Creating Babies Without Men

[Tierra Prime]

It's a big problem, kids that grow up without a father are far more likely to become criminals. Ask the black community.

I don't think it would be quite that bad if the Blacks in the US lived in nice neighborhoods or had access to wealth which they generally don't.

The point is that they don't live in nice neighborhoods or have access to wealth because they have a large number of fatherless children.

[Saiwania]

Reading the stated consequences of my pipe dream becoming reality has filled me with an inexplicable sense of contentness and internal warmth not entirely unlike the sensation of being hugged while wrapped in a comfy blanket.

Well in any case, it is an entire plank of conservatism which would have to be buried or put to pasture. If I knew that my partner used to be the opposite sex but really and truly is the sex they are now, I guess there is no good excuse to leave them anymore. Only thing that'd be different is I could maybe ask- "what is it like having experienced life as both sexes?" I know I'm not willing to take the plunge of trying to become a woman (even if it was temporary) just to find out for myself.

[Khadgar]

I don't think it would be quite that bad if the Blacks in the US lived in nice neighborhoods or had access to wealth which they generally don't.

The point is that they don't live in nice neighborhoods or have access to wealth because they have a large number of fatherless children.

That's such an absurd over simplification it offends anyone who cares about intellectual honesty.

[Tierra Prime]

The point is that they don't live in nice neighborhoods or have access to wealth because they have a large number of fatherless children.

That's such an absurd over simplification it offends anyone who cares about intellectual honesty.

It's been proven time and time again that children born into one-parent families are poorer and more prone to criminal activity.

[Ostroeuropa]

The point is that they don't live in nice neighborhoods or have access to wealth because they have a large number of fatherless children.

That's such an absurd over simplification it offends anyone who cares about intellectual honesty.

Fatherlessness is a big contributor to the problem tbh.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

As has been noted elsewhere, this is just not supported by the data. Lesbian couples outperform straight ones in most metrics.

I would rather like to see this source.

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.co ... 458-14-635

[Khadgar]

That's such an absurd over simplification it offends anyone who cares about intellectual honesty.

It's been proven time and time again that children born into one-parent families are poorer and more prone to criminal activity.

And it's an absurd oversimplification to think that's the smoking gun.

[Ifreann]

Obviously not what was being referred to.

The poster said. "and' not "or".

Thanks. Still obviously not what was being referred to.

Context is a hell of a drug.

---

That's not correct, if we are to get nitpicky. A child raised with both natural parents, in a home owned by the parents do best. Which would equate to both social and economic factors being important to giving a child the best oppertunity to succeed.

But the real world has a habit on intruing on or utopian vision.

They make unreferenced claims and it's accepted as gospel. I make unreferenced claims, and they demand references. I provide referenced and they ignore them.

You provided references that are behind a paywall. Are you going to give us all $71.90 so we can read your references?

---

Hell, I'm already wondering how long it'll take scientists to make transitioning something more than a "cosmetic" change, no matter how much gene tampering and cloning that'd probably require. At least I hope that's not just a pipe dream.

I really hope it is a pipe dream, because it would make an anti-trans ideology impossible and thus obsolete. Can't exactly tell the difference anymore if MtF or FtM people are now exactly the same in function and form as people who are male or female from birth.

It's always fun to be reminded that it's not just race you have abhorrent opinions about.

---

To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, there is no such thing as either male or female genes. Genes are genes.

There's a 3% genetic difference between men and women, so there must be specific male and female genes.

That's not true at all.

[Tierra Prime]

There's a 3% genetic difference between men and women, so there must be specific male and female genes.

That's not true at all.

My bad, it's actually 1.6%.

[The Serbian Empire]

Hell, I'm already wondering how long it'll take scientists to make transitioning something more than a "cosmetic" change, no matter how much gene tampering and cloning that'd probably require. At least I hope that's not just a pipe dream.

I really hope it is a pipe dream, because it would make an anti-trans ideology impossible and thus obsolete. Can't exactly tell the difference anymore if MtF or FtM people are now exactly the same in function and form as people who are male or female from birth.

That would wonderful for me though if that happened and you'd have me in a heterosexual relationship you'd approve of if I could function like a female at birth as to have kids. But nature hasn't blessed me that way and thus I find my nature of being a 4 on the Kinsey Scale as almost skewed entirely to lesbian when it comes to relationships. I could tolerate a heterosexual relationship if I could become pregnant, but it just won't happen.

[Khadgar]

That's not true at all.

My bad, it's actually 1.6%.

Oversimplifying to the point of being egregiously wrong is just a thing with you isn't it?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask38

[Blakullar]

chessmistress' dream lol

Sardonic humour aside, it isn't something we need to worry about. It'll be many years, probably decades, before this becomes an efficient (in terms of genetic anomalies) means of procreation - and even if it does, how would the baby develop mentally without a father figure?

[Ifreann]

That's not true at all.

My bad, it's actually 1.6%.

What I meant is that it's not true that there must be specific male and female genes.

[Tierra Prime]

My bad, it's actually 1.6%.

Oversimplifying to the point of being egregiously wrong is just a thing with you isn't it?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask38

Your comment on fatherless in the black community was already proven wrong, so you can cut the attitude. Even if it is 0.3% (I admit I didn't read the full article the first two times I looked at it), that still proves the existence of sex-specific genes.

[Tierra Prime]

My bad, it's actually 1.6%.

What I meant is that it's not true that there must be specific male and female genes.

Isn't SRY a sex-specific gene though? And if there is a 0.3% difference in genes between men and women, doesn't this prove that sex-specific genes do exist, however rare?

[Ifreann]

Oversimplifying to the point of being egregiously wrong is just a thing with you isn't it?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask38

Your comment on fatherless in the black community was already proven wrong, so you can cut the attitude. Even if it is 0.3% (I admit I didn't read the full article the first two times I looked at it), that still proves the existence of sex-specific genes.

No it doesn't.

[Khadgar]

Oversimplifying to the point of being egregiously wrong is just a thing with you isn't it?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask38

Your comment on fatherless in the black community was already proven wrong, so you can cut the attitude. Even if it is 0.3% (I admit I didn't read the full article the first two times I looked at it), that still proves the existence of sex-specific genes.

It's .3% because the Y chromosome is smaller than the X. Jesus Haploid Christ how did you get through biology class in high school?

[Saiwania]

That would wonderful for me though if that happened and you'd have me in a heterosexual relationship you'd approve of if I could function like a female at birth as to have kids. But nature hasn't blessed me that way and thus I find my nature of being a 4 on the Kinsey Scale as almost skewed entirely to lesbian when it comes to relationships. I could tolerate a heterosexual relationship if I could become pregnant, but it just won't happen.

I'm just recognizing that if there is absolutely no difference anymore between trans people who've transitioned to their desired sex and everyone else practically speaking, that anti-trans opinion will collapse for better or worse from the perspective of conservatives. It would effectively become normal for people to change sex and once someone has transitioned fully, nobody will ever know that someone used to be the opposite sex unless they're told.

[Tierra Prime]

Your comment on fatherless in the black community was already proven wrong, so you can cut the attitude. Even if it is 0.3% (I admit I didn't read the full article the first two times I looked at it), that still proves the existence of sex-specific genes.

No it doesn't.

Then explain the difference.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

My bad, it's actually 1.6%, which is still significant and proves there are sex-specific genes.

Which is meaningless, since that figure is based on a whole-genome, base pair analysis. 90% of the human genome is nonfunctional.

Plus humans are diploid. We have two copies of every chromosome, so every human alive has the exact same complement of genes, whether or not they're XY or XX. This is doubly important considering that the Y chromosome is just a degenerated X chromosome - all of the genes on the Y chromosome are also present in the X chromosome, but are inactivated.

[Tierra Prime]

Your comment on fatherless in the black community was already proven wrong, so you can cut the attitude. Even if it is 0.3% (I admit I didn't read the full article the first two times I looked at it), that still proves the existence of sex-specific genes.

It's .3% because the Y chromosome is smaller than the X. Jesus Haploid Christ how did you get through biology class in high school?

Uh, I know it's smaller, there's no need to be rude. As I said before, drop the smartass attitude.

If you know so much, then explain to me what this difference is. If males differ genetically from women by 0.3%, then they must posses specific genes that females do not have, yes?

[Khadgar]

No it doesn't.

Then explain the difference.

Females are the default for every vertebrate species. Males are a minor variation. The major difference is in gene expression. You can have XX males and XY females. Again this is fairly basic biology, how did you miss it?

[Ifreann]

What I meant is that it's not true that there must be specific male and female genes.

Isn't SRY a sex-specific gene though?

SRY is on the Y chromosome. Referring back to the comment I initially responded to, you were talking about male genes existing in XX females but somehow being "filtered out" by two XX females reproducing. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that some genes are male and some are female and this being unrelated to the difference between X and Y chromosomes.

And if there is a 0.3% difference in genes between men and women, doesn't this prove that sex-specific genes do exist, however rare?

No.

[Tierra Prime]

My bad, it's actually 1.6%, which is still significant and proves there are sex-specific genes.

Which is meaningless, since that figure is based on a whole-genome, base pair analysis. 90% of the human genome is nonfunctional.

Plus humans are diploid. We have two copies of every chromosome, so every human alive has the exact same complement of genes, whether or not they're XY or XX. This is doubly important considering that the Y chromosome is just a degenerated X chromosome - all of the genes on the Y chromosome are also present in the X chromosome, but are inactivated.

So continued use of the OP's method would not result in genetic degradation then?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Which is meaningless, since that figure is based on a whole-genome, base pair analysis. 90% of the human genome is nonfunctional.

Plus humans are diploid. We have two copies of every chromosome, so every human alive has the exact same complement of genes, whether or not they're XY or XX. This is doubly important considering that the Y chromosome is just a degenerated X chromosome - all of the genes on the Y chromosome are also present in the X chromosome, but are inactivated.

So continued use of the OP's method would not result in genetic degradation then?

No. Hence my earlier post;

It never ceases to amaze me how eager some people with absolutely no fucking clue about genetics are to wade into the subject and make grand pronouncements about viability and ethics. Dunning-Kruger at work, I guess.