Reply With Quote
This would explain why I sometimes feel pretty when working on my car.
Prepare to change your fight (in the name of the baby jesus) to now be about fixing the thousands if not millions of diseased suppressed genes. You can now save humanity. Does this new finding now allow us to consider the gays to be a full 1 person or are they still a half a person like the AIDS people, re s and lepers.
Basically I just want to know if I should start teaching my kids that these people are now considered 1 one person with equal rights. Because my church has always suggested that they're half a person. God Bless.
Also I put the over/under at page 1 before the bigots begin discrediting the findings and source via a mass attack of googled garbage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ists-find.htmlResearchers have found that the body is in a constant fight to remain either female or male and the suppression of just one gene could cause it to "flip" from one to the other.
The remarkable findings refute the generally held view that sex is determined at birth and is irreversible in later life.
They could also lead to treatments for certain gender disorders in children, early menopause in women and even eventually non-surgical sex changes.
In mammals, males have XY chromosomes and females XX. The new research shows that another gene is responsible for switching women into men.
If the FOXL2 is switched on then the body grows ovaries, switched off and they are replaced by testicles.
But what really surprised the researchers is that the process continues after birth and the body remains in a constant tussle to either switch on or off the gene - even in adulthood.
"No one would have betted on this," said Professor Mathias Treier of the University of Cologne in Germany. "That's why the finding is so spectacular,"
The team found that in adult mice by turning off the FoxL2 gene, the ovary cells started to change testicular cells. This suggest the same effect could happen to humans.
"It was thought that you were born either female or male and then your body forgot about it," said Dr Robin Lovell-Badge, the co-author at Britain's Medical Research Council's National Ins ute of Medical Research.
"But this suggests that the battle of the sexes continues all the way through your life, "
The researchers believe that the process could be similar to that in some fish who are able switch sexes at times when there is a scarcity of either males or females.
This would explain why I sometimes feel pretty when working on my car.
Well B2B, as much as I would love to believe this is the way it is, "This suggest the same effect could happen to humans" isn't very convincing.
But I think it is safe to teach your kids that sexuals are 1 person
I don't see how this genetic finding is connected to sexuality. But continue teach your kids to respect everyone.
You choose to take a up your ass or not.
A gene that, when turned on or off, defines what sex you are has nothing to do with sexuality?
Not in prison.
Thats why you kick someones ass on the first day of prison to establish a male dominance.
If you choose not to kick someones ass, you choose to take a up your ass....in essence.
Hermaphroditic and maybe even trans-gender disorders? Yes. sexuality? Probably not.
Sex-determining genes are well established in genetics. This is just a a new finding of a gene that contributes to this.
All the article is challenging is the traditional genetic dogma that the Y chromosome is responsible (more specifically, the SRY gene) for differentiation of male reproductive organs. In the absence of the Y (either in XX or XO) male organs do not develop.
What they found in the article is that there's a gene not located on the sex chromosomes that can trigger this differentiation even later on in life. It was believed before that once genes that control sex determination are expressed/repressed in the embryo, your fate is sealed. That's all this article is addressing.
Defining your sex in the first place already establishes what would be considered sexuality or not.
IE a human is born with a penis. If he likes males he's a . If same human is born with a penis and has issues with this gene functioning properly at an early age and begins to produce ovaries is he not a now a lesbian?
Would the birth of a particular sex organ not begin the path of a social predisposition to a certain sex. What if it was found that this gene incorrectly activated at a young age which caused a male to produce less testosterone and harbor feminine traits?
The possibilities of what could and couldn't happen are nearly endless. It directly affects what would be considered sexuality and what doesn't.
As admiralsnackbar said, this more application to intersexed individuals, not gays. Most gays are defined in their sex, it's their the sexual orientation that is different. But as I said, teach your kids to treat everyone equally anyways.
Exactly if its "sex-determining" then it affects what is considered to be sexual and what isn't. You have to determine the sex to determine what is sexual. Do you not?
First off I was being sarcastic. We treat people equally. Could you really not tell?
If they're defined in their sex then how would a sex altering gene not affect the situation. It would directly contribute to the makeup of the individual. Its also been show in test to alter the sex of animals.
If you think sexuality is a choice, then you must be a GAY HATER.
Sweet! If it's not by choice that means I can finally put them in with all the other groups that I hate for being born different.
I think you may be working under the misconception that sexuality is a disorder in which men are "feminized" and women are "masculineized," when instead they seem to be their own things altogether. For example, some gay men exhibit behavior we categorize as feminine because we tend to culturally assign an interest in aesthetics and fashion, say, as being feminine, but tell me you've ever met a woman who acted the way a flaming gay man does. And the same goes for lesbians, of course. Moreover, there are just as many examples of sexuality that have none of the behavioral trappings of flaming gayness or butch lesbianism.
The jury's out on a gay gene, but the gene in question is more about the biological expression of sexual organs, not what appears to be the subtler question of gender-preference.
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was saying IMO this article had nothing to do with sexuality but it shouldn't deter anyone from treating gays as equal.
I get what you're trying to say but I think you're confused. It sounds like you're trying to say that this new finding (which isn't really new) blurs the line between male/female and that gay males may be females and vice versa. I don't agree with that. Most gays (liek most straight people) are completely normal anatomically, like heterosexuals. The fact that gays are attracted to their own sex is not because a gay guy secretly is masking a vagina that can be triggered by a gene or anything. You're clumping intersexed individuals and gays together, they're not the same.
The reason this research finding is applicable to intersexed individuals is because often they are born with ambiguous sexual organs, and doctors often choose to turn them into one sex very early (mistake IMO). Usually when they get older, the intersexed individuals develop into a male or female, regardless of what their doctor forced them to be. Perhaps now we will identify a group of genes which can tell a parent early whether their intersexed child will be a male or female, rather than guessing.
I think you're ignoring the fact that having your sex defined does affect your biological predisposition to which sex you're attracted to.
And personally, it doesn't matter to me whether we prove a 'gay' gene or whether it's a choice. It really shouldn't have an affect on how you treat the individual and their rights. I'm always puzzled whenever a debate about gay rights is reduced whether they are born gay on not. Who says you can deny anyone a right because they made a personal choice?
Were this to be true, sexuality wouldn't exist, only hermaphrodites and the like.
I'm just curious about the type of data required to justify the above claim... It seems from the article that the researchers were the ones "turning" the genes on or off, and that the mice simply reacted accordingly... How does that experiment (forced genetic intervention) prove that the body is in a "constant tussle" to behave likewise without that external stimulus?
Seems to me like they found another gene outside of our "XY", "XX" chromosomes that factors into our genders... nothing more, nothing less...
This is a reach in terms of relating it with sexuality unless:
Researchers mapped the genomes of a pool of over 500 openly sexual males and another 500 openly sexual females (minimum from several races). And compared them against a corresponding number of 'straight' genomes. They would then need to substantiate whether or not the FOXL2 gene was "on" more often on the sexual gene pool (by at least 2.5 standard deviations).
That's harder science.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
