Edit: for those downvoting, can you tell me how I’m wrong, if that is the case?
SRY can cross over to the X chromosome (resulting in an XX male), but the end result is usually sterile as there are other genes elsewhere on the Y chromosome that are also necessary for complete development.
Sure. Your claim that X is not female is correct. Your claim that Y is not male is wrong. Y is male. If one or more Y chromosomes are present, a male will develop, and if zero or fewer are present, a female will develop.[1]
Cloning a normal male's single X chromosome would lead to the type of problems familiar from inbreeding, but would be unlikely to lead to nonviability; two different X chromosomes, which all normal women have, are already too many and parts of them must be inactivated so that normal development can proceed.
The Y chromosome is unimportant enough that chromosomal abnormalities generally leave the organism in a viable, if often defective, state. The subject of this experiment is an example, with three (XXY) sex chromosomes. One X chromosome and no Y chromosomes (which would usually be described "XO", not "X") would get you a female with Turner syndrome.
In a handy table:
X alone: female, Turner syndrome
Y alone: male, but nonviable; this will be a miscarriage.
XX: female, normal
XY: male, normal
YY: male, nonviable
XXX: female, triple X syndrome
XXY: male, Klinefelter syndrome
XYY: male, Jacobs syndrome
YYY: male, nonviable
[1] There is an exception related to androgen insensitivity. There you have a genetic male that develops into what is mostly a phenotypic female. Such people have female psychology and female external anatomy, but they do not have a female reproductive system and are therefore sterile.
So it seems like making XX from a single XY person would just end up doing something genetically similar to what already happens with marsupials, which doesn't result in non-viability.
Of course, cloning at all does result in not getting genetic diversity you would normally get from recombination, which can eventually result in population-level problems if you're doing enough of it.
While in males there is no recombination between the X and Y chromosomes, in females sometimes there is recombination between the two X chromosomes.
Therefore the X chromosome received by a child from the mother may either be 1 of the 2 X chromosomes of the mother, chosen randomly, or it may be a combination of those 2 X chromosomes.
The inactivation of an X chromosome happens only in the female somatic cells, where the remaining active X chromosome is either the X chromosome of the father or 1 of the 2 X chromosomes of the mother or a combination of the 2 X chromosomes of the mother.
What's more, with X inactivation, one of the chromosomes in XX becomes almost completely inactive and all of the genes on the other chromosome are expressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
> X-inactivation (also called Lyonization, after English geneticist Mary Lyon) is a process by which one of the copies of the X chromosome is inactivated in therian female mammals. The inactive X chromosome is silenced by being packaged into a transcriptionally inactive structure called heterochromatin. As nearly all female mammals have two X chromosomes, X-inactivation prevents them from having twice as many X chromosome gene products as males, who only possess a single copy of the X chromosome (see dosage compensation).
There is a huge distance between "almost completely inactive" and "inactive". A Turner's syndrome patient (only one X chromosome) usually has several obvious physical defects, including sterility.
Interestingly, as far as I'm aware the things we usually think of as "X-linked" (more common in men, inherited as a recessive phenotype on the X chromosome - things like red/green colorblindness and male-pattern baldness) aren't as common in Turner's patients as you might expect.
Instead, they're probably talking about taking three cells with XY, and then using that to create an xx, an xy, and then some leftover parts.
If that is the case, your correction might seem arrogant or assuming.
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
The replies since then have been interesting and not boring at all. Until I got to yours.