thomblake comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (479)
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.
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.
that seems low.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.