
There was a recent Channel 4 Programme 'Are Women the Fitter Sex? which asks does sex matter although it does slip into gender a bit.

Imnobody4 did he feature on the channel 4 programme then? He is obviously trying to advertise his book (not a criticism!).

I remember on radio 4 that he was obviously treating the 2 sexes as v distinct, but at the same time tried to be gender friendly in his language. Now he seems to be on a crusade to remind everyone that sex is binary.

@Manderleyagain

I saw this scientist Sharon Maolem in the last couple of days on twitter, and remembered hearing him on this radio 4 program, so looked up this thread. He is being unequivocal about the need to recognise sex and not use the word gender in its place.

"Why is the 'Gender Data Gap' in medicine dangerous?

Because the real data gap in medicine pertains to sex (M+F). So why are activists using 'gender', when the correct word in this case is 'sex'?

Sex is not gender...."

" Biological sex in mammals is binary (M/F). With all our advancements in genetics/medicine we currently have no way to change an individual's biological sex.

So why does this matter?" this thread continues here mobile.twitter.com/sharonmoalem/status/1348580691022393345

He is arguing with people who are directing him to the" science vet" thread about how sex is all spectrumy wectrumy.

I might be wrong but I get the impression that he's only recently appreciated what's been going on in the way biology is being represented for policial aims.

Thank you so much for this - his Twitter is a joy!

twitter.com/sharonmoalem/status/1351538250314379264?s=21

And thank you to nauticant for highlighting the broadcast - I will listen.

He is arguing with people who are directing him to the" science vet" thread about how sex is all spectrumy wectrumy.

Just want to say thank you for "spectrumy wectrumy". I tend to reuse as often as possible.