CharonY

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Only for some. For others, there are active efforts to legislate against these changes and even make them criminal. In other non-US countries, it even results in death

In Alberta, Canada, there is legislation in play that aim to legislate care for children. A big issue is that it sets hard limits rather than providing the breathing space youths, parents and medical professionals need to make proper individual assessments. While on its face it might seem that quite a bit is inconsequential (e.g. genital surgery is already age limited) it raises the question regarding the legality of other types of surgeries (e.g. breast surgery related to cancer or pain). Attempting to legislate health care is always an issue, especially when guidelines become very specific and are done without a strong consensus from the medical community (and even then there are issues) as human health and biology does not conform to simple rules that could be addressed by checklists adequately.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/danielle-smith-unveils-sweeping-changes-to-alberta-s-student-gender-identity-sports-and-surgery-policies-1.7101053

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I would think it is much easier to go from millionaire to billionaire than to go from poverty to millionaire.

That is very true. The gap is the steepest for the poor, as there is no means to create or amplify wealth. The only resource available is labour and most money will be used to survive, leaving no space to invest. Entrepreneurship is difficult if you have no assets to leverage or if taking risks means to be be living on the streets. 

In contrast, even middle class folks can invest some modest amount after taking care of the essentials. And perversely, the ultra rich do not require income, they can just leverage their wealth.

On 2/6/2024 at 11:09 AM, StringJunky said:

I find it bemusing that insanely rich people think they understand the problems of the vast majority and think they can help, all the while, creating the conditions of poverty by draining the country's wealth away in some obscure overseas shell company.

That is one of the reasons why I am extremely suspicious of the "tech will save us" narrative, especially if they are in the hands of select few individuals. They have all the answers, without even understanding the question.

19 hours ago, Outrider said:

Autism is such a catch all term these days that the original question makes little sense.

Anecdotal I know but fwiw.

My son was diagnosed at eight years old. During the course of I realized I had a lot of the "symptoms "

But we are completely different. Hes very coordinated, still has trouble comprehending what he reads and is emotionally aloof. That last part does not stop him from doing things for people but if his help does not help he just dosen't feel it. Where it wrecks me.

I was reading 12th grade literature in the sixth grade but still cannot do a jumping jack to save my life.

My point is that I think autism is one of those things that is very undiagnosed and the term has become so broad that it's not really useful. 

That is why the definition has shifted from specific diagnoses to a broader range of descriptive syndromes, from what I understand. So basically instead of having the categories associated with pervasive developmental disorder, as the conditions are called,  like autistic disorder, Aseperger's disorder and childhood disintegrative disorder (and maybe more)  it is now organized in a spectrum. This new categorization has decreased diagnoses, IIRC. But reading ability or body coordination are I believe not part of it- the focus is in persistent deficits in social communication and limited but repetitive patterns of behaviour, for example.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I would agree that GOP do it more often, but I have read here and there that the Dems aren't averse to it.

Oh yes, I am sure they do. I am not entirely sure on which level, though and whether there is ongoing trend or just the pendulum swing (due to undoing of some existing Gerrymandering). But yes, as a whole there is no (AFAIK) fundamental aversion against it among Dems (or at least I think there isn't).

Several issues with the argument. The first, not all traits are under selection. In fact, most are likely not. Second, many traits, including autism, are not fully genetic, and even if under negative selection are not expected to be vanish entirely. Third, whatever advantages autism confers, is highly situation dependent and especially on the more extreme end, the negatives vastly outlast the positives. Conversely, psychopaths are becoming CEOs https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/?sh=7dfff38d791e

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

All the gerrymandering by both sides over years has created that situation, I think.

I think it is part of the issue but not the cause. I vaguely recall also that both sides are not quite the same, on the state level some papers have argued that the GOP is doing significantly more, and in congress a swing to the Democrats was apparently due to court decisions striking down GOP Gerrymandering. But I do not really recall much detail.

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can see him expecting 2/3 of the GOP to be pretty damn stupid...they're acting like it...but how will this get him elected in November

It really only depends on how the swing states decide. Popular vote still remains close for the most part. But honestly, I suspect your first mistake is to assume that folks are making informed decisions. Hasn't the pandemic taught you anything?

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So Trump figures it's a good idea to personally and pretty much overtly put a stick in the spokes of any substantially improved potential border deals and then blame Biden for the lack of improvements?

How dumb does he expect the voters to be?

I mean, they will still vote for him and say that he is the only to fix it. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Been meaning to ask: don't most people rely on both external social cues and internal feelings in forming a sense of identity?

In part, certainly. But especially when it comes to sexuality and associated identity, things are bit more different than other identity traits. Both appear to be formed early on and generally do not change through life, in contrast to other forms of identity. What might change is how you express a given identity (e.g. what society considers to be masculine or feminine at any given point). And you might be correct that folks have become less prescriptive (or at least specific) in that regard. But on the other hand things have been changing forever, (e.g. whether heels are for men or women switched entirely more than once). 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

As a matter of fact , no, we don't know whether this is true.
As I said, I was just stirring the pot a little, and wasn't going to pursue it much. Iassumed CharonY would come back with information about research as he always does, but did not expect everyone to ignore my point ( except you )

I mostly did not know what the point of that argument was. It seemed to try to suggest that the ability (or inability) to address a condition would have some sort of inherent meaning. But obviously there are a lot of procedures developed that are done because folks are willing to pay for it (e.g. plastic surgery). 

I don't think anyone is looking for a cure in autism, despite in some cases the conditions can make life very difficult. Rather, folks want to understand the condition itself (as it is not very  well defined), potential causes and behavioral management options. There are some folks using animal models to look into molecular mechanisms of autism and some think that this could lead to a cure, but I think that is mostly sales (like having a cancer treatment every week). This research has also shifted the perception on autism, especially in what was previously considered "Asperger's syndrome" which is now more considered to be within a more normative range (if at the extremes) for example.  

If your question is whether there are genetics based treatment, AFAIK there is only few, in part also because many genetic challenges are not caused by a single locus. Besides certain uses in cancer I am only aware of a gene therapy to treat a retinal disease. Larger chromosomal changes are not feasible targets.

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

These aberrations are necessary mechanisms for evolution to occur. We wouldn't be where we are today if these aberrations didn't occur. We are born from and exist in a kaleidoscope of change.

Exactly, we are all mutants. 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I then,always ready to stir the pot, asked why we try to cure/prevent genetic aberrations like dwarfism, giantism, autism, etc., but we don't try to cure/prevent the XX and XY chromosonal aberrations that INow mentioned to Joigus ?

In this context I would like to add that aberrations is also a social construct. In nature, these variations simply exist and, if harmful generally do not spread. But based on what originally constituted life on Earth, everything but the simplest bacteria are aberrations. 

Whether we want to change certain conditions or not, does not make them normal or abnormal. For example, originally humans become lactose intolerant as they mature. Addressing this issue does not make it an aberration. But since the ample availability of dairy can make it problematic, it can be considered a syndrome to be treated or at least managed. 

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes you must have misunderstood, I think. It is populations of organisms that evolve, collectively, rather than single individuals spawning a whole new species. If it were the latter it could only happen by extreme in-breeding, which we know doesn't work out well.   

Well, not only that, it also takes time and genetic isolation between populations. Even extreme inbreeding would not result in genetic isolation within a generation (or at least I cannot think of a scenario at the top of my head).

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Dwarfism is a disadvantage under open-air conditions. In forests and subterranean environs it's an advantage; some Amazonian groups tend to be short.

And also a function of nutrient availability. This is another example why focusing on a seemingly fixed (genetic or other biological interpretation) of a presumed normalcy is inherently flawed. Nature just is creates all kinds of variations. Otherwise we would still be superoptimized unicellular organisms. 

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Would it be more accurate to say that being trans is the cure rather than the syndrome?  Most become trans subsequent to the miseries of body dysmorphia, a syndrome.  The former can induce suffering that is intrinsic (painful mirror confrontations where one sees something other than what one feels) and not necessarily a result of social pressures.  Most will also experience the social pressures, but there is a core to body dysmorphia that is intrinsic and would be experienced even in a PLAU-filled commune outside of Eugene, OR.  (my guess is fewer would seek a surgical reassignment in the PLAU environment, simply because acceptance would be at that shining level of no one dictating that chicks can't have dicks or men have vajayjays.  Why am I thinking of a Billy Joel song atm?)  

 

In this context I think it is important to highlight that definitions like disease/syndromes etc. are context-driven and are not something that is ultimately biological per se, despite having biological origins. 

A crude example includes forms of sickle cell anemia, which in isolation is harmful, but in the context of high malaria risk, becomes beneficial. Ultimately, any variation that exists in nature simply exists, regardless of frequency and any "norm" we associate with it, is almost entirely context-driven. For practical purposes, we consider mutations a deviation from something (i.e. the wild-type), but given the fact that everything we see is the result of one mutation or another, it is obviously not something that is really not normal in nature.

So obviously the association with genotype and sex is specific to a number of species (including humans), but is clearly not universal. And even within these, a number of variations exist. As SJ mentioned before, whether we call them a syndrome is related to whether they cause issue in their daily lives, which obviously is very specific to the human condition and society and should not be mixed with biological interpretation. 

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

Apparently it's not "so many" US universities that make it to the top ranks. 

As I alluded to earlier, it is related to how funding (for teaching and research) is allocated, and in the US (but also Canada, and I believe UK) there is marked disparity in what universities get. Also in many publicly funded universities in Europe you lack many amenities (and sports teams), but in return you can study without getting into debt.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What oother view would you expect me to take ?
We are discussing humans., are we not ?

No, that is perfectly fine. I just want to make it clear as some folks assume that this is an universal biological thing, whereas in reality biology is more complicated (and weirder) than we see in humans.

Quote

The US provides quite a bit of funding for research, but there are quite differences between European countries. Highly ranked universities are often also flush with money and often support profs more with resources to establish successful research programs. 

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

In reproductive Biology there are only two sexes, because an idealized male of the species is needed to reproduce with the idealized female of the species.

I want to add that this is a human-centered view, and not really applicable in the broader field of biology. In terms of sexual reproduction a distinction in male and female is made based on anisogamy (i.e. if they create different forms of gametes). In some species one organism can do both, in others, the role can change during their life cycle. But there is also sexual reproduction where we find isogamy (i.e. gametes with same morphology), which is a form of sexual reproduction that cannot be classified into different sexes. And some do really weird switches, especially when they can change between uni- to multicellular life styles. In short, biology of sex is weird and everyone is a pervert.

8 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

Si, that's correct. Could one reason be that RNA isn't protected by complementary strand pairing like DNA? ssRNA I know exists, but dsRNA, my files return null.

There dsRNA viruses (e.g. rotavirus), and are obviously also formed during replication. One important regulator of mutation rates are proof-reading mechanisms that recognize and remove mismatches during replication. Many RNA viruses don't have them (but SARS-Cov-2 does, which is why its mutation rate is a bit lower). Other factors are replication speed. Some polymerases work very fast which allows for imperfect matches to go through.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Same experience with military folks working on weapons systems, thinking we had a science budget like they had, when it was about 1% or less

I knew I should have weaponized my research!

1 hour ago, Agent Smith said:

Perhaps due to their usual function/purpose, RNA is more unstable than DNA. 🙂

It is not so much the inherent stability of the molecule that causes mutations, but rather the difference in copying the genetic material (which is more prone to errors in RNA viruses for a variety of reasons).

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Seems low to me, too, but not more than an order of magnitude low. You’d probably be living at the site, but you need food and water, and equipment. And it would depend on the duration of the expedition.

Even it’s it more, there’s still a huge divide between that and a trip to the moon.

Absolutely. I don't really do fieldwork, though once was peripherally involved in budgeting related to a space mission. The numbers did not seem real when you are used to typical (even instrument-intensive) lab experiments.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I vote "cutting back on other stuff". Have you seen some of the ridiculous pork included in the average spending bill? There are ways to make tax funding work for everyone.

Or, you know, tax wealth or reduce subsidies for companies.