Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, Genetics.. Cool field. Wish I understood it better. I took basic genetics with Eldon Sutton in college-- He was supposedly some renowned geneticist.
I'm not going to argue genetics with a geneticist any more than I would recommend you pick an argument about computer science with me... However you did note:
You can't ignore that and just define trangenderism to those with morphological deformity, can you? The sentence above, to me, as a lay person, certainly indicates a biological difference in those who are transgendered.
With the rapist example you're conflating pathological behavior with behavior that hurts no one (crossdressing). I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. I think doing the research in the name of preventing pathological behavior-- and people being hurt-- is certainly reasonable. The studies lead where they lead, right?
As far as PC goes, I define that is respecting the human dignity of all people...
I certainly do understand the discomfort some have about having someone who is biologically opposite sex in their restroom. I also don't it's practical to have 16 different restrooms to respect everybody's concept of gender. However I think it's possible to deal with this issue while still holding everybody's human dignity in high esteem.
My intention was not to conflate or in anyway compare a transgender person to a rapists, it was meant to epitomize "where do we draw the line with peoples feelings?". My wife is always nagging me about my transitional sentences...
To your first point...According to how rolling stone reported it, yes there's differences. I will read the actual paper (from the researcher) later. From the way it was mentioned in the article, I'm guessing it's a repeat unit expansion. Regardless of the mutation specifics, the important thing to note here is that genetic variance, called polymorphisms, are a completely normal component of genetic diversity. It's not necessarily a profound finding and until I read the actual paper I can't elaborate.
Ultimately, the point is that genetic diversity is not an excuse for unacceptable behavior especially in the context of social norms. There are a ton of studies linking specific polymorphisms to adventure seeking behavior, attitude, aggression, depression, etc.
Being an adrenaline junky (there's plenty of biological causes for this) is not an excuse to break speed limit laws. living on a quiet suburb street, you shouldnt have to tolerate someone on an obnoxious crotch rocket doing 90mph at 10pm.
Teachers should be allowed to remove the problem child from class for disrupting the education of all the other kids despite scientists discovering the root biochemical cause.
Differences in behavior are all, at some level, going to be explained by minute variation in biochemistry (in this case testosterone/hormone regulation). It's not an excuse to allow a grown man in a womens bathroom or, God forbid, a confused little girl into a mens bathroom.
Someone can dress up however they want, but that doesn't give them more rights than anyone else and it certainly doesn't change their natural gender.
Last edited by Sigequinox; 09-14-2015 at 01:31 PM..
It sounds like there's some form of consensus. The real problem doesn't directly revolve around transgender people themselves, the biological understanding of sexuality, or even public bathrooms. Our concern has to do with sexual predators harming other people. Giving rights to these minorities is suppose to uphold equality -- nothing more or less. The sexual predator problem shouldn't hinder equality for transgenders. That being said, maybe the energy of this debate should be focused on ways to manage (and help) sexual offenders, who of which could be of any sex, gender or sexual orientation.
It sounds like there's some form of consensus. The real problem doesn't directly revolve around transgender people themselves, the biological understanding of sexuality, or even public bathrooms. Our concern has to do with sexual predators harming other people. Giving rights to these minorities is suppose to uphold equality -- nothing more or less. The sexual predator problem shouldn't hinder equality for transgenders. That being said, maybe the energy of this debate should be focused on ways to manage (and help) sexual offenders, who of which could be of any sex, gender or sexual orientation.
How is this an equal rights issue? No one is saying they can be discriminated against in the workplace, that they don't deserve a fair trial, that they can't get married, that they can't own guns, or have free speech or vote or any other "right" that everyone else has. it is NOT a civil rights issue. What your asking for is MORE rights for an arbitrary subpopulation of people.
Our first reaction to strangers is -- do not trust. It's natural. Those who didn't have that reaction, didn't survive.
Laws that go against natural behavior, such as protection of off-spring, self-preservation -- OK for grown-ass man to walk into bathroom after 8-year old daughter -- those laws are unnatural, built on a house of cards, and bound for disaster.
Govt can coerce people to modify natural instincts. Subjects' behavior, modified by Govt by force will only go so far. One day society will get rid of these idiotic laws and attitudes. Above all, one day society will rid itself of such idiotic Govts.
There is way too much ignorance in this thread. It's surprising, too, considering it's Connecticut... I see more progressive thoughts where I live in Kentuckiana. Yikes.
Why don't you educate us?
P.S. you say you live in Kentucky, yet your signature says Oregon. I hope your lecture is a little less confusing than your introduction.
Wow, Genetics.. Cool field. Wish I understood it better. I took basic genetics with Eldon Sutton in college-- He was supposedly some renowned geneticist.
I'm not going to argue genetics with a geneticist any more than I would recommend you pick an argument about computer science with me... However you did note:
You can't ignore that and just define trangenderism to those with morphological deformity, can you? The sentence above, to me, as a lay person, certainly indicates a biological difference in those who are transgendered.
With the rapist example you're conflating pathological behavior with behavior that hurts no one (crossdressing). I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. I think doing the research in the name of preventing pathological behavior-- and people being hurt-- is certainly reasonable. The studies lead where they lead, right?
As far as PC goes, I define that is respecting the human dignity of all people...
I certainly do understand the discomfort some have about having someone who is biologically opposite sex in their restroom. I also don't it's practical to have 16 different restrooms to respect everybody's concept of gender. However I think it's possible to deal with this issue while still holding everybody's human dignity in high esteem.
I was right about repeat expansion. I also checked out the loci of the polymorphism here at work where I have access to a variety of software and databases...The human reference genome (hg19) build 37 shows 22 consecutive trinucleotide repeats (CAGn) in the androgen receptor (AR) gene, which translates to 22 glutamine amino acids. The study claims that transgenders had a significant presence of a longer (expanded repeats) for AR defined as >20 repeats (which is already less than the normal reference). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The human genome is basically a map of wild type (highest frequency) polymorphisms. Either the most recent genome assembly in 2008 was not accurate or the control population was not very heterogeneous. I can't comment too much on the effect of extra repeats here. Working in the clinical genetic space, i'm searching for disease causing mutations and a small in-frame duplication of the same amino acid doesn't often have pathogenic effects. Of note though, significance was scored using a t-test and obtained a p-value of 0.04 which is just at the acceptable scientific threshold of 0.05.
Not replicating the study myself, it's also difficult to assess whether the t-test was the most appropriate statistical method to use. For example, the t-test is really designed for use with data that fits a normal distribution. If the data was non normal or not properly transformed to normal, then the p values are meaningless for interpretation. The methods section is not clear on this and I don't see supplemental methods.
The particular region in the AR gene is highly polymorphic and the author alludes to this in the results section where she mentions there were 21 different alleles observed. That's a lot. Basically they took all this data, calculated the mean and said if it's longer than mean, we call the L if its shorter than mean we call that S and that's where the "transsexuals have longer versions" came from. They actually didn't find a statistically significant relationship when sub classifying the AR alleles, in her own words " An independent samples t test revealed no significant association for the AR gene when sub-classified (P>0.05)"
This is just one study. Science is about repeatability. Maybe I'm just having trouble finding it, but I'm unsure why additional follow up studies have not been performed since 2008 if she believes in her research.
This study should be performed again with "girlier men" who do not identify as transgender. More functional studies should be performed on the effect of more or less repeats in the AR gene. Looking at the graphs, there were quite a bit of control subjects with "long" versions of the gene. Is she going to explain that ever?A lot more needs to be done.
Summary
-While significant (@p=0.04) using the authors methods of categorizing "long" vs "short" alleles, additional studies should be done with people who share many of the same traits as "transgender" but do not identify as such. Perhaps a study group of men who cry while watching The Notebook? (joke).
-there is a substantial number of control patients with "longer" alleles. Why are they not transgender? obviously this isn't the holy grail polymorphism.-->more studies
-humans with these mutations are, in fact MALE.
Last edited by Sigequinox; 09-14-2015 at 04:53 PM..
I was right about repeat expansion. I also checked out the loci of the polymorphism here at work where I have access to a variety of software and databases...The human reference genome (hg19) build 37 shows 22 consecutive trinucleotide repeats (CAGn) in the androgen receptor (AR) gene, which translates to 22 glutamine amino acids. The study claims that transgenders had a significant presence of a longer (expanded repeats) for AR defined as >20 repeats (which is already less than the normal reference). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The human genome is basically a map of wild type (highest frequency) polymorphisms. Either the most recent genome assembly in 2008 was not accurate or the control population was not very heterogeneous. I can't comment too much on the effect of extra repeats here. Working in the clinical genetic space, i'm searching for disease causing mutations and a small in-frame duplication of the same amino acid doesn't often have pathogenic effects. Of note though, significance was scored using a t-test and obtained a p-value of 0.04 which is just at the acceptable scientific threshold of 0.05.
Not replicating the study myself, it's also difficult to assess whether the t-test was the most appropriate statistical method to use. For example, the t-test is really designed for use with data that fits a normal distribution. If the data was non normal or not properly transformed to normal, then the p values are meaningless for interpretation. The methods section is not clear on this and I don't see supplemental methods.
The particular region in the AR gene is highly polymorphic and the author alludes to this in the results section where she mentions there were 21 different alleles observed. That's a lot. Basically they took all this data, calculated the mean and said if it's longer than mean, we call the L if its shorter than mean we call that S and that's where the "transsexuals have longer versions" came from. They actually didn't find a statistically significant relationship when sub classifying the AR alleles, in her own words " An independent samples t test revealed no significant association for the AR gene when sub-classified (P>0.05)"
This is just one study. Science is about repeatability. Maybe I'm just having trouble finding it, but I'm unsure why additional follow up studies have not been performed since 2008 if she believes in her research.
This study should be performed again with "girlier men" who do not identify as transgender. More functional studies should be performed on the effect of more or less repeats in the AR gene. Looking at the graphs, there were quite a bit of control subjects with "long" versions of the gene. Is she going to explain that ever?A lot more needs to be done.
Summary
-While significant (@p=0.04) using the authors methods of categorizing "long" vs "short" alleles, additional studies should be done with people who share many of the same traits as "transgender" but do not identify as such. Perhaps a study group of men who cry while watching The Notebook? (joke).
-there is a substantial number of control patients with "longer" alleles. Why are they not transgender? obviously this isn't the holy grail polymorphism.-->more studies
-humans with these mutations are, in fact MALE.
I wonder if a previous poster still thinks everyone in this forum who's against having men join women in their loos is "ignorant."
Bottom line IMO - we cannot as a society accommodate every single marginal class/percentage of the population's "individual sense of reality" to the detriment of the masses. Do what you want to at home, I don't care so long as you're not hurting anyone. But men do not belong in women's bathrooms. They are not women, even if they like to play one on TV. Period. Three bathrooms, or one single occupancy. That would please EVERYONE, no?
Last edited by Lalalally; 09-14-2015 at 06:15 PM..
Male is anyone with a Y-chromosome. Lets not drown with a glass of water.
Definitely works as a rule of thumb. It's slightly more complicated though because sex chromosomes are not the only factor in sexual dimorphism. There are disorders which cause genuine ambiguous sex phenotypes and for those people it's not a gag and they don't play Sex and the City and drink cosmopolitans in drag. The main stream issue is a societal joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
