A question about chromosomes

[PlanetJanette]

The furore over the olympics raises some odd conclusions.

Various folk saying that the fact that someone has XY chromosomes means they are a man. But these are the same people who say that men can’t get pregnant, men can’t have a cervix, can’t menstruate etc.

But of course people with DSDs that involve having XY chromosomes can get pregnant, in at least some cases. They can have cervices in some cases. They can menstruate in some cases.

So a question for those who insist on a black and white claim that those with XY chromosomes are men - do they think those with Swyer Syndrome who get pregnant are pregnant men? Or menstruating men? Or men with cervices?

Datun We don't actually know the conditions that the two boxers may or may not have. If the reports are correct and they are XY with testosterone higher than the upper female level they could have 5-ARD, the same as Semenya (born with ambiguous genitalia at birth, goes through male puberty, have internal testes) or they could have PAIS, a male who doesn't respond fully to the testosterone his body produces.

True. No one has confirmed.

But people who understand DSDs to a significant level are piecing together the circumstantial evidence, for want of a better term. Failing the sex test being one.

There is only one recorded birth of a child to someone with XY chromosomes and the mother was a chimera, as in she had BOTH XX and XY chromosomes and the XX were in her reproductive organs.

But this forum is full of people claiming that they have XY chromosomes* and that they are, therefore, men.

Are you saying those posters are wrong?

*to be clear, I've seen no evidence of the chromosomes of the athlete's in question, so am asking the question more broadly as to whether posters claiming that those with XY chromosomes are men.

Does this help Planet?

Not sure why you would exclude those becoming pregnant with assistance.

Requiring assistance in becoming pregnant is not a determinant of whether someone is a woman or not.

So while people with XY chromosomes have become pregnant, the logic of many on this forum claiming XY = man suggests that those were pregnant men, albeit pregnant men who became pregnant after using donated eggs.

We've already explained this. Our present understanding is that it is the SRY gene that causes maleness. For almost all people, that gene is found on the Y chromosome.

Yes.

So that is an example of someone that I would without hesitation regard as a woman.

But by the logic of a great many people on this forum, the fact that she has a Y chromosome renders her a man.

So I think there are two options here: those posters are wrong, and a Y chromosome is not determinant that someone is a man; or this is an example of a man getting pregnant.

Yes. Using the specifically Y chromosome would result in that conclusion. Instead of saying it's specifically a Y chromosome, unless it's Swyer syndrome.

Maybe there is another DSD that involves a Y chromosome that can result in an implanted pregnancy? I don't think there is tho.

There have been lots of threads about Swyer syndrome. The people affected look totally like women.

This thread is very interesting. I'm learning a lot. Thank you to those giving clear answers to difficult questions.

But again you're not addressing the point I am making.

There are masses of posts claiming a Y chromosome makes someone a man.

Are you saying that is only the case if they look like a man, but if they look like a woman they are a woman notwithstanding the Y chromosome? In which case you are saying that a Y chromosome in itself isn't a determinant of someone being a man.

No, Swyer syndrome is the only DSD that results in an XY female.

There are arguments on how to categorise those with CAIS as they are genenically male but phenotypically female, but they aren't born with a uterus, so they couldn't become pregnant even with intervention.

That is exactly what we are saying. It is the SRY gene, not the whole Y chromosome that determines maleness.

So I think there are two options here: those posters are wrong, and a Y chromosome is not determinant that someone is a man; or this is an example of a man getting pregnant.

But this is why the definition will be about gamete production.

I know people really want a hard and fast rule.

Which is totally understandable. And in terms of sport, I think the hard and fast rule is no XY in women's sport.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to see a hard and fast rule, and then each and every DSD fully explained, together with whether or not they produce an advantage and how they do.

Just the once. Just to stop all the speculation.

Because these outlying anomalies are not gotchas.

A woman was on here whose child had a DSD which was life-threatening and she was in constant turmoil.

it's unsurprising that people with these conditions did not want to be lumped into transactactivism.

I think that you( and probably the Olympic Committee) are pushing water uphill on this one OP. Not many people are going to be musing on chromosomal anomalies or the niceties of definition, faced with the spectacle of a man beating the shit out of a woman in a public sports event.

There are masses of posts claiming a Y chromosome makes someone a man.

So what? It's not a bloody game.

There's no ha ha, I win, because I found a loophole.

ffs

Planet, it's been explained - clearly I thought - that it's the SRY gene which usually appears on the Y chromosome which makes people male.

Chromosomes can be thought of as containers, they don't do anything on their own. It's the genes within them that make a difference.

The vast majority of people with a Y chromosome have an SRY gene in it, and the vast majority of people with XX chromosomes do not.

So, for everyday situations, yes it's fair to say that XY=male and XX=female.

For a tiny number of people, it's more complex, and we've recognised that - see explanations above.

That doesn't mean it's not true to say XY=male and XX=female, it simply means there for a tiny number of people, there is a caveat, and nature is messy around the edges.

What it doesn't mean, is someone with an SRY gene isn't male, no matter how much everyone thought they were female before puberty kicked in.

Spot on response. Pushing water uphill on this one

If you are competing in female events and are found to have XY chromosomes, you should be banned from female events, no ifs, no buts.

Ironically you could just base it on how these athletes dress, because every one of these controversial athletes dresses like a man daily (except when competing).

A person with a Y chromosome and very obvious signs of male puberty is male, no question about it.

I would disagree with this. I think those with Swyer should be able to compete in female sport, though their condition may make it difficult to become an elite athlete.

https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1819031226516173071?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ
Search out Emma Hilton on X, she is an expert on genetics, especially DSDs.

FGS this is really simple…anyone with a functioning SRY gene is a man. In almost all cases these are humans with XY chromosomes. There are a very teeny number of humans with XX chromosomes where the SRY gene has been transferred into one of the X chromosomes. functioning SRY gene (wherever it’s located) gives a man with male anatomy/physiology. None of these people menstruate, ovulate or have wombs.

There are also some cases of people with XY chromosomes who have developmental differences that result in external appearances different to those expected ( no penis and structures that look like labia/vagina). Some of those people will still respond to testosterone, go through male puberty and be able to father children. Some will have no sensitivity to testosterone and to all visual intents and purposes seem to be women.

but in the case of sport it’s very very simple. If someone competes as a woman and is tested to have XY chromosome then that is a flag for more investigation not a straight yes/no. CAIS eould be allowed in women’s sports, PAIS or 5 Ard (what caster semenya has) are not. That’s what the court of arbitration of sport does - they look at the evidence for individual athletes given their very specific issues and make a decision based on whether they have any advantage due to those differences.

I think before you continue to try and trip people up, you should actually research as much as you can about DSDs and all the possible variations.
Neither of the boxers you are referring to have Swyer’s Syndrome. They both have visible male secondary sexual characteristics for a start. People with Swyers don’t.
I find it very interesting that some people will bend over backwards to try and justify males battering females in a boxing ring. Its just weird!

I think it's quite clear, let's put aside the tiny percentages of people with whatever condition, and look at the obvious

Let's say if someone has XY, and high testosterone, looks like a man, has higher normal strength than a woman, can run substantially faster, lift heavier weights, or punch heavier, chances are they will be a "male" phenotype and not be accepted into female competitions.

Let's look back in history before testing became the norm. Winners and record breakers in athletics were, in hindsight, doped with steroids and testosterone. Female gymnasts were puberty blocked. Sport is money and fame. There will always be those who try to game the system. The current cheat is to find athletes with DSD for their athletic advantage. It's cheating, and increasingly dangerous. Testing will have to be developed to ensure fairness but the OIC and others have to get on board first.