Chromosomal sex is established at conception but physical differentiation occurs later. The idea that all humans start as female is mistaken. It stems from the observation that in the absence of male specific signals embryos will follow a developmental pathway that results in female characteristics. But biologically speaking embryos are not inherently female. They start in an undifferentiated "bipotential" state.
What do you mean? It's a DSD that only affects males. The penis is malformed and the testes, which still produce normal levels of testosterone, are internal. No female sex organs are present.
> but the basic blueprint is what we ascribe to female bodies – that's why, for example, everyone has nipples and not just those people who might end up lactating (although everyone has the potential to do that).
What a stupid take. As everyone has nipples, it very obviously isn't an anatomical feature ascribed only to female bodies.
The author needs to learn some basic embryology and stop publishing incorrect and misleading articles on this topic.
The difference in quality between this and the top comment reifies the downsides of AI for analysis.
Also, this is pure bullshit: “These findings collectively enhance our understanding of embryonic sex differentiation and development.” I don’t even think a university press office would write something that meaningless.
I think the author of this article just has trouble with reading comprehension or they interpreted this in a childish way to make a click-bait article. It's really not that complicated.
Chromosomal sex is established at conception but physical differentiation occurs later. The idea that all humans start as female is mistaken. It stems from the observation that in the absence of male specific signals embryos will follow a developmental pathway that results in female characteristics. But biologically speaking embryos are not inherently female. They start in an undifferentiated "bipotential" state.
I thinks "undifferentiated" would make the point just as well.
I'm curious why the executive order avoided chromosomal sex in its definition. Perhaps because of Swyer syndrome as mnetioned in the article.
>to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell
What is the large reproductive cell? The egg?
While he is at it, he should make Pi equal 3.
Sure would be a lot easier than memorizing this song. [1]
[1] - https://pi.ytmnd.com/
There's 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency. How does that get accounted for?
What do you mean? It's a DSD that only affects males. The penis is malformed and the testes, which still produce normal levels of testosterone, are internal. No female sex organs are present.
I guess that is one way to solve the under representation in tech?
> but the basic blueprint is what we ascribe to female bodies – that's why, for example, everyone has nipples and not just those people who might end up lactating (although everyone has the potential to do that).
What a stupid take. As everyone has nipples, it very obviously isn't an anatomical feature ascribed only to female bodies.
The author needs to learn some basic embryology and stop publishing incorrect and misleading articles on this topic.
[flagged]
The difference in quality between this and the top comment reifies the downsides of AI for analysis.
Also, this is pure bullshit: “These findings collectively enhance our understanding of embryonic sex differentiation and development.” I don’t even think a university press office would write something that meaningless.
I think the author of this article just has trouble with reading comprehension or they interpreted this in a childish way to make a click-bait article. It's really not that complicated.