Comment by orwin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by orwin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Let's not forget blood ph is coded on over 7 different chromosome and more than a thousand genes.

The XY chromosome is certainly one of the most important in hormone differentiation, but its is still one of the smallest. Claiming that it "program" people with no physiological evidence and only sociological or worse, psychological data points is dumb and uninteresting, and one of my bias is to sometime group people with their claim.

Claiming that testosterone levels are linked to aggressiveness and risk-taking in male is less dumb but not that interesting if it does not explain why (and how it disprove double-blind randomized study on the effect of testosterone-based male contraceptive https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/89/6/2837/2870329).

As those claims often are not really evidence-based, seems to always target the same group and have unhealthy proponent, i might dismiss them a sexist, even if the author is in good faith and wants to understand why people dismiss his point.

Color blindness in men is about 1 in 1 vs 1 in 200 for women. That's strongly correlated with the X chromosome, and has a profound impact on one of your primary senses. If you have an extra 21st chromosome, there are significant developmental problems which arise out of it.

While we are genetically very similar to chimpanzees and may share many traits, that 1% difference makes for a completely unique creatures which require completely different alien existences to thrive.

Biology is incredibly messy, we are still the product of its process, and that means sexual dimorphism. We shouldn't be quick to dismiss this, as it does harm to both women and men in living fulfilling healthy lives.

> Color blindness in men is about 1 in 1 vs 1 in 200 for women.

I assume you meant "1 in 12" for men, otherwise it seems too much.

I wonder whether mentioning this fact is considered okay simply because the result is worse for men. If there is a parallel reality where 1 in 12 women and only 1 in 200 men are colorblind, mentioning this would probably get you in some trouble.

> If there is a parallel reality where [...], mentioning this would probably get you in some trouble.

This is probably the point I would have wanted to make, had I realized it :)

We have more than just statistical evidence. We have physiological evidence too. We know which kind of protein (opsin) is responsible for each wavelenght. We know what kind of genetic modification can change the protein substantially (if you change the Nth protide which is hydrophilic by an hydrophobic one, you can change the wavelenght perceived). This is exactly my point:

You have an observation: Dichromacy is more prevalent with men, tetrachromacy only ever appears with women. This prevalence is huge. Opsins are responsible for colour perceptions

You have a theory: the X gene is responsible for colour perception: the L and M opsin are encoded on the X gene. You found the responsible gene.

Again, his is exactly my point: no physiological evidence => garbage bin (unless you're a researcher).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com