"...???....yep, male"
I am too stupid to get what they are talking about
It has always been a universally accepted fact until the universities lost their collective minds.
Even if true, be sure that 99.9999% of men who say they are really women do NOT match this scenario one single bit.
So I guess I’m an evolved woman... here me roar!
Don’t know about that. But I do have the SRW genes - Super Reactive Willy. Carlos Danger and I have registered the trademark “BoingMaster” as part of our marketing campaign.
"...???....yep, male"
“The essential idea is that our evolution has favored a broad range of social competencies. In prehistory, this range would have given a survival advantage to communities enriched by a diversity of gender styles.”
Oh, no! I call bull sh!t.
“...diversity of gender styles...” is another way of creating, out of thin air, a BIOLOGICAL excuse for the existence of homosexuality.
So as I understand this, I was a female, but I got lucky and grew junk. LOL
Among plants and animals, species tend to increase their number of chromosomes when they want greater diversity and adaptability. They tend to decrease their number of chromosomes when they are trying to save energy.
The human species seems to be trying to decrease our number of chromosomes. This seems to be why we have 46 pairs, but other primates: gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans have 48 pairs.
In any event, this may explain the ‘Y’ chromosome of males. Originally, it was likely an ‘X’ chromosome, but one of its ‘arms’ or ‘legs’ was broken off and no longer copied.
Eventually, the ‘Y’ chromosome is expected to fail. But a replacement is waiting in the wings, as it were. The ‘X’ sex chromosome, the female chromosome, seems to be weakening. A common cause of birth defects today is called “Fragile X Syndrome”, in which one of the ‘arms’ or ‘legs’ of the ‘X’ sex chromosome is damaged or even broken.
So the ‘Y’ chromosome fails, and is replaced by a new ‘Y’ chromosome, and another ‘X’ chromosome replaces it as a sex chromosome.
Laughable and absurd conclusions from half-baked academics desperately trying to spout the party line in order to get funding. Lysenko would be proud.
The simplest explanation for the findings, and the explanation most concordant with prior knowledge and observed nature, is that the failure of a few males to achieve reproductive success is immaterial, as the number of females is invariably the real population bottleneck.
Mammalian life is replete with examples of species that effectively write off a significant portion of males as genetic dead ends. Polygamy is the norm among many higher mammals, as well as within primitive human societies (along with polygyny), so a genetic abnormality that causes a small fraction of males to fail to reproduce will face orders of magnitude less selective pressure than a similar abnormality on the female line - especially if such failures to masculinize were chiefly due to interference from strongly-selected-for maternal traits (i.e. mitochondrial DNA influences, the “Mother’s Curse”).
It’s absurd to claim that such conditions are actually SELECTED FOR, or even more laughably that they provide a significant level of benefit due simply to the laughably assumed benefits of “diversity”.
I think we are being punked here.
Sacha Baron Cohen, perhaps?
Sure there are exceptions but the fact that they are rare means they are not to be confused with the overall rule. Male development is NOT precarious for the vast majority of individuals that is the fact since the beginning of humanity. Just as the vast majority of humanity are NOT born with downs syndrome or other forms of genetic anomaly.
This ‘study’ is about a very small number of people. However, it was applied to everyone.
This is poor science.
Also, it’s sex, not gender.