"TRJ" == Thomas R Jefferys <wyrm@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
[chokki]
TRJ> ie, same standard; different strategies for satisfying it.
no, being plump was and is a survival trait. It sets one up so that
one can survive bad times that kill off all of the people with a
really high percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (who tend to be
skinny and burn calories really fast). Fast twitch people, however,
are good for running about hunting and gathering when times are good.
[chokki]
An endocrine system based off of Ranma's geneset. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Which is why I feel that it is most likely that she will continue to be
attracted to girls.
TRJ> Ranma's geneset codes for both being attracted to males as well
TRJ> as females. The male-seeking codes aren't used, but are there
TRJ> nonetheless. It takes only one gene to turn a hetero female into
TRJ> a hetero male, as it triggers an entire cascade effect. This
TRJ> makes the ratio of hetero males to hetero females approximately
TRJ> 1:1.
`Contains codes for', not necessarily `codes for'. There is a
difference. The second implies that both sets of codes are active,
while the first says that they are there to be passed on to one's
children.
Ranma's emotional conditioning (ie, his likes, dislikes, pet
peeves, sorrows, ect.) are probably untouched, which leaves "her"
attracted to females, because as a male, he has always been
attracted to females because of his male libido.
(fixed typo) Why is there this firm belief that a female libido == a
straight female libido?
There is no proof either way, and there probably never will be, but it
is about as likely, if not more, that instead of it being `attracted to
the opposite sex' it's `attracted to {female|male}' at the deepest
levels.
TRJ> That's what I meant to say, but it just didn't come out that
TRJ> way. It's just that the male-seeking libido makes reproductive
TRJ> sense only to females, and vice versa, thus I dubbed the "female
TRJ> libido" to save keyboard wear. Yes, fundamentally, the actual
TRJ> relation is 'attracted to {male|female}', but the male-seeking
TRJ> and female-seeking libidos are pretty much the providence of
TRJ> women and men respectively.
The studies have shown (at least as of the last time I saw anything
new on the subject) that homosexuals make up about 10 percent of any
given population, with a fairly large number over that being bi. It
sort of bugs me to see the experiences of large numbers of people just
getting discounted. (or, more accurately, utterly ignored)
I would think that onna-Ranma would also have the female libido
also, as that is instinctive as well. It's hard-wired into the
brain, and he also has the appropriate genes to do that (he always
did, even before he was cursed. The difference between a male and
female is only one gene).
Chromosome. off by several orders of magnitude there.
TRJ> Nope. The only sex-relivent gene that the Y chromasome carries
TRJ> the testis-generating gene. The rest of it codes for trivial
TRJ> stuff (hairy knuckes, ect) and genetic junk.
Hmm, the problem I have with this is simple:
They have (again as of the last time I heard anything about this) less
than half of the human genome mapped out. (this is extrapolating from
the figures I saw in '94? '95? where they were talking about the
speedups allowed by new techniques)
Saying that the rest of it is trivial could well be like saying the
bolts that hold the jesus pin on a helicopter in are trivial.
It is well proven, however, that a lot of the standard `male' things
(male pattern baldness, colorblindness, etc.) are the result of
certain other genes not getting properly overridden. (which is why
they are called sex-linked disorders -_- )
TRJ> Case in point, there are some women who have Y's. The reason is
TRJ> that, during crossover (when chromasomes exchange genes), the X
TRJ> and Y of the father crossed over with each other accidentally (it
TRJ> doesn't normally happen), crossing over at a point that
TRJ> transfered the testis-generator "cluster" onto the X. It also
TRJ> happens the other way around; normal males with two X's.
Actuall, there are people with such interesting patterns of
chromosomes as XXXYY, and I don't remember/know just what triggers
it.
It is rather common, though, something like 1:1200 or so IIRC (not my
field, sorry)
TRJ> By comparing how often such a crossover happens to the incidence
TRJ> and completeness of sex-switching, it can be determined that one
TRJ> single gene is responsible for the entire female->male
TRJ> transformation. There are no hermaphroditic in-betweens, like
TRJ> what you would get in a cluster responsible for
TRJ> sex-differentiation.
Now just what are we saying here? `There are no hermaphodidic humans'
or `there are no hermaphodidic humans as a result of mauled X/Y
chromosomes'? The second could be accurate, the first is not.
TRJ> That gene was isolated on the Y chromasome as part of the Human
TRJ> Genome project.
TRJ> One gene. Count 'em, one.
In males. (I wish I knew how they were going about the HGP (Is there
a good web sit?), as that would definately help to put your facts into
perspective)
There are three ways this could be:
One: The researchers are correct, and this is the only real
difference.
two: This gene is just incidental, and they've made a mistake, and it
is just another gene that happens to make a nice tag.
three: This gene is a trigger, and as a result of it's
presence/non-presence/masked out status other changes take place.
(and why are we argueing this anyway? It is totally off on a tangent)
(and a trigger is different from a single gene difference)
TRJ> Footnote: The X also has little in terms of sex-specific
TRJ> genes. Mostly, it for color vision, blood factors, ect, and the
TRJ> all important gene, DNA polymerase, which enabes DNA to reproduce
TRJ> itself.
Which is why you don't find male pattern baldness in females ^_^
TRJ> The genes really relevent for sex are located on other
TRJ> chromasomes. That means that they are fully backed-up.
Of course, there is a firm possibility that the `female' responce
is quite similar to the `male' responce, and has the same standards
for just who is desirable.
TRJ> Except that they're geared to different sexes? :)
No. I think the choice of object has very little to do with the
gender of the person, and a lot to do with the set of their individual
geneset. Of course, Ranma's eyes are two different colors as a
male(grey) and as a female(blue) so other things could be changed as
well. (which iplies some significant genetic changes)(of course, it
could be, like the eyeshadow, just something the animators did, and
they both have the same geneset/eye color)
Ranma's in a losing battle, and since it is instinctive, there's
not much she can do about it. I can't help being straight because
it is my nature, any more than a homosexual can help being
homosexual.
Of course, this depends on whether the female libido is present.
and on the `female libido' being attracted to men.
TRJ> male-seeking libido (by definition, attracted to men).
TRJ> I'm sure it is biology. Such an important thing like getting the
TRJ> interface for reproduction right can't be left to mere chance or
TRJ> culture.
Of course it can. Those who end up not having children don't pass on
their genes, and if they don't have any brothers/sisters/cousins who
do those sets of genes die out. Of course, those who end up not
having children but have cousins/brothers/sisters who do have children
also pass on their genes, especially if they help insure their
sisters/brothers/cousins children survive to adulthood.
ja ne,
Suika