Ultra Political Gynecology

Wow! Incredible. I don't even know how to respond to this kind of foolishness.

One of the most flagrant fake news stories I have ever seen. I read a similar story in the LA Free Press, almost 50 years ago. I was stunned then, and amazed that such stories even pass the smell test from the editors. I'm confident that publication of this article was timed to coincide with peak interest in the rather nasty "Women Marching" diatribes. What is truly pathetic is that I'm almost as certain that this kind of faux information will be enthused about by pro-abortion people who are generally too ignorant or naive to discern that anything is wrong here.

Foisting this kind of malicious drivel on useful idiots is only possible if they are abysmally ignorant of even basic biology principles.  It works effectively because so many qualify.

Gay in the News: Lesbian Trio is Expecting

In contemporary terminology, the newly coined term is "throuple".

This gang proudly announced the production of offspring in the news media.  Not that lesbians are capable of conceiving without some outside assistance.  The father was reportedly just an "anonymous" sperm donor.

Though the proud parents undoubtedly plan to raise a happy child, this event begs the question of what rights should be afforded to biological parents, "anonymous" or not.  And what kind of rights are afforded to otherwise helpless children.

When the mother of a child leaves leaves maternity care, she has a reasonable expectation to go home with her biological child, not a random choice selected by the nurse.  Is this not a proprietary choice that should be afforded equally to the biological father, to associate with a his own offspring?

When a child is born, does he have a reasonable expectation to association with the natural biological parents? If the parents do not respect such rights, does the state have a reasonable responsibility to do so?

Biological basis for sin

What if there is a biological basis for certain behavioral habits we refer to as sinful? Does that make any difference? Why should it?

I've had some fun discussing this elsewhere. It is a controversial idea. Some of the more liberal advocates seem to feel that a biological predisposition in some way cancels out any basis for proscribing certain kinds of behavior. I tend to want to ask if that means anything goes and nothing is ever right or wrong, when I'm compelled by my "biology".

Of course, when I suggest that some anti-social behaviors like murder and theft may just as well have compelling biological components, they get all huffy and accuse me of being a bigot.

The only good answer I've been able to come up with is that there must be a compelling biological component for bigotry. I was born this way, so I can't help but say such things.

Single Mother oxymoron

In the human family there is really no such thing as a "single mother. The very idea is a nonsensical legal fiction, a semantic contradiction. "Single" and "mother" cannot complement each other, since they denote states that are mutually exclusive in terms of biological functions. Human females that are birth mothers always have a male partner, which means that these mothers cannot properly be termed "single".

More correctly, we might say there are "unmarried mothers", or perhaps elaborate further with "mothers who function absent fathers".

Female genetic study

This is one of the most intriguing bits of information yet, from current studies of the human genome.

Female genetic study

Females are MOSAICS

In female mammals, most genes on one X chromosome are silenced as a result of X-chromosome inactivation. However, some genes escape X-inactivation and are expressed from both the active and inactive X chromosome. Such genes are potential contributors to sexually dimorphic traits, to phenotypic variability among females heterozygous for X-linked conditions, and to clinical abnormalities in patients with abnormal X chromosomes. Here, we present a comprehensive X-inactivation profile of the human X chromosome, representing an estimated 95% of assayable genes in fibroblast-based test systems. In total, about 15% of X-linked genes escape inactivation to some degree, and the proportion of genes escaping inactivation differs dramatically between different regions of the X chromosome, reflecting the evolutionary history of the sex chromosomes. An additional 10% of X-linked genes show variable patterns of inactivation and are expressed to different extents from some inactive X chromosomes. This suggests a remarkable and previously unsuspected degree of expression heterogeneity among females.

This does have some really fascinating implications.

Here's a fun article that discusses the function of X inactivation in producing tricolor female cats.

Mosaics

One thing that makes the new chromosome study so intriguing...

"Early in embryogenesis in mammals, all but one X chromosome are functionally inactivated through a process called X chromosome inactivation. Because this inactivation occurs randomly, all normal females have roughly equal populations of two genetically different cell types and are therefore a type of mosaic. In roughly half of their cells, the paternal X chromosome has been inactivated, and in the other half the maternal X chromosome is inactive. This has a number of important biological and medical implications, particularly with regard to X-linked genetic diseases."

This article reflects conventional thinking about X inactivation. But the latest study indicates that it isn't nearly this simple -- in human females, the X inactivation is incomplete and shows quite a range of variability. Apparently even in the cells within an individual.

Blascho's Lines revealed under UV

Part of the import is that alleles which are heterozygous may be pathogenic -- something like the possible adverse results from conditions like trisomy. It is pretty confusing to me when I try to think of exactly what happens when multiple different alleles in the same cell are actively transcribing to produce the same protein, but if they're very different, it seems obvious that the results will not be good.

At the very least this might explain why I have such a hard time understanding the female of the species.

Anyway, where this is taking me --

Imagine an organism with such fundamental characteristic capriciousness built in, from the level of chromosomes on up.

Little wonder that women should reserve the right to change their minds. Their very constituent cells are explicitly built, from the ground up, upon that very theme.

In more recent studies of genetic variation, it has been observed that males of the species exhibit a wider range of genetic variability than females, and this accounts for major gender differences in the relative level of intelligence.

Greater intersex phenotype variability found in males