Vaccine

[N00B]

A difficult question for serious Jesuit scientists is the sex-chromosome genotype of Jesus. Since her only biological parent was her mother, one must assume it was XX since there was no one to contribute a Y. That makes her a woman, right?

Unless, of course, Mary was one of those rare trisomy individuals.

I’m fairly sure once once you have faith, you kinda have to accept ‘miracles’ or acts of God. I’d be surprised if your proposed concerns are really anything ‘serious Jesuit scientists’ are struggling to deal with.

Then again…

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

 

[espola]

I’m fairly sure once once you have faith, you kinda have to accept ‘miracles’ or acts of God. I’d be surprised if your proposed concerns are really anything ‘serious Jesuit scientists’ are struggling to deal with.

Then again…

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Calvinism is even more strict, with the belief that your salvation is determined before you are born. A lot of sins can hide under that cloak.

 

[espola]

Right, if one wants to approach the issue from genetics, the genotype of Mary becomes a question. And the karyotype of Jesus-the only haploid human thing. But, even for the Jesuits, I think the real question is whether genetics is the right pond to be fishing for answers. After all, I think it is only doctrine, not the Biblical text per se, taking a hard line where devine conception and biological conception mean the same thing. The reference in Luke to Mary's relative Elizabeth conceiving a child in old age is also sort of interesting.

Abraham's wife Sarah had a child at 90. I don't know which is the bigger miracle - Sarah's pregnancy, or the couple's implied sexual activity at that age.

 

[watfly]

There is this interesting phenomenon lately where policy is designed around the exception, where it benefits the exception over the ordinary. Not equal, but more reparative in nature.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

Lot of words, but it erodes your own point.

If you're going with phenotypic expression, then you have to group people by birth gender. Those are the genes which were expressed.

Surgery doesn't count. Otherwise, you have to believe in unicorns whenever someone cuts one horn off of a goat.

I'll push a bit. The stuff about surgery, identity, transformation is not relevant to a discussion of the inter-relationship between genotype and phenotype. If it is, it's much more complex and distributed across the genome than we can track at the moment. We agree-XX is the typical genotype of a woman. Or we can say the absence of the Y. Or we can say the absence of expression of the SRY region of the Y. So, what is it about the expression of the XX genotype that defines a woman (or the other way around if you got SRY going on)? We had the ability to get pregnant. Fails easily as a definition. Some females are sterile. Post menopausal women are still female. So you go, OK, birth gender, by which I'm guessing you mean some read out of the differentiation of sexual characteristics during development. Which ones-spell it out. Your are just shifting the trait you want to hang your hat on. Try that definition with your wife instead. Might not get you much further. She might say "Oh, so now we have quantifiable elements in our definition". Let's talk about measuring manhood and where you fall on that distribution shall we.

Look, I don't give a rat's ass about the transgender swimmer thing or whatnot. The interesting part is genetics and fairness in sport. Here's a different tact. Take your birth gender XYs and (to use your terminology) take a look at which genes are expressed (in reality, which variants of the genes are inherited and the levels to which they are expressed at different times in different cells). Instead of quantifiable traits of "man" and "woman" take "talent" instead. Humans have very little genetic diversity to begin with. Sequence a million people-it's happening right now. Now, start building genetic correlates that are to some extent associated with the 95th percentile of a trait associated with talent. How might that relate to fairness in sport?

Sure, people are going to go "gaslighting". But that's only because I don't care about what you are aguing about and talking beyond the narrow blinders placed around the conversation.

 

[dad4]

Even phenotypes can be ambiguous. There have been a few cases recorded where the newborn was genotypically male (XY) but due to a congenital malformation there were none of the expected male organs visible. Parents had to decide whether to raise the child as a male with no external genitals, or allow surgery to convert the child to a sterile female, with appropriate hormone treatment during the time that puberty was expected.

None of that applies to any of the athletes in question.

The athletes in question are XY with 46 chromosomes and no congenital deformities.

 

[espola]

I'll push a bit. The stuff about surgery, identity, transformation is not relevant to a discussion of the inter-relationship between genotype and phenotype. If it is, it's much more complex and distributed across the genome than we can track at the moment. We agree-XX is the typical genotype of a woman. Or we can say the absence of the Y. Or we can say the absence of expression of the SRY region of the Y. So, what is it about the expression of the XX genotype that defines a woman (or the other way around if you got SRY going on)? We had the ability to get pregnant. Fails easily as a definition. Some females are sterile. Post menopausal women are still female. So you go, OK, birth gender, by which I'm guessing you mean some read out of the differentiation of sexual characteristics during development. Which ones-spell it out. Your are just shifting the trait you want to hang your hat on. Try that definition with your wife instead. Might not get you much further. She might say "Oh, so now we have quantifiable elements in our definition". Let's talk about measuring manhood and where you fall on that distribution shall we.

Look, I don't give a rat's ass about the transgender swimmer thing or whatnot. The interesting part is genetics and fairness in sport. Here's a different tact. Take your birth gender XYs and (to use your terminology) take a look at which genes are expressed (in reality, which variants of the genes are inherited and the levels to which they are expressed at different times in different cells). Instead of quantifiable traits of "man" and "woman" take "talent" instead. Humans have very little genetic diversity to begin with. Sequence a million people-it's happening right now. Now, start building genetic correlates that are to some extent associated with the 95th percentile of a trait associated with talent. How might that relate to fairness in sport?

Sure, people are going to go "gaslighting". But that's only because I don't care about what you are aguing about and talking beyond the narrow blinders placed around the conversation.

To repeat what I have said before, trans women who have had the physical advantage of passing through puberty as males should not be competing in women's sporting events no matter what their current testosterone levels are. Otherwise, what is the point of women's sports in the first place?

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

I’m fairly sure once once you have faith, you kinda have to accept ‘miracles’ or acts of God. I’d be surprised if your proposed concerns are really anything ‘serious Jesuit scientists’ are struggling to deal with.

Then again…

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Jesuits try to rationalize some crazy things, but I largely agree with how you have framed it here.

 

[what-happened]

I knew if this stuff about X's and Y's stewed long enough we'd come to a point of realization that defining any biological trait by genotype alone is never sufficient. Ultimately, there has to be some kind of phenotypic expression. That's what a trait is.

So, yes, all the guys posting here should try this out tonight. Hi Honey I'm home. Guess what I learned today? What makes you a woman is not that you are XX (with one of them being inactivated in each cell at that). It's that I can get you preggers. It's just Truth, Fact and Biology.

She may well have a different take on Truth, Fact and Biology. Her Truth and Facts may involve you having to tell the dog to slide it over on the couch that night, and getting a crash course in the Biology of pain and swelling.

Sure, I'll buy this on the basis of male and female relationships and the psychological differerences between the sexes. But what we are talking about is biological males competing against biological females. That's something you can't change.

 

[what-happened]

Lot of words, but it erodes your own point.

If you're going with phenotypic expression, then you have to group people by birth gender. Those are the genes which were expressed.

Surgery doesn't count. Otherwise, you have to believe in unicorns whenever someone cuts one horn off of a goat.

To you point, it's a silly research argument that avoids scientific facts.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

To repeat what I have said before, trans women who have had the physical advantage of passing through puberty as males should not be competing in women's sporting events no matter what their current testosterone levels are. Otherwise, what is the point of women's sports in the first place?

I agree. Men and women's sports are A-OK by me. I'm saying putting forth genetics as the arbiter of fairness, as people are trying to do here because it seems binary and determinant, may well lead to some interesting situations in the not so distant future.

 

[what-happened]

Are you proposing that "can get pregnant" is a proper definition of woman?

As one of 3 XXers in my household, , getting pregnant is the #1 differentiator between XX and XY. That was quite the silly statement. Oh, let's not forget XXers lactate, have periods, etc. Nothing that can be changed - the uterus is a thing.

 

[espola]

As one of 3 XXers in my household, , getting pregnant is the #1 differentiator between XX and XY. That was quite the silly statement. Oh, let's not forget XXers lactate, have periods, etc. Nothing that can be changed - the uterus is a thing.

That's not a statement. It's a question posed in the hope of getting an answer.

 

[what-happened]

That's not a statement. It's a question posed in the hope of getting an answer.

You must have answered another post. Are you saying that getting pregnant and having children happens to XYers? If that was the case, the world may be a better place

 

[espola]

You must have answered another post. Are you saying that getting pregnant and having children happens to XYers? If that was the case, the world may be a better place

No.

 

[met61]

Heh heh. What about Immaculate Conception, then? Is that Song and Dance or Chapter and Verse? I imagine Truth comes with a convenient dichotomous cleavage point.

...the beauty about Faith is...if you're right we end up in the same place...if you're wrong we don't.

...no Jesuit scholars necessary.

 

[MicPaPa]

I'll push a bit. The stuff about surgery, identity, transformation is not relevant to a discussion of the inter-relationship between genotype and phenotype. If it is, it's much more complex and distributed across the genome than we can track at the moment. We agree-XX is the typical genotype of a woman. Or we can say the absence of the Y. Or we can say the absence of expression of the SRY region of the Y. So, what is it about the expression of the XX genotype that defines a woman (or the other way around if you got SRY going on)? We had the ability to get pregnant. Fails easily as a definition. Some females are sterile. Post menopausal women are still female. So you go, OK, birth gender, by which I'm guessing you mean some read out of the differentiation of sexual characteristics during development. Which ones-spell it out. Your are just shifting the trait you want to hang your hat on. Try that definition with your wife instead. Might not get you much further. She might say "Oh, so now we have quantifiable elements in our definition". Let's talk about measuring manhood and where you fall on that distribution shall we.

Look, I don't give a rat's ass about the transgender swimmer thing or whatnot. The interesting part is genetics and fairness in sport. Here's a different tact. Take your birth gender XYs and (to use your terminology) take a look at which genes are expressed (in reality, which variants of the genes are inherited and the levels to which they are expressed at different times in different cells). Instead of quantifiable traits of "man" and "woman" take "talent" instead. Humans have very little genetic diversity to begin with. Sequence a million people-it's happening right now. Now, start building genetic correlates that are to some extent associated with the 95th percentile of a trait associated with talent. How might that relate to fairness in sport?

Sure, people are going to go "gaslighting". But that's only because I don't care about what you are aguing about and talking beyond the narrow blinders placed around the conversation.

I'll push a bit more. In the name of fairness in youth sports (pre or post puberty), should birth date matter - "age fluid"?

 

[MicPaPa]

...the beauty about Faith is...if you're right we end up in the same place...if you're wrong we don't.

...no Jesuit scholars necessary.

And the beauty about America is their freedom to openly mock any religion, yet they "bravely" only mock Christianity. Must have to do with -- turning the other cheek versus removal of their empty heads from their yellow spines.

 

[whatithink]

I'll push a bit more. In the name of fairness in youth sports (pre or post puberty), should birth date matter - "age fluid"?

US soccer was pushing bio-banding as part of the DA program. As I recall, they brought in a guy from Southampton FC who had implemented it there. They even had some bio-band games, and late developers could play down a year.

The serious soccer programs develop talent and bio band when developing it. Coaches here tend to go for athletes and think they can make them soccer players - and yes, I've heard multiple A coaches, ECNL coaches etc. literally say that.

Clubs would never go for it obviously, and neither would parents.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

Sure, I'll buy this on the basis of male and female relationships and the psychological differerences between the sexes. But what we are talking about is biological males competing against biological females. That's something you can't change.

I like that because it allows room for interesting and nebulous stuff about the differences between men and women. If it was all biology, it would be pretty boring.

Second, IMO we've come a far piece on what we are talking about. We are talking about inherent (literally) differences in phenotypic traits between the biological attributes of men and women that impact their ability to compete in sport. We can take that further. Height, muscle mass, stuff like that. With respect to genetics, it is more precise, and it is relevant to the larger relationship between genetics and fairness that I want to develop.

And we should bring up the nurture part again. I know, for a fact, that a U15 girls team playing at a high level can easily beat a U15 boys rec team. Because of better organization, because of skilled off the ball movement, because of accuracy, etc. And anybody plunking down 5K a year for ECNL Surf or whatever it is should hope that is true. And be proud of the performance. But the proverbial 10K hrs of training will never make the average muscle mass, for instance, of a female athlete be the same as the average for men.