"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.
Those handful of genes are in fact all it needs. It's a condensed, less excessive X Chromosome. And X Chromosome is less cluttered 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-
" 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 without a Y. That doesn't require a justification, even with the context of Autoimmune Disease because some men also get it.
Such a minute 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 that.
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 a recombination peer for Y-
Thus issues in males that women don't have to deal with, in fact the autoimmune disease is a result of women's immune systems being better wired than the average man's immune system. The problem 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 someone or justify anything. It's unnecessary rhetoric.
If more figures of academic authority 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 a competition or an indicative statement of women and men themselves, which it's NOT.
These studies would then improve and be a better reading experience without the cringe.
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 minute 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. Too many of us prefer controlled narratives wrapped in theory because that's more comfortable & gaslighting over the reality of the matter that contradicts what we've been told was the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment