Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
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
Pants-of-dog wrote:Gender roles are the social constructs that tell us how we should behave depending on our gender.
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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:social constructs
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So "Gender" comprehends gender-roles then?
Sivad wrote:You don't know what that is.
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.
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.
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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no.
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.
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?
Pants-of-dog wrote:when you are being rude.
Rancid wrote:Why does my Daughter gravitate towards dolls, and my son doesn't? :?:
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So no argument then?
Good.
The young need to be scared into some kind of mor[…]
It's the Elite of the USA that is "jealous[…]
Anomie: in societies or individuals, a conditi[…]
- By late
- By QatzelOk