I may be mis-interpreting what you’re saying, but according to my college biology textbook, it’s the Y chromosome that determines maleness. In fact that’s pretty much the only thing the Y chromosome does. If you’re a dude, you’re stuck with whatever recessive alleles your lone X chromosome has
That’s what I said. The Y can’t compensate for a damaged X, because the switch is all it has. The genes that the switch controls are scattered over the other chromosomes. For simple empirical proof of what I say, consider the masculinizing effects male homones can have upon females. They have no Y chromosome, yet still react to male hormones, because they still have all the other genetic machinery of a male; it’s just turned off.
Ok, I just misread your post.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Supposedly, the genetic coding for human intelligence hangs around on the X chromosome. That meant, back in the earlies when it was a rare mutation, intelligence was actually expressed more in men exactly because they didn’t have another X chromosome to contradict it. One side effect of this was that a man couldn’t pass on intelligence to his son, but only to his daughters and grandchildren.
New Scientist, where I read about this, went on to explain patiently that intelligence obviously made men more attractive to women, so women selected intelligent men more often as mates, and that accounted for the gene’s success. I had a letter published in gentle protest at this feminised piece of scientific thinking, pointing out that there are many ways for male intelligence to be a survival characteristic without needing to invoke politically-motivated and hard-to-substantiate theories that antediluvian women actually got to do any mate selection at all.
The news went the rounds in the popular press as well. The Sun helpfully explained that the X is the female chromosome, so women got two copies of the gene, with the customary implication that women are twice as intelligent as men (and the also customary, for the Sun, in-depth understanding of the scientific issues).
Note: Naturally the “intelligence gene” is now universal in both sexes, and I am not decrying female intelligence.
Regarding intelligence I was under the impression that the average IQ of men and women is the same but that there is greater variation in mens intelligence than womens, ie: there are more male genious’ but also more males with low intellect as well. This being due to the ‘intelligence gene’ (leaving aside that there’s a lot more to it than that simplification) being expressed only on the X chromosome in a man but a woman has two sets of such genes which results in an averaging out effect.
I’m not a biologist and thats just something I’ve learned in general reading.
Also Der Trihs earlier said that the results for girls in the education system are outstripping boys but I have read that an partial explanation for that is that the education itself has changed, with more group activities and averaging scoring over periods that girls do better on and that if more traditional methods such as set exams etc are used that boys prefer and respond better to then the difference becomes much narrower. There are also other factors like a general anti-intellectualism in the culture among boys etc
Also in response to an earlier point raised by Der Trihs, although there are quite definite inherent differences between men and women, including physical differences in the brain, I would suggest that the practical results on men and womens comparative thinking can be overstated. Men and women can quite definitely have empathy and understanding of the others position and even simple matters like authors writing from the other genders perspective for a character would be much more difficult to impossible if there really was a signicent gulf between the genders.
I would also suggest that there is little to no difference in either gender, apart from the physical, that does not also find expression in at least some members of both genders. Men and women are not monolithic blocks. That’s clumsily worded but I hope I’m being understandable.
And still can’t, right? For this claim, I have to get a cite from you.
And still can’t, right, but the gene is now universal and there’s no need. Can’t give you a cite, it was from a magazine article and probably before the days I was even on the Dope. Treat my uncited post with whatever respect you think it merits.
.
Assuredly. Thirty-odd years ago there was plenty of noise being made about how an exam-centric system was unfair to girls. Since then we’ve shifted over to a system placing much more emphasis on coursework. This was done to make girls look better and now for some strange reason we consider it odd that girls are looking better. :dubious:
This guy (column 324) has a few words to say on the subject. 
Actually, that was Squink up in post # 22, not me.
But even if only appearances changed (which I’d disagree with - many institutional changes were made as well), even this change would generate an educational gap; more boys, apparantly below average, would pay less attention to schoolwork, while girls would be more encouraged, thus creating positive feedback.
I liked the article, by the way.
The woman who wrote that was deeply disturbed-she was mentally ill.
Sorry about that, well at least I was thinking about you. 
I’m not arguing that. I’m just saying that shit like that gets attention, whereas women who just want to be respected don’t. Stuff like that is the reason that “feminist” nowadays equals “manhater.”
~Tasha
Please. How many men have died in childbirth compared to women?