"The silence of the second X, Women have too much of a good thing: It's called the X chromosome.
Throughout the mammalian kingdom, biological sex is determined by the presence, in every female cell, of two X chromosomes. Males cells pack just one X chromosome, paired with a much shorter one designated the Y chromosome.
The stubby Y chromosome contains only a handful of active genes. It's quite possible to live a full life without a Y chromosome. In fact, more than half of the people on Earth -; women -; lack Y chromosomes and do just fine. But no mammalian cell, male or female, can survive without at least one copy of the X chromosome, which holds many hundreds of active protein-specifying genes."
"The stubby Y chromosome contains only a handful of active genes.",
Because it lacks recombination & thus mutations gathered overtime = loss of genes. And yet those handful of genes left are necessities that were spared by design by it's gene regulators which is why it's still active.
The Y Chromosome is the original: "Less is more" metaphor.
Thus those handful of genes are in fact all it needs. It's a condensed, less excessive, tho albeit relatively less efficient chromosome partner, in contrast to X Chromosome. And X Chromosome is less cluttered, more healthy contrast Y Chromosome.
(for some reason this comment didn't show up the first time i posted it, so i'll post it again)
"stubby Y Chromosome", was that descriptor truly necessary to make your point after already describing it as "short" literally at the end the previous sentence? Or is this your attempt to lightly jab the Y Chromosome like many MANY researchers do whenever it's brought up-
(which is half of the reason for this address, not just this one article saying "stubby", for by itself is simply a descriptor, & whether not it's an issue is frankly subjective. But a broader observation of speakers being defensive or dismissive or even spiteful on the matter being frankly unprofessional with their language. I've seen some worse than this article, so "stubby" wasn't the trigger but it was an epiphany moment because it just didn't sound right compared to how solid the framing of the other 99% of the piece is. Make it stand out more, like a hang nail. )
" It's quite possible to live a full life without a Y chromosome. In fact, more than half of the people on Earth -; women -; lack Y chromosomes and do just fine."
Obviously, that goes without saying.
I think we all know women can exist "just fine" without a Y. That doesn't require a justification, even with the context of "Autoimmune Disease", because some men also get it (men still possess an X chromosome), each side gets a buff, and a consequence is attached to that buff.♀️♂️
Such a fraction of a statement compared to the rest of the article yet it has a loud tone of unnecessary compensation. Clearly, women are fine without a Y, but another X does cause problems men don't have to deal with. That's the reality.
It's okay to say.
It often comes across as not a "vs them" but very close to it, a contest, which is a very unfortunate attitude I pick up from a lot of sources from the west. Jenny Graves is one of the more nuanced, mature voices on the matter, reliable, & knowledgeable. ✅
As unfortunate as Autoimmune disease is, In a way males not having another X causing such issues as much is a more balanced model, yet on top of the physical advantages. But only to an extent because there's issues of having a Y and the absence of another X or an efficient recombination peer for Y- which is why women live longer, and if they do get sick, it's not for long.
- while women's immune systems are superior due to another X, Autoimmune disease and this stronger immune system can sometimes lead to overactivity, making women more susceptible to autoimmune conditions like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. So there is a price.
Thus issues in males that women don't have to deal with & in reverse is more evident that each sex is the missing piece of an incomplete human in a poetic sense, which is why the result of the two in physical unity is creation of new life.
To reiterate: the autoimmune disease is a result of women's immune systems being better wired than the average man's immune system, it's as much an extremity as a man's physical strength is/testosterone is (lower immune function, higher injury/mortality rates). A common health problem for women, essentially, arose from an advantage.
It goes both ways, a balance.
It wouldn't then be necessary to say "Men get along just fine without another X, it's possible to live a full life without it" as if trying to prove something to the audience or justify anything. It's unnecessary rhetoric, or even if the intent wasn't that, the framing was a little awkward.
Divorced from this source, If more figures of academic authority in general, let alone lower level outlets (including amateurs) stopped throwing cheap jabs at the Y Chromosome and overcompensating whenever a contrast between males and females comes up in this subject as if this is yet another competition or an indicative statement of women and men themselves, which it's NOT--
👁️👄👁️
That awkward insertion aside, this was well informed overall as a read. It helped.
And I stand by that, the article is solid information on the matter (disregarding that moot, minor rhetoric)
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240201/X-chromosome-inactivation-and-its-role-in-autoimmune-susceptibility-in-females.aspx"
That's it. Overall it is a decent enough article, but people (not everyone but many experts) overall get weird whenever Y gets compared to X, no idea why, yet I know exactly why and it's so dated & predictable; western cultural resentment of anything male really needs to be addressed and treated in itself.
Too many of us prefer controlled narratives wrapped in polished opinions called "theories", than professional theories rooted in the facts that is, not the matters we project onto the subject, starting with our language.
-2024
No comments:
Post a Comment