thomblake comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Yvain 19 October 2012 01:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (479)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Yvain 19 October 2012 11:18:31AM *  1 point [-]

Chromosomes makes that info easier to process and is useful in case a bunch of people put their gender as "other" or don't understand the gender question.

Comment author: thomblake 19 October 2012 02:51:00PM 4 points [-]

I don't know the answer to the chromosomes question. I could guess, and I would put over 95% on it, but it still seems weird.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 20 October 2012 01:44:12AM 2 points [-]

I would put over 95% on it

that seems low.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 October 2012 11:40:53AM *  1 point [-]

Not that low. (Unless he has children, at least.) EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read a longer version of that article, also mentioning Olympic sex tests etc., but I can't find it anymore.

In any event, that reminds me that having more than two X chromosomes, or more than one Y chromosome, doesn't matter much, so if the question is kept I'd specify that XY also includes XYY, XYYY etc. and XX also includes XXX, XXXX, etc.

Comment author: thomblake 22 October 2012 01:52:01PM 0 points [-]

What army1987 said. Naturally intersexed folks are about 1% of the population, though that number probably includes some non-chromosonal differences and excludes some chromosonal differences.

And I said "over 95%" because I knew it would be at least 95% if I thought about it, but I hadn't yet.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 19 October 2012 03:34:31PM 2 points [-]

Yep. Unless you have had your DNA sequenced or the like, you don't know your chromosomes; there are a number of unusual genotypes that are not obvious.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 October 2012 08:34:25PM 1 point [-]

Besides which, hormones matter a whole lot more for human sexual differentiation than chromosomes. Birds are different, and a lot more like the naive idea of "chromosomes > sex characteristics" (which is why you sometimes get bilaterally gynandromorphic birds when a pair of zygotes -- one male, one female -- fuse in the egg).

Comment author: Decius 19 October 2012 03:16:34PM 0 points [-]

Good point- without DNA sequencing, we're guessing about specific genes based only on their expression, when their expression can be muted by other factors.