unironically what would happen if someone replaced their y chromosome with a duplicated x and cloned it into a full human
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
unironically what would happen if someone replaced their y chromosome with a duplicated x and cloned it into a full human
Not necessary. You don't need a second X chromosome to be a woman.
that's very pogger chungus but i'm asking if that's how it works or would the clone be fricked up
nta but im sure he means that a fetus develops to a biological woman with just a single x chromosome. it's called turner syndrome you absolute fricking moron.
Not sure if I understand this correctly but if you just replaced every of your Y chromosomes with X as an adult probably not much since chromosomes don’t do much besides telling your body to develop male/female phenotype. Maybe you’d need to take hormone therapy but not necessarily since your puberty is already over
Basically some variant of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
>ask question clearly
>make up different question, then answer it
what would happen if you created a human clone with male dna, but the y chromosome was replaced with a duplicate of its correspondent X, and developed it (in a tank or whatever the frick)
Are you stupid? Even kids know that. You have the dna needed to be a woman within you, that's why you grow boobs if you take progesterone
would it be like dysgenic because it's a duplicated chromosome instead of the x from your father
No, it would just have the x chromosome based traits exclusively from the mother.
Idk much about them chromosomes, but if that last xx/xy contain all information on gender then I would think it'd work
No, it does not work like that. The X chromosome has data that you need regardless of if you're a man or a woman, the Y chromosome only has one gene, and it's the gene that makes you male, if you don't have that gene you're female, if you have that gene in another chromosome because of gene editing you're still male
The Y has more than one gene, it's just that only SRY is the thing that makes you male. You're right that if you put SRY on another chromosome it can still turn you male.
Other genes on the Y have some regulatory effects on autosomal genes and their expression etc.
Yes, I meant only one relevant gene. The other ones are useless. The Y chromosome is shit, it's a defective chromosome, and it's bound to disappear in a few thousand years. All other genes have migrated to other chromosomes but the sry gene. Once it does, it's game over for the Y chromosome
That isn't going to happen, humans are going to be directly genetically engineered to become the Amazon female small male race in 5-10 years.
>it's bound to disappear in a few thousand years.
No it isn't. That's moronic.
You don't believe in evolution? The Y chromosome is defective dna junk
See
Evolution isn't happening anymore on humans via natural selection.
Also I only realized it yesterday (I don't know how it took me so long) but I realized that the big woman small man race is literally samus aran and megaman lol
>literally encodes properties not found on the X chromosome, e.g. morality, intellectualism or empathy
>hurr durr, it's just defective dna junk
NPC moment
Weak bait. Men cheat more than women
Objectively false. Women literally evolved to be illoyal as it was an evolutionary advantage.
It was an evolutionary advantage to men, because they could spread their genes better that way. Women have to be selective, because they can't have more kids while they're pregnant
Scenario 1:
A woman just had her vegana filled with Chad's sperm. Now she meets a chadder Chad (e.g. taller than Chad 1). By immediately having sex with Chad 2 she has a realistic chance to have her eggs impregnated with his sperm instead of Chad 1's sperm. An evolutionary genetic advantage of illoyalty for the offspring's genes.
Scenario 2:
A hostile tribe won the war and killed all men of the other tribe. The women of the defeated tribe can either be loyal to their deceased men or be illoyal. The loyal ones were killed and didn't pass on their genes. The illoyal ones ended up in the winning tribe's Chad harem and got impregnated. Illoyalty favored by natural selection.
This is not how it works
please actually learn about evolutionary biology
I just demonstrated that female illoyalty increased genetic fitness and chances of survival. This is literally what evolution is all about.
I didn't read all your post, but if a woman is pregnant, she can't frick another man and override her pregnancy
Do either of you have any actual understanding of genetics?
Your posts are literally moronic
I studied genetics and evolution in depth and most likely know much more about it than you. Ad hominem is not an argument.
You highly doubt it. Right off the bat, humans aren't a tournament species, so your scenario is wrong.
What is schizo is thinking the Y chromosome is going anywhere or that the SRY gene is the only gene that regulates autosomal expression.
>humans aren't a tournament species
They literally are one of the worst tournament species.
Nope. Human mating is not tournament selection
Human mating is "the chaddest Chad gets all the females". Tell me how this isn't a tournament.
Because that literally is not what human mating is.
Humans are monogamous moron. Everything in our DNA and sexual dimorphism indicate this
Humans are not a tournament species.
Humans aren't monogamous, moron. Monogamy is an ideology that spread in the neolitic in order to counteract STDs like chlamidea or syphilis.
If humans were monogamic because of their dna, poly people wouldn't exist
>Humans aren't monogamous, moron.
Yes they are. The amount of effort it takes to gestate, provide for, and protect a baby requires biparental care. IT requires both the father and mother raising the offspring together. If the mother is alone without a male, she will die, and if the male tries to provide care for multiple females and their offspring, he will not be capable of doing this, as it would require gathering an amount of food and protection that no individual male is capable of.
Humans raise babies in monogamous pairs. Everything about our DNA, sexual dimorphism, and the amount of time it takes to raise babies indicates this.
Nope. See above.
Also by the way, monogamy is the FEMALE mating strategy, not the male one. The male wants to have sex with many females and not help raise any of them. The female desires commitment and input from the male, she wants to control the male and have him help her without him going off to leave and spread his genes. So again, you're already making no sense by claiming that females are evolved to not be monogamous. Monogamy is the female strategy.
You must have a really good keyboard if you write that much, Jesus Christ. If you want me to reply to you any further, please summarize your thoughts, because I'm not reading that wall of text
Are you genuinely moronic? Nothing there is long to read. And there is no abbreviation possible, it's already in an abbreviated form
You are genuinely one of the least intelligent posters I've come across in a while. You have no understanding of biology or genetics.
Entirely wrong shit for brains. You have no idea how evolution actually happened in our species.
Seriously both of you are shit for brains morons. You have a radical feminist who has no understanding of what she's talking about, and a shit for brains incel that has no idea what he's talking about. Meanwhile I'm in graduate school for genetics.
Sorry simp, but women do not act the way you fantasize. Women are driven by primitive sexual urges for tall and dominant men.
Women in hunter gatherer societies display no preference for male height
The industrial revolution and its consequences have truly been a disaster.
The female mating strategy is to look for the tallest and most dominant male and get fricked by him immediately. Funnily by doing so they often find the kind of male most likely to turn them into a single mom. Exactly the opposite of your simp fantasies.
humans are naturally neither tournament nor monogamous mating but a blend of the 2, humans are a k selective pack hunter species
a tournament mated tribe with a chad with a harem of women who kicked out all the other males will be btfo by one that can organize multiple beta males together in service of an alpha
that is how human mating works, the chad gets to mate with all the women and gets the pick of them for wives, maybe 2-4 wives, then the rest of the betas get to wife and breed with the leftover women the alpha has fricked and doesnt want to mate with and care for
as for sigma incels like yourselves, that wasnt a problem as tribal community bonds + high natural selection means u would either be culled in the hunt or in battle if weak or would have become a self sufficient contributing beta
This is literally not how it works holy fricking shit.
moron, we can analyze hunter gatherer societies and see how they do things you fricking brainlet. They pair up monogamously, there is no "chad" or "beta" or "sigma males" that you're describing at all, and they all basically have kids and raise their kids together.
Also I've been with 19 women. I am more sexually successful than you if you really want to go there. You have no idea what you're talking about at all.
bruh even if you werent an incel being able to take advantage of degenerate modern culture and its devolved sexual norms has nothing to do with the natural human state of things
successful males have always taken multiple wives in pre agricultural society as hunting and violence kill more men and leave a surplus of women. as i described he does not take a harem and the other women are distributed among the betas of the tribe, but the alpha absolutely does get his pick of the best women. its long term relationship based, yes, not just frick and impregnate women but stay with them for parenting. but that doesnt mean strict monogamy, which wasnt enforced until much later with religious ideology in agricultural society when the tribal structure was lost and each family unit had to be self sustaining.
I'd be the chieftain in a hunter gatherer tribe as I am insanely intelligent.
>humans are monogamous
This was a temporary historical phase enforced by religious morality. The natural state of females is promiscuity. Historical institutions oppressed the female nature but now it comes back unleashed.
Then read the post, moron. I explained it and your rebuttal has been implicitly accounted for.
I don't have the time or the energy to read or pay attention to your schizo ramblings. Sorry not sorry
Scenario 1:
Aliya al Aqsa betrayed her husband by revealing her ankles to her son. She is stoned to death. Loyalty rewarded by natural selection
Scenario 2:
Local hero arrives in village at your wedding and declares jus primae noctis, the right to deflower your soon-to-be wife. Loyalty to the state and to your people's heroes ensure you do not die that night.
Your first point only highlights that strictly enforced morality is the only way to suppress the natural female illoyalty. It takes a lot of effort because by nature they'd be illoyal.
This is such sad incel pseudoscience that views women as nothing more than dehumanized objects. Men can be loyal and there is no reason to think there is some biological mechanism that makes women different. For example, it was Joan of Arc who rallied France together in the Hundred Years' War at a point when morale was at its lowest. She changed the course of history for her nation of France by helping achieve victory against the invading English. She had more hope and determination than any man and burned at the stake for her unwavering loyalty.
>successful males have always taken multiple wives in pre agricultural society as hunting and violence kill more men and leave a surplus of women. as i described he does not take a harem and the other women are distributed among the betas
Women fight in battle and lead too chud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare
https://greekreporter.com/2022/03/08/warrior-women-gamers-ancient-world-female-fighters/
A woman isn't going to let some man that killed her spouse enslave her especially not when she can drive a sword through his skull when he's sleeping. Women have logic and emotion like men and are perfectly capable of vengeance too.
Joan of Arc is nothing more than a meme. She was historically insignificant and is only hyped by simps. There are millions of men who died in these wars. None of them is remembered. But she had a vegana, so she must be a saint in the eyes of the coom-brained simp.
The main point of that single example was to debunk the claim that women are "disloyal" which it did.
>There are millions of men who died in these wars
Many women too. Patriarchal Abhrahamic religion generally discouraged women from participating in the realm of martial affairs but rest assured before women definitely fought in battle and were military leaders like men. Even that didn't stop women because you had female snipers and partisans during WW2 and the amazing woman Nadezhda Durova who disguised as a man so she could become a soldier and officer to fight in the deadly Napoleonic Wars. You're just going to have to deal with it woman-hater.
>None of them is remembered
We have special days dedicated to commemorating veterans and victories.
>she must be a saint
She was canonized as such by the Roman Catholic Church.
>to debunk the claim that women are disloyal
How did you debunk it? You just dropped the name Joan of Arc. We don't know how many men she had sex with, but probably many.
>https://greekreporter.com/2022/03/08/warrior-women-gamers-ancient-world-female-fighters/
>women-gamers
Then explain why most women orgasm during rape
>Joan of Arc
Wasn't she just a propaganda character?
>illoyal
You mean "alloyal"
Why are you ignoring the only relevant posts in your thread?
Also you're wrong, the SRY is not the only gene on the Y that regulates autosomal gene expression.
Proof?
We're ignoring you because big dominant women aren't real, and you'll never be loved by one. You're just living in a fantasy, man
I've had sex with 9 women who were taller than me, so you're already wrong.
Also I'm discussing genetically engineering humans to express female biased sexual size dimorphism. This other anon is talking about the Y chromosome vanishing in thousands of years, when within a decade from now we're going to be genetically engineering people to express certain traits (specifically making women tall and super fecund and men small and agile and athletic). So the whole idea is irrelevant.
If you're actually sitting here thinking that the Y chromosome isn't going to exist in a few thousand years or that humans aren't going to be large women and small men within 20 years you're simply wrong and not looking at the state of the world
Women hate short men. This would have already happened if true.
No it wouldn't have, because we need to modify our genome to express female biased dimorphism. I don't understand why you anons always say this shit. If a tall woman and a short man have kids, the sons aren't short and the daughters aren't tall.
Also, women do not hate short men, again your incel shit is not real life.
Cute! Why is big woman small man so wholesome bros?
Because you're a manchild and want to be babied
Small men are superior to large ones, they have superior genes. Why do you think we're going to genetically engineer men to be small?
It's super cute! It's a superior dimorphism in almost every way. It would spread exponentially faster, while using less resources, and having massive advantages in economic and military power
wait so the point of this thread is just knowing if you could no homosexual frick yourself?
Would it be masturbation or incest?
>>literally encodes properties not found on the X chromosome, e.g. morality, intellectualism or empathy
source
That's not how evolution works.
>and it's bound to disappear in a few thousand years.
this is yor brain in hrt drugs
Male dna is Y chromosome
If you developed without it you’d be a woman
If you had them replaced somehow after being born you’d probably be a some variation of intersex
Depends on what information is coded into that X chromosome. Regardless, I would frick her
This is the future
>unironically what would happen if someone replaced their y chromosome with a duplicated x and cloned it into a full human
OR you could just have a daughter the normal way!
I've thought about this question myself every day for the past 10 years.
What happens if you ditch the x chromosome and instead have two Y? is a gigachad spawned?
you get only X from mom
The xkcd guy did a thing on this. IIRC it's like the effect of multiple generations of incest in one go.
why not go double y?
Some disorder.
https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/the-woman-who-gave-birth-despite-most-of-her-cells-having-xy-chromosomes/
It would create an idiot who is still smarter than the moron who uses the word "unironically".
it would be extremely painful
You would have exactly the female version of yourself