Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-28-2003, 08:54 PM | #21 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Morris, MN
Posts: 3,341
|
Quote:
Since the development of both male and female sexual characteristics in mammals are dependent on global hormonal signals, you can trans-sex the developing embryo either way by suppressing or adding hormones. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-28-2003, 09:33 PM | #22 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
|
You know, the saddest thing is that I used to know that? It all came rushing back to me. *chuckle* Of course, the occurence of an XX male usually requires a crossover between the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis (putting part of the Y chromosome on the X chromosome - the SRY as you pointed out), while the occurence XY females usually simply requires inactivation of regions of the Y chromosome (which is what I meant by "female is default). Oh, and you have to look at what I was responding to to make sense of the last thing.
Oh, and can you actually make totally functional XX males simply by appropriately varying hormones during fetal development? |
07-28-2003, 10:09 PM | #23 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
|
Quote:
|
|
07-28-2003, 10:18 PM | #24 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
|
Wouldn't that be a no then? I asked if you could make a totally functional male, not only one possessing external male sexual characterstics.
|
07-29-2003, 12:03 AM | #25 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington, the least religious state
Posts: 5,334
|
Quote:
I can't tell from the abstract if these fertile XX males would ever produce male offspring. My assumption in my previous post was that they wouldn't, however with this mutation I suppose it is possible that XX' offpspring could be fertile -- so what do we have, a new sex? And if their female grandchildren mate with a normal male... Oh my goodness that could get interesting if all the combinations are viable. hw |
|
07-29-2003, 12:49 AM | #26 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
|
Well, that is interesting, but it is not due to external hormonal manipulation.
|
07-29-2003, 10:16 AM | #27 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart
Posts: 2,431
|
Slightly OT but...
|
07-29-2003, 03:18 PM | #28 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington, the least religious state
Posts: 5,334
|
Quote:
However it is a lazy, hot day and it is kind of fun to mull over, especially if I can snag some more real science from the gurus here. XX males are fully functional with the exception of fertility - many of them do not know that they are genetically female until they go to a fertility clinic. The interesting question is if there is something that would be contributed by the father's Y chromosome that would be missing in XX. If that were the case, then my hypothetical female would have no way to create a male child other than by somehow creating a Y chromosome. From the thought-experiment point of view, that would be cheating... This study seems to me to imply that at least some XX males in some species are fertile. These XX males would not be passing along any Y chromosome (by any mechanism understood at least) to their offspring, so assuming that their offspring are fertile then at least some mutant forms of my hypothetical female have everything they need to produce male children by hormonal manipulation. Thus, the vagina could be said to 'come first.' (Don't even touch that pun. Er. *blush*.) Of course this is all pretty roundabout, clownfish are a much better non-imaginary example that shows that you can have sexual reproduction without genetic differences between the 'sexes.' (Layman's language breaks down trying to describe this stuff, I mean 'male' clownfish are not really male are they? Of course they are. No they aren't! Arrgh...) hw |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|