If sex differences are social constructs how can there be a gay gene? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14973175
A rare peer-reviewed study from Australia (Croft et al. 2018) published in Nature is the first study to identify SOX9 enhancers which cause XX or XY sex reversal, when they are duplicated or deleted. The Y chromosomal SRY gene is required for the male sex determination, which acts on another gene called SOX9 to start the development of testes in the embryo. If there is some disruption to SOX9 activity, a testis will not develop, resulting in a baby with a disorder of sex development. XX patients (female) developed testes due to high levels of SOX9. XY patients (male), who had lost these SOX9 enhancers, developed ovaries instead of testes. Probably gay men had low levels of SOX9 activity in the process of sex determination, when XX or XY sex reversal is not physically apparent. Moreover, a transgender person who acts gay could be a product of XX or XY sex reversal. If you check him (or her) genetically, he may have an XX (or XY) pair of sex chromosomes.

In this study, we have identified human enhancers that contribute to SOX9 expression, and in which genetic aberrations lead to sex reversal. The first two enhancers, eSR-A and eSR-B, were located using new patient CNV data. Both of these enhancers show activation by SOX9 alone or in combination with SF1, but little activation by SRY, the initiator of testis differentiation. eSR-A and eSR-B must logically be active in the absence of SRY in vivo, because their duplication results in SOX9 overexpression in XX patients without SRY, ultimately causing XX sex reversal. These human enhancers also show variable conservation in mouse. eSR-B drove reporter gene (LacZ) expression in mouse testis, and also strikingly in embryonic ovaries at different stages of development. It is possible that eSR-B drove gonad specific expression but require as yet unidentified repressor elements to ensure silencing in the ovary. A recent study has shown that loss of the mouse orthologue of eSR-A results in complete sex reversal (Enh13), demonstrating that this is a highly conserved essential testis enhancer13. We have shown that the mouse eSR-A enhancer is activated by mouse SRY and SF1 in luciferase assays, in contrast to the human enhancer eSR-A which does not respond to SRY, and is more likely involved in the upregulation and maintenance of SOX9. Thus, while both the human and mouse enhancers have a key role in testis-specific expression of SOX9, the way in which they are activated differs between the species.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07784-9
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 18 Dec 2018 00:26, edited 5 times in total.
#14973202
Gender roles are more specific. They are the behaviours that society traditionally associates with a specific gender.

Gender, on the other hand, can be an analogy of biological sex but solely cultural, or it can mean gender roles, or it can mean gender identity.

And sexual orientation is a completely different thing.
#14973215
Pants-of-dog wrote:Gender, on the other hand, can be an analogy of biological sex but solely cultural, or it can mean gender roles, or it can mean gender identity.


So "Gender" comprehends gender-roles then?
#14973310
Sivad wrote:You don't know what that is.


We shouldn't lean too hard into absolutism. Even if you assume biology influences the behavior of sexes, it hardly defines society's expectations in complete detail. A big chunk of these defined roles are simply traditions handed down from generation to generation - and most people realize these assigned behavior roles have evolved quite a bit over time. That portion of expected behavior that can't be reasonably ascribed to biology is, by definition, a social construct. Not a difficult concept.
#14973339
One needs to acknowledge human nature as a unity of biological basis but determined by a social development. This requires seeing both the continuity between man and ape as well as the discontinuity.
Only from such a conception can one seek to acknowledge biological facts wothout it being a mechanistic materialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling4.htm
As in every attempt to form an accurate notion of any phenomena, Marx and Engels had here to answer two related questions in establishing the essence of man. They had first to establish the continuity between man and the rest of the world (here Darwin’s work played the vital role) and at the same time they had to establish the difference, within this continuity, between man and the rest of the organic world. Like all living matter, man reacts with his environment, a reaction arising from man’s unity with organic nature and nature as a whole. But his reaction with nature is purposive, unlike that of the animal which remains purely instinctive. Man sets out to achieve definite goals and aims; these goals and aims do not arise, we must stress, from ‘free will’ but are determined by the whole of man’s past practice. And man’s ability to carry out his necessary struggle against nature at a level qualitatively higher than other animals arises essentially from the development of tools. Here lies man’s true uniqueness and it explains Marx’s respect for Franklin’s basically materialist conception. In arriving at a conception of man which grasped, in the same concept, the unity of man with the animal world and at the same time his distinction from that world, Marx and Engels laid the basis for overcoming a one-sided (and therefore ultimately false) view of this problem. On the one hand, if one separates man metaphysically from the rest of nature one is forced ultimately to an idealist view of non-material forces as the ones which distinguish man. (Such views have, for example, taken the form of vitalism in biology.) On the other hand, equally one-sided would be the view that attempted to reduce the laws of social development to the level of biology. In other words, one cannot either separate absolutely the various forms of matter (the mistake in the first case); nor can one collapse the higher forms into the lower (as in the second case). In this last instance: social processes have certain specific features (‘peculiarities’) that are not inherent in biological phenomena as such, and no matter what biological forms of matter we may study we cannot deduce from them the laws of social phenomena, just as those biological processes cannot in turn be exhausted by the chemical and physical processes which they presuppose.

This latter viewpoint – the one that ignores the qualitative differences between material forms – (or rather tries to reduce more complex forms to simple ones) is a reflection of mechanism, the standpoint which dominated seventeenth- and eighteenth-century materialism. The seventeenth-century natural scientists picked out velocity, mass and volume as the simplest and most general aspects of all physical phenomena. (This was precisely the method of conceptualisation confined to ‘abstract identity’.) These aspects were in turn considered in a purely quantitative manner. The transformation of these aspects into unique, essential qualities of nature led these scientists to a denial of qualitative distinctions in nature, to a purely quantitative view of the world.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s02.html
When discussing biological factors, one should not reduce them to the genetic. More attention should be given to the physiological and ontogenetic aspects of development, and particularly to those that evoke a pathological effect, for it is these that modify the biology of the human being, who is also beginning to perceive even social factors in quite a different way. Dialectics does not simply put the social and the biological factors on an equal footing and attribute the human essence to the formula of biotropic-sociotropic determination favoured by some scientists. It stresses the dominant role of the social factors. Nor does dialectics accept the principles of vulgar sociologism, which ignores the significance of the biological principle in man.


From such a perspective one can begin to see the division of labor that gaves a presumed gendered essence to the sexes which isn’t found in their biology but reflective of their activity in the real world.
But it would indeed be a contradiction of methods to assert social construct whilst that of a gay gene which reflect both one sided methods. The mechanistic one that thinks biology determines everything and the other a vulgar sociology.

Something useful in the future is not to smash two ideas together independent of a real person. Otherwise its just an imagined combination of a hypothetical person, here it seems some cliche liberal which if they did hold such views simultaneously would be inconsistent and confused. But since there is no example of such, not much is touched upon except the inconpatiability of the viewpoints implicitly.
#14973357
Wellsy wrote:One needs to acknowledge human nature as a unity of biological basis but determined by a social development. This requires seeing both the continuity between man and ape as well as the discontinuity.
Only from such a conception can one seek to acknowledge biological facts wothout it being a mechanistic materialism.
From such a perspective one can begin to see the division of labor that gaves a presumed gendered essence to the sexes which isn’t found in their biology but reflective of their activity in the real world.
But it would indeed be a contradiction of methods to assert social construct whilst that of a gay gene which reflect both one sided methods. The mechanistic one that thinks biology determines everything and the other a vulgar sociology.

Something useful in the future is not to smash two ideas together independent of a real person. Otherwise its just an imagined combination of a hypothetical person, here it seems some cliche liberal which if they did hold such views simultaneously would be inconsistent and confused. But since there is no example of such, not much is touched upon except the inconpatiability of the viewpoints implicitly.


The breadth of the unknowns is quite staggering.

We don't know what causes the different orientations in sexual attraction. There is speculation and a bit of research here and there, but nothing conclusive. It may have something to do with environment, genetics, prenatal hormonal environment, or some other unknown factor. Or some combination thereof.

We don't know the role "choice" plays in sexual orientation.

We don't know the degree to which sexual attraction is binary (straight/gay) or whether it's a more of a spectrum. We don't know why some gays exhibit nominally 'effeminate' traits and others hyper-masculine traits.

There's no evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness, although the tension between social pressure and orientation may cause any underlying problem to be exacerbated.

All the unknowns that characterize gender roles also apply to sexual orientation.
#14973443
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no.


You just said that gender roles are included under gender. That gender is broad, and that gender-roles are something specific to gender as a concept.

That is literally what it means to say that something specific is comprehended by something broad.

are you losing your grasp of English or what?

Otherwise, please explain how such is not comprehended.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Wellsy wrote:One needs to acknowledge human nature as a unity of biological basis but determined by a social development. This requires seeing both the continuity between man and ape as well as the discontinuity.
Only from such a conception can one seek to acknowledge biological facts wothout it being a mechanistic materialism.


Wellsy wrote:From such a perspective one can begin to see the division of labor that gaves a presumed gendered essence to the sexes which isn’t found in their biology but reflective of their activity in the real world.
But it would indeed be a contradiction of methods to assert social construct whilst that of a gay gene which reflect both one sided methods. The mechanistic one that thinks biology determines everything and the other a vulgar sociology.

Something useful in the future is not to smash two ideas together independent of a real person. Otherwise its just an imagined combination of a hypothetical person, here it seems some cliche liberal which if they did hold such views simultaneously would be inconsistent and confused. But since there is no example of such, not much is touched upon except the inconpatiability of the viewpoints implicitly.


False Dilemma.

A third option would be to stay that the essence of person is a logical, not biological one; from which; we can determine certain social norms to either be rational or irrational.

I will be continuing our discussion of this in another thread actually.
#14973497
Rancid wrote:Is it possible that gender roles are biological. Then we created a society which was based on these biological gender roles. After that, society itself reenforced these gender roles back to us?

Basically, is it possible there's a cycle of some sort.

Does that make sense?


Patriarchal roles do have some basis in sexual dimorphism and the constraints such would be placed under in the environment.
Why We Have The Death Penalty

I would say that the system is rigged against blac[…]

Propaganda works

You essentially have a very weak situation with y[…]

But that doesn't describe what happened in this c[…]

Rush Limbaugh

Or as it is often called, "typical US foreign[…]