Medical question.

[Mystic Muse]

Okay. Me and my friend were having an argument a while ago. My question is this. What determines what sex a child will be born as?

the argument itself goes against board rules so I'm not going to post it.

[Supagoof]

My thought is usally the X or the Y gene, but I'm not a geneticist so that's the most I can offer. Everything else is up to chance. :smallbiggrin:

[SurlySeraph]

Whether the first sperm to reach the egg has an X-chromosome or a Y-chromosome.

[snoopy13a]

All fetuses are female until a protein coded for by a gene* on the Y chromosome causes a change to male.

In rare cases, this gene isn't present due to translocation* or something and you can have a XY female. There also people who really don't fit into one gender (like the Olympic runner from South Africa).

*My genetics memories are starting to fade so I've forgotten the name of the gene.

[BRC]

Okay. Me and my friend were having an argument a while ago. My question is this. What determines what sex a child will be born as?

the argument itself goes against board rules so I'm not going to post it.
Genetic code is in the form of Chromosomes, for each pair everybody gets one from each parents. The gender-determining chromosome is either X or Y. Females have 2 X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. Each parent has a 50% chance of passing on a chromosome. Since the mother has 2 X chromosomes, she will always pass on an X. The Father has a 50% chance to pass on an X or a Y. If the child gets a second X, it's female, if they get a Y, it's male.
That probably made no sense.

[SDF]

Also, in the case of aneuploidy any presence of a Y chromosome denotes a male. (XXY, XYY, ect.) While the absence denotes a female. (X, XXX, ect.)

[Gullara]

Genetic code is in the form of Chromosomes, for each pair everybody gets one from each parents. The gender-determining chromosome is either X or Y. Females have 2 X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. Each parent has a 50% chance of passing on a chromosome. Since the mother has 2 X chromosomes, she will always pass on an X. The Father has a 50% chance to pass on an X or a Y. If the child gets a second X, it's female, if they get a Y, it's male.
That probably made no sense.

It made perfect sence to me, although I have taken Bio 30

[Mystic Muse]

Genetic code is in the form of Chromosomes, for each pair everybody gets one from each parents. The gender-determining chromosome is either X or Y. Females have 2 X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. Each parent has a 50% chance of passing on a chromosome. Since the mother has 2 X chromosomes, she will always pass on an X. The Father has a 50% chance to pass on an X or a Y. If the child gets a second X, it's female, if they get a Y, it's male.
That probably made no sense.

makes more sense than "My immortal" and yeah I actually could understand what you were saying.

[Shades of Gray]

Weird things can happen though. Such as only having one X (Turner's Syndrome), or XXY (Klinefelter's Syndrome), but these are rare.

[Zaggab]

Genetic code is in the form of Chromosomes, for each pair everybody gets one from each parents. The gender-determining chromosome is either X or Y. Females have 2 X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. Each parent has a 50% chance of passing on a chromosome. Since the mother has 2 X chromosomes, she will always pass on an X. The Father has a 50% chance to pass on an X or a Y. If the child gets a second X, it's female, if they get a Y, it's male.
That probably made no sense.

What he said. More details: Normally, humans have 23 (=46 in total) pairs of chromosomes (strands of DNA). One chromosome in each pair is from the mother, and the other from the father. 22 pairs are the so-called autosomal chromosomes, while the 23rd pair consist of the sex chromsomes, X and Y. Females are XX, males are XY. Chromosome defects are common in this pair and relatively unsymptomatic (compare to Downs syndrome, which is three copies of chromosome 21) , and range from Turner syndrome (X-) to something like XXXYY.


All fetuses are female until a protein coded for by a gene* on the Y chromosome causes a change to male.

In rare cases, this gene isn't present due to translocation* or something and you can have a XY female. There also people who really don't fit into one gender (like the Olympic runner from South Africa).

*My genetics memories are starting to fade so I've forgotten the name of the gene.

The gene is called SRY (Sex-determining Region of the Y chromosone). Its product is called TDF (Testis Determining Factor), which drives the development of the primitive gonads into testicles instead of ovaries. The cells of the primitive testicles then produce androgens (testosteron) and the hormone AMH, which drives the development of male external genitalia and the breakdown of primitive female structures (the paramesonephric ducts), respectively. This starts to happen very early during development - around week 6, if memory serves.

Examples of things that can go wrong in the development of gender:
1) Lack of the SRY-gene in male fetus, for example through translocation or mutation - fetus develops as female, but is genetically male.
2) Deficient testosteron production in male fetus: Fetus develop testicles, but the scrotum and pen is never develop. Appears and feels female, but is sterile. Lacks ovaries and uterus.
3) Excessive production of testosteron in female fetus (several different mutations): Internal genitalia develop as female, i.e. has ovaries and uterus. External genitalia develop as for a male.
4) Turner syndrome: fetus has only 1 X chromsome. This usually leads to underdeveloped ovaries.


Gender is not such an easy question as most think. There are several aspects to consider when it comes to gender, for example:
1) Genetic gender - sometimes unclear
2) Phenotypic gender - "visible" gender; sometimes unclear because of malformities
3) Mental gender - sometimes not the same as phenotypic or genetic gender
4) Social gender
5) Legal gender
etc.

These are often not the all the same.


/end reflexive response
This was, more or less, a question on my latest exam. I have left out some details I felt was unnecessary or that I am a little fuzzy on.
Mind you, I very nearly flunked that exam, so don't take anything I just said to heart.

[Devils_Advocate]

Wikipedia has articles on human sex determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_and_differentiation_%28human%29) and sex determination in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system). In case you need some sources. A Google search turns up a bunch of stuff, too.

[onthetown]

The male's sperm has either an X or Y chromosome that determines what sex the child will be if it reaches the egg. Eggs are always X; the sperm giving another X will be a girl, a Y will be a boy.

[Solaris]

The individual determines what gender it is.

What?

[Milskidasith]

makes more sense than "My immortal" and yeah I actually could understand what you were saying.

Why would you trust an intentionally so bad it's hilarious fanfic for your biological knowledge?

[Serpentine]

The individual determines what gender it is.

What?1. Arguable, as gender is a societal construction, more than an individual one.
2. The OP asked about sex, not gender (which is the only problem I have with your post, Zaggab, which is otherwise very well written).

As an aside, to what extent can genetic errors account for transexuality according to present and potential scientific knowledge?

I'm curious about what you thought determined it, Kyuubi. Have you not done any biology yet?

[Mystic Muse]

I'm curious about what you thought determined it, Kyuubi. Have you not done any biology yet?

I have. I wanted some help with my argument though. I want to be able to explain everything to him if the topic ever comes up again. I hope it won't though. Some of his arguments make me facepalm.

No I can't post them. It violates board rules.

[Serpentine]

Could you PM it to me, then? For my curiosity's sake? So, are you saying it's genetically determined and he's not?

[Tavar]

Same. His argument would have to be rather interesting, from an MST3K viewpoint.

[Lord of Syntax]

thirded! PM it to me.

[Zeb The Troll]

:smalleek: "I'm gonna have puppy!"

:smallbiggrin:

[Jimorian]

I'm just trying to picture how your friend's argument can be against the board rules.

"When a man and a woman [politics] each other very much, they [religion] their [spam] until [naughty word] and then you get [comic schedule]."

[Zeb The Troll]

I'm just trying to picture how your friend's argument can be against the board rules.

"When a man and a woman [politics] each other very much, they [religion] their [spam] until [naughty word] and then you get [comic schedule]."You forgot about how they [explicit sexuality]. That's my bet. And also why I only put in the punchline to the joke. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

Religion and transexuality.
I think that should cover it while still being within board rules...
As an aside, if I were in the habit of sigging the things people say, that would be one of them, Jimor :smallamused:

"I [politically] [sexually explicit] your [religion] 'til [comic update]." :smallbiggrin:

[Zaggab]

1. Arguable, as gender is a societal construction, more than an individual one.
2. The OP asked about sex, not gender (which is the only problem I have with your post, Zaggab, which is otherwise very well written).

As an aside, to what extent can genetic errors account for transexuality according to present and potential scientific knowledge?

I'm curious about what you thought determined it, Kyuubi. Have you not done any biology yet?

Oops, I got the terms confused since English is not my first language. In most places where I wrote gender, I meant sex. It's the cRPG:s messing with my vocabulary, as you usually choose gender and not sex.

We had a lecture on "uncertain sex" (Swedish: "osäker könstillhörighet"), in which the conclusion was that in some cases, it is not possible to objectively decide which gendersex (edit: argh! I did it again!) someone is, because of the things I mentioned. Of course, I should have put "social sex ~ gender".

As for the science of what decides someone's sexual preference, there is very little research in that area, since that is an loaded issue. It is, as far as I've heard, almost impossible to get permission to study the cause of e.g. transsexuality or homosexuality. No matter the results, it is feared that some groups would proclaim it proof that, say, homosexuality is caused by brain damage, or something. Or what it would mean to homosexual people if it turned out that homosexuality was caused by, let's say, a malformation during fetal development.

However, a few studies have been done. None have found a "gay gene" yet, but it is clear that the sexual preference of an individual is reflected in the brain's activation pattern. I.e, there is a neurological difference, were gay men has activation patterns similar to straight females when confronted with a picture of a man (or female), and vice versa and so on.

There are different theories on why this difference exist. Some claim it's 100% environment, a few that it is mostly genetic. Most seem to think that it's a very complex, multifactorial process with environmental, genetic and, interestingly, random elements.

[Serpentine]

I think I have a reasonable idea about homosexuality, I just haven't heard much about those genetic... abnormalities? errors? hard to get an unloaded word... phenomena and transexuality. For example, in the case of the lack of an SRY gene, is there any evidence that it's the root of any ftm transexuality? And (cuz it seems like it's more common) is there any possible genetic basis of this sort for mtf transexuality?

[Ninja Chocobo]

Could you PM it to me, then? For my curiosity's sake? So, are you saying it's genetically determined and he's not?

+1 for me. I can't even think what the hell it could be.

[Serpentine]

Like I said: religion and transexuality about covers it (OP knew about the genetics, by the way, just needed help backing it up).

[Zaggab]

I think I have a reasonable idea about homosexuality, I just haven't heard much about those genetic... abnormalities? errors? hard to get an unloaded word... phenomena and transexuality. For example, in the case of the lack of an SRY gene, is there any evidence that it's the root of any ftm transexuality? And (cuz it seems like it's more common) is there any possible genetic basis of this sort for mtf transexuality?

I haven't heard that much about it. I guess it's either because no one has really examined it (keep in mind most of these are really rare and/or hard to find), or that the professor just didn't mention it. It says nothing about this in any of my textbooks.

However, most cases of testosterone deficiency are discovered when the patient, who appears to be female and have been raised as such, comes to the doctor because she/(he) has trouble concieving, and seeks medical aid.

Of course, the reason they can't conceive is because they have no uterus or ovaries. Instead they have immature testicles in the peritoneal cavity. The impression I got from the lecture was that these patients are usually female in every way, except genetically. They usually consider themselves female. I would assume they have the same frequency of being non-heterosexual as a normal female, but I can't say for sure.

A problem with this condition is that undescended testicles develop into tumors if not removed. To avoid (overly) traumatizing the patient, the doctor is supposed to tell her that she has malformed ovaries that must be removed, and that she is infertile.

In the case of nonfunctional SRY, it is almost never detected, since it is completely asymptomatic (as far as anyone is likely to notice).

I might try and find my notes about this later, but I don't really know where they are.

[The Rose Dragon]

You see, Kyuubi, when a stork and a cabbage patch love each other very, very much...

((I'm pretty certain there is cabbage-on-stork porn somewhere, by the way.))

That said, Zaggab got almost everything I had to say.

EDIT: Though I don't think you want me to get into my ideas of what defines sex (secondary sexual characteristics are secondary for a reason, you know).

[Zanaril]

To avoid (overly) traumatizing the patient, the doctor is supposed to tell her that she has malformed ovaries that must be removed, and that she is infertile.

Does this strike anyone else as horribly deceitful? Even if some people would prefer not to know, surely a large part of being an adult is learning to cope with unfortunate truths. :smallannoyed:

[SDF]

I'm pretty sure the doctor lying to the patient like that is incredibly illegal in the US.

[Zaggab]

I don't know the laws governing doctoring in USA (heck, I barely know the laws governing doctoring in Sweden), but it could certainly be so. It's not illegal in Sweden to keep things from patients as long as it does not harm the patient, but the doctor might get reported. It's definitely a gray area when it comes to ethics (medical ethics is hard). What I said was what my professor said, and I can see the virtue of his opinion.

Thing is, it's not that big a lie, it's more like not telling the whole truth ("You have a genetic condition that means that you don't have functioning ovaries. To avoid complications, I recommend removing them surgically" - technically true, but leaves out the detail that she is "really" a man). Plus, not knowing it has no effect on the patients well-being. In the end it's up to the doctor to decide, and hopefully it can read the patient well enough to know what to say. I understand if people think it's wrong anyway.

That said, let's not derail this thread into a discussion on medical ethics and legislation.

[Zeb The Troll]

Thing is, it's not that big a lie, it's more like not telling the whole truth ("You have a genetic condition that means that you don't have functioning ovaries. To avoid complications, I recommend removing them surgically" - technically true, but leaves out the detail that she is "really" a man).Except it's not "technically true". This statement implies that ovaries are present ("I suggest removing them"). Technically, you can't remove something that isn't there to begin with. To further complicate a doctor's saying this, if the truth was ever determined later on in life, that'd be a lawsuit. Willful deception to convince someone to undergo surgical procedures, and then performing a different procedure that was not the one discussed, strikes me as something that would be big time no-no. I can't imagine there'd be any gray area there.

[AtomicKitKat]

Also, there's AIS(Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), where the foetus is XY(or some other combination thereof), but has a severely(or even completely) blunted response to Testosterone, thereby developing as mostly female(with skeletal type of male, including greater height, some density), and with little to no androgenic/terminal/puberty-induced hair. Recently, they discovered another yet XY girl, but upon examining her, it seemed her ovaries were "normal", so they decided against removing them as they normally would for most XY girls. Would be interesting if they followed up on this case about 10 years from now(last I heard the girl was still a toddler or so).

[Zaggab]

Except it's not "technically true". This statement implies that ovaries are present ("I suggest removing them"). Technically, you can't remove something that isn't there to begin with. To further complicate a doctor's saying this, if the truth was ever determined later on in life, that'd be a lawsuit. Willful deception to convince someone to undergo surgical procedures, and then performing a different procedure that was not the one discussed, strikes me as something that would be big time no-no. I can't imagine there'd be any gray area there.

Okay, apparently I expressed myself clumsily, because if I understand you correctly, you are reacting to something I may have said but didn't actually mean. The part you are quoting was an edit added as a supposed clarification. I see for myself now that I read it without being half asleep that I kind of failed. It happens all the time for me, since I'm bad at both English and discussion. To avoid looking like a complete idiot, I will not continue discussing this particular topic in this thread. This is partly because I will almost certainly be unable to express my opinions, but also because I don't have a solid opinion on this issue. I think both you and the professor has good points.

---

Now, to continue to the previous topic about sexuality and sexual identity:
I found part of my notes from that lecture (the lecture was really about sexual dimorphism, with a part concerning uncertain sex and related conditions). Here are some conditions and related documented behavioural observations (some of them I have already mentioned somewhat):

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH): Because of a defect in the synthesis of steroid hormones, the fetus is exposed to large amount of testosterone in utero. Unless treated in utero, females will be born with more-or-less well developed male external genitalia. These children will be more interested in "boy's games", and won't be interested in dolls. There is no over representation of homosexuality among these persons. "Male identification" is uncommon.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS): Person has a more or less nonfunctional androgen (testosterone) receptor. Male external genitalia do not develop (or become underdeveloped, varying degrees of severity of the mutation causes different outcomes). If complete, the person looks completely female, but have no uterus, ovaries or oviducts. It is usually discovered when there are no menstruation at puberty (as well as when the person contacts a doctor because of infertility, as I said before, but this is more of an exception). This is the condition that one of my professors advocated withholding information about. These individuals are usually like genetic females in most aspects. Interestingly, this condition was (is?) over represented in female models a few decades ago.
(Edit: Going away to have dinner while writing posts results in ninjaing... who would have thunk?)

Here's the most interesting of these:
5-alfa-reductase deficiency: The enzyme responsible for transforming testosterone to it's more active form dihydrotestosterone is damaged in the patient. External genitalia develop as in a female... until puberty. Now, the testosterone levels become so high that it can have its intended effect anyway. In the course of a few months, the apparently female child develops into a normal male. Where this has been most studied (the Dominican Republic), these individuals usually identify themselves as males after puberty, although they were raised as females. Wikipedia, however, says that most keep on identifying themselves as females.
(Edit: Wikipedia actually gives a fairly different version of this condition than my professor did... interesting)

[stopwatch]

It's hard to say this in a PG way but I'll try. The gender of the baby is completely dependent on which of the father's friends meets the mother's friend. If you want a further explanation I'd have to PM it to you.

[Serpentine]

Here's the most interesting of these:
5-alfa-reductase deficiency: The enzyme responsible for transforming testosterone to it's more active form dihydrotestosterone is damaged in the patient. External genitalia develop as in a female... until puberty. Now, the testosterone levels become so high that it can have its intended effect anyway. In the course of a few months, the apparently female child develops into a normal male. Where this has been most studied (the Dominican Republic), these individuals usually identify themselves as males after puberty, although they were raised as females. Wikipedia, however, says that most keep on identifying themselves as females.
(Edit: Wikipedia actually gives a fairly different version of this condition than my professor did... interesting)I saw a doco on this in sex ed. Really interesting. Though the doco said they identify as male after puberty, too...

[AtomicKitKat]

The alpha-reductase thing is interesting(heard about it before, didn't really read up on it). It does bring up interesting questions on gender identity. Like, did these former "girls" always "feel like they were born in the wrong body" or similar sensations? What about those who thought of themselves as female throughout? Would they have had the whole Body Horror (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BodyHorror) thing going on? Did any of them decide to go the MtF route to resolve it? So many questions.:smallconfused:

[Thes Hunter]

Zaggab - Nice coverage of the topic. We are taught the same stuff here in the US.

Zeb - Removal of the testes is advised, because testes that stay inside the body can easily become cancerous. Ovaries and testes come from the same tissue, so telling a woman that she is infertile due to a congenital problem with her ovaries isn't THAT far from the truth.

We Americans place a high value on the truth, and expect people to suck it up and deal with it, no matter then mental cost. Please imagine the difference in mental stress a woman would have go through. On one side, she is told 'Sorry, you are infertile' and on the other 'Not only will you never have kids, but you are also a man.'

Tough to say which approach would be 'better' for the patient. And probably would depend on the patient. Though I see the merit in not directly lying to the patient, but then again, I personally place a high value on the truth.

[Syka]

I don't know that I'd want to be told I'm actually a dude. >> Just sayin'. I, honestly, would take being told I'm infertile far better than that. I may not be particularly feminine, but dammit- I like being a woman!


That said, this discussion reminded me that I've always been curious (well, since learning about this stuff) if I was exposed to higher than normal levels of testosterone in utero. I was never interested in dolls, babies, none of the normal girl stuff. I'd only wear a dress the first day of school in elementary school. The only 'girly' thing about me was wearing my hair long. I always got on better with boys, partly I think because I was more interested in what boys got to do. My approach to life is also far more like most of my male friends than my female friends. It's only been recently I've gotten more into feminine stuff (the extent is wearing dresses more frequently, lol). I identify as female, there is no question about it. I have never felt I was meant to be a boy, no matter how much boy stuff I was interested in. It never felt "off". I am just particularly androgynous when it comes to my personality and interests, leaning more towards the masculine than feminine if you had to pick a particular gender to stick my personality under.

But I don't know if that's just how I am, because my mom was similar to me in those respects, or if I (and her?) were exposed to higher levels of testosterone. Is there any way to test for it? (I'm also certain I'm a genetic female, as I've had 2 ultrasounds that confirm the existence of my ovaries and uterus...>>)

[Coidzor]

hmm... :smallconfused: ...Wouldn't the routine gynecological examinations that women undergo reveal that there wasn't a uterus due to there not being a cervix? Or am I misremembering something and believing that the cervix is dilated and peered through as part of that examination?

[Syka]

hmm... :smallconfused: ...Wouldn't the routine gynecological examinations that women undergo reveal that there wasn't a uterus due to there not being a cervix? Or am I misremembering something and believing that the cervix is dilated and peered through as part of that examination?

The cervix is definitely poked. As far as I know they don't peer through it or anything, though. Then again, I've only ever been on the wrong side of those exams, lol.

I'm guessing it's possible to get something that resembles a cervix on just a routine examination but doesn't 'go anywhere'.

You also have to remember, a fair amount of women do not begin gynecological exams until well after they should have. I was about a year (or 4, depending on the source) late on getting my first one. *shrug*

[Solaris]

I don't know that I'd want to be told I'm actually a dude. >> Just sayin'. I, honestly, would take being told I'm infertile far better than that. I may not be particularly feminine, but dammit- I like being a woman!


That said, this discussion reminded me that I've always been curious (well, since learning about this stuff) if I was exposed to higher than normal levels of testosterone in utero. I was never interested in dolls, babies, none of the normal girl stuff. I'd only wear a dress the first day of school in elementary school. The only 'girly' thing about me was wearing my hair long. I always got on better with boys, partly I think because I was more interested in what boys got to do. My approach to life is also far more like most of my male friends than my female friends. It's only been recently I've gotten more into feminine stuff (the extent is wearing dresses more frequently, lol). I identify as female, there is no question about it. I have never felt I was meant to be a boy, no matter how much boy stuff I was interested in. It never felt "off". I am just particularly androgynous when it comes to my personality and interests, leaning more towards the masculine than feminine if you had to pick a particular gender to stick my personality under.

But I don't know if that's just how I am, because my mom was similar to me in those respects, or if I (and her?) were exposed to higher levels of testosterone. Is there any way to test for it? (I'm also certain I'm a genetic female, as I've had 2 ultrasounds that confirm the existence of my ovaries and uterus...>>)

A quick-and-dirty way to check is to see if your index finger is longer than your ring finger. If it is, more testosterone. If not, more estrogen. I didn't believe it until I got a good look at my girlfriend's fingers (and a strange look from her). Then again, she's a fairly androgynous/masculine-personalitied girl, so this might not work.

[Syka]

A quick-and-dirty way to check is to see if your index finger is longer than your ring finger. If it is, more testosterone. If not, more estrogen. I didn't believe it until I got a good look at my girlfriend's fingers (and a strange look from her). Then again, she's a fairly androgynous/masculine-personalitied girl, so this might not work.

If I hold my hand normal, the index finger is longer. If I make it so the base of the fingers are equal, they are equal in length. Which is the correct method? Yeah, I'm weird, lol.

ETA: Coid, don't worry. The difference is much larger on my left hand than my right when I hold it normal. But my entire left side (foot, hand, chest) is larger than my right. It makes it impossible for me to find pumps I can wear since my feet are two different sizes. :(

[Coidzor]

...Great, my hands are asymetrical. On one they're the same length and on the other one's longer than the other... :smalleek::smallfrown:

[Extra_Crispy]

I dont think that finger test is correct. I am definatly male. Look alot like my father, and his father. Have the family male nose, am 6'4" and 260 lbs, have all the typical male parts, grow way too much facial hair but I am balding/bald on the top of my head ect. Yet on both my hands the ring finger is longer then my index finger by a noticable amount.

It might be true in some instances but like many "wives tales" I dont think it would hold up to scientific study.

On the subject, one of my highschool friends married a girl named Ronnell, was supossed to be Ronald. They tested the embrotic fluid and found it had a Y chromosome, to the child was male. Well SHE was born with XXY. I read up on the condition and it says like 99% are male and all are sterile. Last I heard they had 2 children. The only difference with her is she has a little more masculine facial designe and a very light mustach and facial hair that she removes.

[Serpentine]

Scientific (http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4452xq622036g76/) finger (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-4F7VFM3-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133501633&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=12a182ed059c72248aee209fe6ee1046) ratio (http://www.springerlink.com/content/j23w4722m82xw637/) research (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x257015275336450/).

It's most certainly more trend than law, but the research is there.

On Ronnell, very cool. I bet she'd be of great interest to medical science. I wonder how one would go about drawing scientific attention to oneself...

[Pyrian]

Extra_Crispy, the longer-ring-finger IS what's supposed to correlate with high testosterone in the womb. So, you match the trend, not oppose it. (Solaris posted it backwards.)

[Temotei]

It made perfect sence to me, although I have taken Bio 30

Because one biology was far too little, and thirty-one was too much!

[AtomicKitKat]

If I spread my fingers out a little, the index always looks shorter(but that's also because both index fingers are partially twisted+bent towards the outside of the hand in the last 2 sections of bone. They're also somewhat stubby due to my nails being cut "curved" rather than "straight across", as well as years of {ab}use). If I press them against the middle finger, they appear to be about the same length as the ring finger. If I press them index-to-opposite-hand-ring, and vice versa, they appear to be about equal. I measured them semi-accurately with a tape measure once(start from the lowest horizontal line on the palm side, all the way to the most forward tip of the "bulb"). The result was about 0.5-1.5mm difference on average(bearing in mind microscopic changes in your skin/flesh due to blood pulsing, the flesh getting compressed during measurement, etc.), in each hand, which supposedly, is "enough" to confirm that I'm male. Still, the differences in my finger lengths is not nearly as obvious as in my brother(who is incidentally a lot hairier, so he probably has greater sensitivity to testosterone).

[Thes Hunter]

Syka - your experience mirrors my own. I have always been interested in 'boy' things, played with blocks and cars instead of barbies, and etc.

With my own personal biology, I have hunted and looked and tried to find one phenotypic feature that might show that I was exposed to more testosterone in utero however, I have found no evidence of virilization, except maybe my good spatial ability. :smallsigh:

I am happy being a woman, and as you said have never seen myself as anything else. One of the biggest break throughs for me was when I realized I could still be feminine without giving up on the other things that are seen as 'male'.

Meaning, I can wear a skirt, and Make-up and still play D&D, carry a wallet, make fart jokes, be the bread winner, be 'strong', etc. without making me any less a woman.

[Syka]

One of the biggest break throughs for me was when I realized I could still be feminine without giving up on the other things that are seen as 'male'.

Meaning, I can wear a skirt, and Make-up and still play D&D, carry a wallet, make fart jokes, be the bread winner, be 'strong', etc. without making me any less a woman.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I've gone through. I still don't like pink, gossip, etc, but I wear dresses and skirts now and wear make up on occasion. It was nice to find a happy medium. I'm still definitely not what you'd call 'feminine' exactly. Androgynous is about right for my personality, as I have a mix of typical masculine and feminine characteristics.

[SMEE]

Back to the OP question, toxoplasmosis is also a factor when it comes to the baby gender.
Mom's who are infected with toxoplasmosis are more likely to conceive boys than girls.

I know that because mom was infected with it shortly after she got pregnant of her second baby, me.

[Groundhog]

You mean because the toxoplasmosis somehow affects the genes in the sperm? Or the newly fertilized egg?

[SMEE]

I'm not sure how it affects the fetus, but studies pointed out that it causes an increase in boy births in humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Reproductive_changes

I'll look up on it more.

[Coidzor]

With my own personal biology, I have hunted and looked and tried to find one phenotypic feature that might show that I was exposed to more testosterone in utero however, I have found no evidence of virilization, except maybe my good spatial ability. :smallsigh:

Why?


I am happy being a woman, and as you said have never seen myself as anything else. One of the biggest break throughs for me was when I realized I could still be feminine without giving up on the other things that are seen as 'male'.

Meaning, I can wear a skirt, and Make-up and still play D&D, carry a wallet, make fart jokes, be the bread winner, be 'strong', etc. without making me any less a woman.

Wait, I thought that was part of the point of feminism and its modern conceptualization and current level of latent dissemination throughout the populace...

And here I thought toxoplasmosis was scary due to the fact it's one of those mind-affecting parasites. Now I feel even more skeeved out by the idea of cleaning a litter box.

Groundhog: As I can understand it, I think it has something to do with X being carried to term. I recall something similar being said about women in less well off conditions being more likely to have male offspring and women in better conditions being more likely to have female offspring. How this happens is murkier and probably due to various factors.

[Thes Hunter]

I haven't looked up the mechanism of shifting the male/female ratio in toxoplasmosis but I would guess it probably has something to do with changing the internal female environment. pH, temp etc all have effects on the survivability of X vs. Y sperm. (Why? I have no clue, maybe I'll look it up one day, but we have more than enough educated smart people around here that might already know.)


And Coid, the notion of Feminism was a bit different when I was growing up. I think it was sometime in the 80's when a paradigm shift really happened and it was seen that you could be still be an active strong, progressive woman without burning your bra.

I see the change happening for men, where they can be sensitive, caring, blah blah blah without being less men, but I think that change is coming more slowly. Probably because it is more culturally acceptable for a woman to wear pants than it is for a man to wear a skirt.

I for one see it as clothing, so if men want to wear a skirt, that doesn't make them any less men.

But then again, I am pulling the topic off the biology and back to the Gender issues, which this thread is not about. :smallwink:

[Coidzor]

And Coid, the notion of Feminism was a bit different when I was growing up. I think it was sometime in the 80's when a paradigm shift really happened and it was seen that you could be still be an active strong, progressive woman without burning your bra.

I see the change happening for men, where they can be sensitive, caring, blah blah blah without being less men, but I think that change is coming more slowly. Probably because it is more culturally acceptable for a woman to wear pants than it is for a man to wear a skirt.

I for one see it as clothing, so if men want to wear a skirt, that doesn't make them any less men.

But then again, I am pulling the topic off the biology and back to the Gender issues, which this thread is not about. :smallwink:

Yeah, but skirts look silly with hairy legs. At least with dark hairy legs. Just doesn't work well together. or at least, I look crappy in a skirt for reason of my legs alone, even disregarding that I just don't have the hips to pull one off attractively. :smallsigh:

Oh wait... yeah... <_< >_> Silly old people and their outmoded ideas of things involving girls. Then again, I'm rather limited in my abilities when it comes to conceptualizing girls myself.

The pH thing I remember hearing about in my genetics class last year... can't remember what the explanation for it was though...x.x

[AtomicKitKat]

Interesting thing about equality. Just because men and women should be able to pick any job they want to do and do it, doesn't mean that they will pick the same jobs. Mostly due to innate biological predispositions to various skills and abilities, as well as preferences. Like how some people rail against the toy industry for "pinkifying" girls, but at the end of the day, there will still be more girls than boys who prefer "princess-y" stuff. *shrug*

[Pyrian]

It's important to allow those who'd rather not conform to gender standards, to do so, even if they're a minority. Most people conform in most ways (thus "norms"), but it's also true that most people do not conform in at least one way.

The notion that all gendered tendencies would simply disappear if they weren't culturally reinforced is unlikely to be accurate.

[Serpentine]

SMEE: Apparently "girl" sperm are "tougher" than "boy" sperm - so people with testicle-straining jobs, like fighter pilots, tend to have more girls (I'm urging my sister's boyfriend to take up such a job). But that doesn't really work at all as an explanation for that...

[AtomicKitKat]

SMEE: Apparently "girl" sperm are "tougher" than "boy" sperm - so people with testicle-straining jobs, like fighter pilots, tend to have more girls (I'm urging my sister's boyfriend to take up such a job). But that doesn't really work at all as an explanation for that...

That actually makes sense. Kind of. The X is ginormous, plus there's a backup of most stuff in the Ova-ian X. Notably, a few years back, I read that the X from the mother produces the womb, the X from the father prevents the womb from rejecting foetuses(however you want to put it, a foetus is essentially a "foreign body" within the mother). The Y has degenerated to little more than "I make you male" DNA, and as such, if the "Please keep me alive until I reach an egg." portion of the DNA gets damaged, the sperm will likely die/swim in circles. Incidentally, this means I will almost certainly be guaranteed that all grandchildren are mine(just as soon as I get children that can be guaranteed as mine. :P). What with me being a fire sign who enjoys warm baths and briefs and giving out way too much information about myself.:smalltongue:

[Zanaril]

Interesting thing about equality. Just because men and women should be able to pick any job they want to do and do it, doesn't mean that they will pick the same jobs. Mostly due to innate biological predispositions to various skills and abilities, as well as preferences. Like how some people rail against the toy industry for "pinkifying" girls, but at the end of the day, there will still be more girls than boys who prefer "princess-y" stuff. *shrug*

Interesting fact: there are more boys at my school who wear pink than there are girls. Seriously*.

As for preference to jobs... ever noticed how proffesions are given different labels/values depending on the sex of the person doing it? If you took away the stereotypes, I don't think there'd be as much predisposition as you think.

*Also pink is a horrible colour and I hate it. Not because of it's associations, but because it's either eye-bleedingly flourescent, washed-out, or it looks like raw meat. :smallyuk:[/off-topic]

[Ilena]

Ask me a year ago if i liked pink and id say no, now i like it, interesting fact is i have no idea why the change, it just kinda grows on you i suppose :P