Brown removes the article detailing study "rapid-onset gender dysphoria"

[Nealithi]

We still haven't even IDed the genes that create the brain structures that cause gender identification (but they almost certainly are on the sex chromosomes, given that XY physically female women typically identify as female and XX physically male men typically identify as male), the hard science on this is going to move a little slower than the social science.

That said, given that there are people who clearly identify as genders other than the one they were assigned at birth, and who clearly instinctively gravitate towards their actual gender and attempt to emulate peers of that gender as children, I don't see why we can't just accept trans people and do more to make their lives easier. Ain't their fault their parents fucked up meiosis.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Worffan, let me ask for clarification on your post. Are you saying females are XY chromosome and males are XX?

[Worffan101]

I doubt it. The Slate article is explicitly about racial issues, not transgender ones.

Basically, he's worried that mass use of genetic testing (such as 23 and Me) is going to lead to a resurgence of "racial stereotypes", although he never explicitly identifies any of them. This seriously weakens his argument in my eyes, even though I'm pretty sure he's right to be concerned, because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen. I just don't see any way to stop it or anything to be gained in trying.

Ah, OK, I must have the person who originally posted that on ignore.

I dunno, I feel that mass use of genetic testing will actually FIGHT racist stereotypes because people will realize that white people are part-Neandertal and black people are the most diverse arbitrary skin-color category on the planet by a LONG shot and several orders of magnitude. Not to mention catching lots of genetic diseases fast.

Just my position, though.

[Worffan101]

We still haven't even IDed the genes that create the brain structures that cause gender identification (but they almost certainly are on the sex chromosomes, given that XY physically female women typically identify as female and XX physically male men typically identify as male), the hard science on this is going to move a little slower than the social science.

That said, given that there are people who clearly identify as genders other than the one they were assigned at birth, and who clearly instinctively gravitate towards their actual gender and attempt to emulate peers of that gender as children, I don't see why we can't just accept trans people and do more to make their lives easier. Ain't their fault their parents fucked up meiosis.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Worffan, let me ask for clarification on your post. Are you saying females are XY chromosome and males are XX?

Uh....no. The articles that I posted are about rare exceptions to the XX = ovaries/XY = testicles rule. See, the SRY gene, which probably codes for the development of testicles from proto-ovaries (since Humans are female-default), can get flipped from the Y to the X chromosome during a male meiotic error. So you'll have an XY baby that looks anatomically female, or an XX baby that looks more anatomically male.

It stands to reason that there's genes somewhere in there that code for self-group identification with members of the same biological sex, and that can get misplaced during meiosis, thereby causing a person with one biological sex but who identifies with the gender associated with the other sex.

[Nealithi]

We still haven't even IDed the genes that create the brain structures that cause gender identification (but they almost certainly are on the sex chromosomes, given that XY physically female women typically identify as female and XX physically male men typically identify as male), the hard science on this is going to move a little slower than the social science.

That said, given that there are people who clearly identify as genders other than the one they were assigned at birth, and who clearly instinctively gravitate towards their actual gender and attempt to emulate peers of that gender as children, I don't see why we can't just accept trans people and do more to make their lives easier. Ain't their fault their parents fucked up meiosis.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Worffan, let me ask for clarification on your post. Are you saying females are XY chromosome and males are XX?

Uh....no. The articles that I posted are about rare exceptions to the XX = ovaries/XY = testicles rule. See, the SRY gene, which probably codes for the development of testicles from proto-ovaries (since Humans are female-default), can get flipped from the Y to the X chromosome during a male meiotic error. So you'll have an XY baby that looks anatomically female, or an XX baby that looks more anatomically male.

It stands to reason that there's genes somewhere in there that code for self-group identification with members of the same biological sex, and that can get misplaced during meiosis, thereby causing a person with one biological sex but who identifies with the gender associated with the other sex.

Thank you for the clarification. I was worried my high school had it backward. Not necessarily surprised, but worried.

[CharlesPhipps]

I work in academia and I can tell you upfront plenty of studies are done which don't ever bother to get any insight into the actual experiences of the people being studied. Say, in West Virginia, "Why coal miners are inherently in better health than regular laborers."

Which makes me think if transgendered people think the transgender study is bullshit, maybe there's something to their claim.

[clearspira]

That isn't why they pulled the study, though.

In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study on “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” the University determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

They pulled the study because someone is crying foul about the methodology, not because someone is worried that feelings may be hurt.

The methodology will be reviewed. If Littman's work stands up to scrutiny, it will be republished. That's how science works.

Agreed. If the statement is true then this is exactly how real science should work. And even if she is silenced; science is science, truth is the truth. Someone else will publish it eventually.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That isn't why they pulled the study, though.

In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study on “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” the University determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

They pulled the study because someone is crying foul about the methodology, not because someone is worried that feelings may be hurt.

The methodology will be reviewed. If Littman's work stands up to scrutiny, it will be republished. That's how science works.

Agreed. If the statement is true then this is exactly how real science should work. And even if she is silenced; science is science, truth is the truth. Someone else will publish it eventually.

That's ideally how it works, but I'm worried about how much traction debunked science can get. Wakefield published one bullshit paper on autism and now Measles are making a comeback in Portland.