Much Ado About Lesbian Teen Sex?

[El_Machinae]

Keep it in mind that this doesn't mean that pedophiles can be detected through brain scans. It merely means that they are statisically more likely to have certain traits than control groups do. And this is certainly not accounting for false positives: because there are so few pedophiles, there would be more 'normal' people with those traits than there would be pedophiles with those traits.

 

[Farm Boy]

Keep it in mind that this doesn't mean that pedophiles can be detected through brain scans. It merely means that they are statisically more likely to have certain traits than control groups do. And this is certainly not accounting for false positives: because there are so few pedophiles, there would be more 'normal' people with those traits than there would be pedophiles with those traits.

Well, if you can develop a fetal test for the associated traits, false positives and all, maybe we can "cure" it like we're "curing" down syndrome.

 

[Tahuti]

Keep it in mind that this doesn't mean that pedophiles can be detected through brain scans. It merely means that they are statisically more likely to have certain traits than control groups do. And this is certainly not accounting for false positives: because there are so few pedophiles, there would be more 'normal' people with those traits than there would be pedophiles with those traits.

I would rather consider them warning signs that warrant further investigation than actual watertight proof that someone is a pedophile. For that reason, I would not support abortion necessarily for fetal tests that detect such patterns, unless we actually find patterns that are universally present among pedophiles, which - may I add - is unlikely.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, if you can develop a fetal test for the associated traits, false positives and all, maybe we can "cure" it like we're "curing" down syndrome.

I know you say that with bite*: but of course the alternative is to force fetuses into personhood and then play the Russian Roulette that they're not exceptionally prone to pedophelia. The non-false-positives? Sucks to be them. They should learn to make lemonade?


*we get along fine, you & I, so I think I can phrase something acerbically without actually causing offense.

PS:
The first in laboratory cure I've seen for trisomy

Down's syndrome is a common disorder with enormous medical and social costs, caused by trisomy for chromosome 21. We tested the concept that gene imbalance across an extra chromosome can be de facto corrected by manipulating a single gene ... successful trisomy silencing in vitro also surmounts the major first step towards potential development of 'chromosome therapy'.

PPS:

We appreciate recent initiatives by administrators of NIGMS and NIH to support more high-risk, high-impact research. Research began with support from GM053234 to J.B.L. for basic X chromosome research, and was made fully possible by GM085548 and GM096400 RC4 to J.B.L. C.J.B. and A.M.C. were supported by CIHR (MOP-13680) to C.J.B. We thank T. Flotte for encouragement and advice regarding genome editing strategies, and similarly appreciate the support of S. Jones and P. Newburger. We thank T. Collingwood for initial discussions regarding this project, and the George Daley laboratory (Harvard) for the Down’s syndrome iPS cell line. L. Lizotte, Z. Matijasevic, K. Smith and E. Swanson provided various assistance. M. S. Kobor and L. Lam (Kobor laboratory) assisted with methylation analysis. D.M.C. is supported by an NIH fellowship 1F32CA154086 and B.R.C. (O. Rando laboratory) is supported by NIH training grant 2T32HD007439 (G. Witman, PI).

TL;DR, entirely government funded

 

[Farm Boy]

unless we actually find patterns that are universally present among pedophiles, which - may I add - is unlikely.

Naw. Probably not that hard. You can find tons of patterns that are incredibly likely to be present among pedophiles. The trick is in deciding where your margin of error is with those patterns being present in non-pedophiles as well. Better safe than sorry, right? Just prevent anything that might wind up being problematic or inconvenient to deal with later.

 

[Farm Boy]

The first in laboratory cure I've seen for trisomy

Ok, I'd love to try and parse that out better, but it's not my strong suit and it would take me forever. Is the layman's takeaway that downs syndrome may be complexly treatable, rather than simply killed? It's still an ethical conundrum unless arguments regarding neurodiversity are basically entirely dead, but I guess it's a step forward.

I guess I should clarify, I've never though that genetic/gender testing on its own is a wrongness, just what we tend to actually do with that information often is. But I suppose that's pretty normal for a new and handy tool with our species. "Oh! Look what we can do now! How do we use it to kill our way to a better world?"

 

[El_Machinae]

Is the layman's takeaway that downs syndrome may be complexly treatable, rather than simply killed?

I have no idea. I mean, I mostly understand everything that's involved, but I don't know if it's a cure. What they've described is a way to 'silence' the extra chromosome in trisomic cells. Now, straight out, it's an amazingly elegant technique. Like, I boggled with how awesome it was. I might even have gasped as I read. As a biological scientist, I found the whole thing beautiful.

But, the problem is the treatment. Firstly, I have it as a matter of faith that a concerted effort could be designed by which we could apply this therapy to human fetal cells. We'd not get perfect exposure, some cells would be missed, but we might not need 'perfect'. What I mean is, it could be done.

The thing I don't know is whether it could be done in time. By the time the trisomy is detected, the fetus is at a certain level of development. Would even* wide-spread silencing of the extra chromosome make a significant difference, overall? I don't know. Like fetal alcohol syndrome or folic acid deficiency, the bell might already be rung.

So, not completely treatable. Maybe not even partially treatable. But I'm totally unsure regarding that 'maybe'; getting from individual cells to a developing organism is a big unknown. But, it's the closest we've come, and it was a really (really!) impressive step.

*And this would be tough, because I am pretty sure we'd need to correct the neurons ... that's tough.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thank you for the article, and more importantly, your thoughts on it. It's been 10 years since I had anything that resembled biology education, so I'm sure I didn't get any of it in any nuance, but it was still nice to take a stroll through.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can help more.
We have 2 x-chromosomes in girls. 1 x-chromosome in males. We obviously only need one. Actually, 2 would be deleterious. So, what happens is that one X gets 'turned off', in a non-random fashion, apparently by using a specific gene on the x-chromosome that turns off 'all but one' of the x-s.

This is why calico cats are the way they are. Each X-chromosome encodes a specific hair colour. But, which X is 'active' throughout the skin changes according to fetal development. And so, we get this.

We also run into this phenomenon with New World Primate color vision. Some females have a 'Red' on one X and a 'Green' on the other. So, she ends up producing both red and green cones along with the normal blue, and so she can perceive color.

The researchers put that "turn off the chromosome" gene into the trisomic chromosome

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, for totally off-topic:

Spoiler :

So you have two Xs, and one gets turned off, that's the recessive? Or that's something completely different. I'm thinking totally different. Can you idiot guide me though how this differs from trait mixing from parentage? Ok, maybe not totally idiot, I do like biology and am not completely hopeless, but still probably way more basic terms than you are used to thinking in. I'm still mostly in the Mendel-ancient mindset on the mechanics, so I probably need to build from a frame of reference I "get."

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, the turned off X effectively becomes recessive. I mean, it's not the right word, but it's within the gist. Usually 'recessive' refers to one of the two copies of a gene you have (since you have two of each of your genes[ one from each parent] except for the unique genes on your two (different) sex chromosomes). E.g., your Y chromosome has genes on it that are not on your X chromosome. A gene can be recessive, but it's just a description used to describe some genes. Functionally, in each cells, one of a girl's X chromosomes are 'turned' recessive.

In that Calico up there: one of the Xs contain a brown gene. The other contains a black gene. In the black areas, the 'brown' X was turned off. In the brown areas, the 'black' X was turned off. [just pretend there's no white, it complicates everything]. So, each individual skin cell has 2 X chromosomes. It's just that each skin cell has one of those X chromosomes turned off; which of the two is turned off is pseudo-random initially, but you can see that in the adult there's a general 'theme' of similar X's being together.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, was missing that Y does not code for hair/skin color in cats. Alright, so only one X chromosome is "active" in each cell of female kitty. Is that hard and fast? Each cell then run by one chromosome entire gifted by one parent? And which X(or Y) from each parent is active changes in a non-random pattern depending on the cell, the interaction of the different cells across the organism entire making the offspring unique from either parent? Or is the activation between the XX or XY(or XX males or XXY or whatever can actually happen infrequently), erm, muddier within cells? Or probably something completely different?

 

[classical_hero]

Keep it in mind that this doesn't mean that pedophiles can be detected through brain scans. It merely means that they are statisically more likely to have certain traits than control groups do. And this is certainly not accounting for false positives: because there are so few pedophiles, there would be more 'normal' people with those traits than there would be pedophiles with those traits.

So would you say that Pedophilia is natural then?

 

[Angst]

So would you say that Pedophilia is natural then?

Of course it is.

 

[El_Machinae]

So would you say that Pedophilia is natural then?

I think that a heavy proportion of pedophilia can be linked to developmental or early-childhood conditions. These conditions would then make it disproportionately difficult to avoid pedophilic urges and behaviour in a way that a lot of people wouldn't understand.

 

[El_Machinae]

Awesome questions, Farm Boy.

Ok, was missing that Y does not code for hair/skin color in cats.

Okay, very good. Don't worry, Y codes for 'maleness', which is why we only need one Y to turn a fetus into a male.

Alright, so only one X chromosome is "active" in each cell of female kitty.

Yes, exactly. There are 2 X's, but only one is active. Remember, we have 22 other chromosome pairs (which is where trisomy comes from in the first place). 46 in total; 44 (22 pairs) and two sex chromosomes.

Is that hard and fast?

Reasonably so. To the point where it's vastly easier to just assume it to be true.

Each cell then run by one chromosome entire gifted by one parent? And which X(or Y) from each parent is active changes in a non-random pattern depending on the cell, the interaction of the different cells across the organism entire making the offspring unique from either parent?

Kinda. There's only one function "X" per cell. Males are XY, so only one active X. Females are XX, but one of the X's are 'turned off'. Males don't have a turned off X, because we need one functioning to be healthy.

Or is the activation between the XX or XY(or XX males or XXY or whatever can actually happen infrequently), erm, muddier within cells? Or probably something completely different?

XX males have the 'male gene' from the Y on one of their X's. I'm .... not sure what happens with X-inactivation in them. If I were to guess, XXY males would have one of their X's turned off.

edit: poop. Double-post. Apologies. Forgot to 'edit'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, so what I really am trying to sort out then is how the pairings work in general, rather than simply between the sex chromosome pairings. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the 22 non X/Y pairs are responsible for some of the varying genetics between individuals of a species(I don't know what specific traits would be coded on those as opposed to X/Y), is that the case? Or are those 22 pairs reasonably static? So with those 22 pairs, is one "turned off" as well? Or is that where the mixing of expressed parental genetics occurs in sexual reproduction? The X/Y interaction just being unique there, in that females have a duplicate of something they only need one of, so the organism can pick whichever one it wants providing for a degree of redundancy?

 

[cardgame]

So would you say that Pedophilia is natural then?

Are we talking about pedohpilia or ephebophilia (which is what the thread is ostensibly about, anyway)? I would argue the naturalness of the latter, but am no expert in the former.

 

[Samson]

Ok, so what I really am trying to sort out then is how the pairings work in general, rather than simply between the sex chromosome pairings. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the 22 non X/Y pairs are responsible for some of the varying genetics between individuals of a species(I don't know what specific traits would be coded on those as opposed to X/Y), is that the case? Or are those 22 pairs reasonably static?

Most of the variation between individuals of a species comes from variation in the 22 non-X/Y chromasomes, they are probably more variant than the X, and definatly more than the Y.

So with those 22 pairs, is one "turned off" as well? Or is that where the mixing of expressed parental genetics occurs in sexual reproduction?

None of the 22 are turned off in a whole chromasome way like the X. Some small bits are turned off in a way that depends on the parent you got it from, but mose genes are active in both pairs.

The X/Y interaction just being unique there, in that females have a duplicate of something they only need one of, so the organism can pick whichever one it wants providing for a degree of redundancy?

The X/Y interaction is unique. I would say it is closer to "females have a duplicate of something they only need one of" than "the organism can pick whichever one it wants providing for a degree of redundancy" as the organism has no control over which of the 2 are turned off.

 

[Akka]

Are we talking about pedohpilia or ephebophilia (which is what the thread is ostensibly about, anyway)? I would argue the naturalness of the latter, but am no expert in the former.

Ephebophilia and hebephilia are completely natural - their differenciation from "normal" sexuality is actually much more artificial than their existence.
Real pedophilia, I'd say, is probably like homosexuality : certainly naturally-occuring, but not "naturally expected" if you understand what I mean. Though I'm pretty sure it's more complex than that.