0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
How women allegedly differ from men
From a recent article in the New York Times:
'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men may help to explain biological differences between the sexes, according to a new study by researchers from Duke and Pennsylvania State Universities.'
...
'Together, the two papers may explain some of the behavioral and biological differences among women, and perhaps between women and men, according to an article in Nature about the study.'
Great, I thought, now I'll finally learn how the two major groups of humanity differ. (I have only a passed interest in hermaphrodites.) Instead, the article went on, in a Michael Nitabacker vein, to discuss a bunch of biology details that whooshed over my head. It never even mentioned what these alleged behavioural differences are. No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?
Charles Riggs
There are no accented letters in my email address
'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men may help to explain biological differences between the sexes, according to a new study by researchers from Duke and Pennsylvania State Universities.'
...
'Together, the two papers may explain some of the behavioral and biological differences among women, and perhaps between women and men, according to an article in Nature about the study.'
Great, I thought, now I'll finally learn how the two major groups of humanity differ. (I have only a passed interest in hermaphrodites.) Instead, the article went on, in a Michael Nitabacker vein, to discuss a bunch of biology details that whooshed over my head. It never even mentioned what these alleged behavioural differences are. No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?
Charles Riggs
There are no accented letters in my email address
Top answer
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... [/nq] If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others. Keeping it really simple, classical genetics would say that, for example, if your father had a big nose and your mother had a small nose, you wouldn't have a medium-sized nose.
- [nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ...
- [/nq] If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others.
- Keeping it really simple, classical genetics would say that, for example, if your father had a big nose and your mother had a small nose, you wouldn't have a medium-sized nose.
- You'd either have a big nose, because the small-nose genetic inheritance was masked or inactive or whatever, or you'd have a small nose, because the big-nose genetic inheritance was masked or inactive or whatever.
- That's a generalisation for all chromosomes, of which there are several dozen pairs in humans; this particular study was concerned with the single odd-one-out pair that is *** linked (where women get two X chromosomes in a matched pair and men get an X and a Y chromosome is an unmatched pair).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
61 Answers
0
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others.
Keeping it really simple, classical genetics would say that, for
If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others.
Keeping it really simple, classical genetics would say that, for
00
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile?
A: Because she's a woman.
Don
Kansas City
Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile?
A: Because she's a woman.
Don
Kansas City
00
[nq:1] Q: Why can't Helen Keller drive an automobile? A: Because she's a woman.[/nq]
Also, because she is dead. But that is,
admittedly, a secondary consideration mentioned
merely as a backup.
\\P. Schultz
Also, because she is dead. But that is,
admittedly, a secondary consideration mentioned
merely as a backup.
\\P. Schultz
00
[nq:2]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How ... people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
[nq:1]Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile? A: Because she's a woman.[/nq]
Q: Why can't Ray Charles?
S: Um, because he's black?
P: No, because he's blind, you racist!
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
[nq:1]Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile? A: Because she's a woman.[/nq]
Q: Why can't Ray Charles?
S: Um, because he's black?
P: No, because he's blind, you racist!
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
00
[nq:2]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How ... people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
[nq:1]If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others.[/nq]
It is already an untenable oversimplification to view each particular gene as being "for" some particular thing. The vast majority of genes play many diff
[nq:1]If they could find out what the genes are for, which is work in progress: done for some genes, but not others.[/nq]
It is already an untenable oversimplification to view each particular gene as being "for" some particular thing. The vast majority of genes play many diff
00
Aaron Davies had it:
[nq:2]Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile? A: Because she's a woman.[/nq]
[nq:1]Q: Why can't Ray Charles? S: Um, because he's black? P: No, because he's blind, you racist![/nq]
I thought it was because he was dead.
David
==
replace usenet with the
[nq:2]Q: Why can't Hellen Keller drive an automobile? A: Because she's a woman.[/nq]
[nq:1]Q: Why can't Ray Charles? S: Um, because he's black? P: No, because he's blind, you racist![/nq]
I thought it was because he was dead.
David
==
replace usenet with the
00
[nq:1]Aaron Davies had it:[/nq]
[nq:2] S: Um, because he's black? P: No, because he's blind, you racist![/nq]
[nq:1]I thought it was because he was dead.[/nq]
That wisecrack is a sad example of blatant lifism.
Don't you realize that when you become dead, even
if it's not your fault, all your possessions are
taken away from you and you lose the right to
drive and (u
[nq:2] S: Um, because he's black? P: No, because he's blind, you racist![/nq]
[nq:1]I thought it was because he was dead.[/nq]
That wisecrack is a sad example of blatant lifism.
Don't you realize that when you become dead, even
if it's not your fault, all your possessions are
taken away from you and you lose the right to
drive and (u
00
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
I read the same article in our local paper last night.
It seems to reinforce the theory, formulated by popular speech, that male and female are not different sexes, but d
I read the same article in our local paper last night.
It seems to reinforce the theory, formulated by popular speech, that male and female are not different sexes, but d
00
[nq:1]Great, I thought, now I'll finally learn how the two major groups of humanity differ. (I have only a passed ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
Ah, we arrive at deconstructionism. I always love a good fur-flying deconstructionist argument. And deconstructionism is inherently about textual uses, so we're in the proper news
Ah, we arrive at deconstructionism. I always love a good fur-flying deconstructionist argument. And deconstructionism is inherently about textual uses, so we're in the proper news
00
Charles Riggs wrote on 19 Mar 2005:
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
Maureen Dowd has a funny Op-Ed column in response to that article. Here's the last line:
"The discovery about women's superior gene exp
[nq:1]From a recent article in the New York Times: 'How the functioning of X chromosomes differs in women and men ... No fun, but could any group of two or more people ever agree on what they are, if they exist?[/nq]
Maureen Dowd has a funny Op-Ed column in response to that article. Here's the last line:
"The discovery about women's superior gene exp
0
Related Questions