~ archived since 2018 ~

Are women more identical to each other than men are (in AWALT terms, not in looks) because they have two X chromosomes rather than XY?

Petticoat_Rule

January 7, 2015

7 upvotes

I read a post by a red piller in the current thread about AWALT.

I'd like to know your views on it. Please be scientific in your response.

I've had this debate so many times I'm bored of it. Genetically all human beings are pretty fucking identical. Women even more so thanks to the presence of two X chromosomes rather than XY.

EDIT: My view is that women are no more identical to each other than men are. Men may have greater variance than women on opposite ends of the bell curve, but in general most men and women are their own quirky, unique little selves (without being extreme).

the X chromosome contains around 2000 genes compared to the Y chromosome (around 80) A significant percentage of inactive X-chromosome genes in women actually continue to be expressed (more variation)
Most of our ancestors were women (resulting in tremendous variation)
the y chromosome passes through unchanged from father to son and so on (although it's also possible that the X chromosome is changing male traits along the way).

“Y chromosomes are more similar to each other than we expect,” said Wilson Sayres. “There has been some debate about whether this is because there are fewer males contributing to the next generation, or whether natural selection is acting to remove variation.” http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/01/09/study-dispels-theories-of-y-chromosomes-demise/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Are women more identical to each other than men are (in AWALT terms, not in looks) because they have two X chromosomes rather than XY?
Author	Petticoat_Rule
Upvotes	7
Comments	53
Date	January 7, 2015 10:27 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2rodgu/are_women_more_identical_to_each_other_than_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/are-women-more-identical-to-each-other-than-men.283860 https://theredarchive.com/post/283860

Comments

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BaconLove1016 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

This applies from things like height to elbow length to intelligence to how far the choices they'll make will tend to stray from the group.

Most women lie on the normal.

One theory I think explains the advantage of this in a way that makes sense relies on a phenomenon thats common in quite a few species(it definitely is in humans for example) where the males tend to qualify to the females for access to sex, and the females usually are the choosers in sexual relationships. The females have some sort of criteria for judging if the male is a good mate or has advantageous genes. For example: "is he successful in the environment?" The female rejects most advances from males who don't prove themselves.

Males, since they have to qualify for access to sex, tend to be the test-bed for genetic variation. Males which have traits that make them very successful will have access to lots of women. In fact, most women will prefer them and he is perfectly designed to effortlessly impregnate many.

The males with terrible traits tend to not attract females. They are either out-bred or outright die celibate.

This is a good article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/which-sex-is-playing-higher-stakes-reproductive-game

About 3-5% (to as many as 10%) of the bottom males will remain celibate in all realistic scenarios today.

There is genetic research too, (that was controversial but was re-confirmed by numerous other independent studies) that say for any given population, there are almost always between 1.3-2x as many unique female ancestors as unique male ancestors. This has been, based on rough population modeling to estimate that about about 40% of males over history have managed to reproduce, compared to about 80% of females.

This suggests that polygyny may have been very common before complex and organised societies formed and enforced monogamy was instituted(which has been theorized as having the effect of reducing male leftovers and in theory, encourage everyone, including the remaining leftovers, to atleast continue to try to contribute to society for a chance to qualify for sex, whereas previously they had little incentive). However, the effect of women tending to gravitate towards the top 5% of men is still widely observable. MIT and OKcupid and other dating sites have released data that supports this.

[–]Vornnash1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

Before complex society formed all resources were shared within the group, which totally favors female's sexual strategy. More complex societies thay rely on the productiveness of individuals favor beta male reproduction, and monogamy is a beta male cultural/economic institution/reward. However socialism and feminists in the workforce have effectively shifted much of the balance back to women over the past 40 years. Therefore the dual mating strategy has been chosen, AFBB.

The beta male, passive and docile as he is, largely hasn't raised any objections to this redistribution of sexual and financial wealth. He is too busy learning and producing to think on these issues. He is content to work his ass off in his 20's only to be rewarded sexually and financially in his 30's once his wife to be is past her prime and likely directly competing with him for the limited financial resources that ultimately enable his declining sexual strategy. The net result being a decline in birthrates and civilization itself arguably.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

They have no leverage to do so. It's not a matter of choice for them largely, they simply have lower SMV at a young age.

I disagree. It is largely a matter of choice.

I only know a handful of attractive men who just woke up gorgeous. And even they have to work at it. Every other attractive man I know is attractive because they made the choice to be attractive.

Nothing is effortless.

Every man at 22 with a "high SMV" worked at it in some capacity. Point. blank. period.

Show me a man who doesn't?

A beta man can't complain that he worked so hard for 14 years being a hermit and expect a prime-time chick at 32?

Plenty of men put effort in to their careers AND presence. And plenty of these men have been doing this since adolescence. Or since their teens.

The dichotomy TRP presents isn't my reality. All of my male friends work their asses off in their careers and interests, but they also work hard at "looking presentable and good." Even in college. There are the guys who have 3.9 GPAs and on the debate team and on the LAX team and still find time to dress well and work on their fitness.

It's only the "betas" who complain that they can only have time for "their hobbies."

No.

Adult up. The world is their oyster, they are the only ones holding them back.

[–]Vornnash4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

Some people are just born less attractive. Can they work at it? Of course. But there is a hard limit or range that people follow. I don't believe laziness and obesity are the primary reasons beta males are unattractive to women at 22. Plus, betas have other non-physical traits that are generally undesirable to young women, such as pedestalization.

Furthermore, women are the choosers, not men. It is their preferences that have driven the increasing age of first marriage, and only their preferences can reverse that trend. My grandfather was a beta, he graduated from a prestigious law school. And my grandmother told a story that he was close to dropping out and he said he would have done so if not for the support of my Grandmother and the need to provide. I submit to you if he were born today he would have never made it through that law school in the current sexual market, and I don't think he's alone. People respond to incentives, economic and social.

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Your grandfather's story is sweet, but not moving. I don't feel bad for a person "who would have dropped out if not for someone else."

That's a lot of people. Some people need more external support than others. Your grandfather probably wouldn't have been able to make it in today's corporate world it seems.

Can they work at it? Of course. But there is a hard limit or range that people follow.

A man can increase himself from a 4 to a 7 by simply dressing better and getting some facial hair. He starts looking better. He starts feeling better about himself. This is how boost in confidence starts. When you feel confident yourself you start respecting yourself and stop pedestalizing.

But there is a hard limit or range that people follow. I don't believe laziness and obesity are the primary reasons beta males are unattractive to women at 22.

No one said this.

The kid who focuses on being attractive probably builds his confidence via that.

The kid who hangs out with the wrestling team probably learns a lot more about attractiveness than the kid who hangs out with the D&D team exclusively.

Confidence doesn't just come from the opposite sex. It comes from social standing. I got more confidence as an adolescent and teenager via the approval of other girls than boys. And go figure, the hot guys tend to gravitate toward the cool or popular chicks. Hell half of the popular kids weren't even that cute. They just understood how to craft SMV.

[–]Vornnash5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Lol, a lot of young men in their 20's can't grow facial hair that looks decent. Like this guy:

Haha well Enough can. Most of my male friends. Some can't. But enough sure as hell can.

Just ignore the fact he's morbidly obese and look at his hair. This dude is like a 1-2, can he improve himself to a 5? Maybe, maybe not. But he's not making it to a 7.

Nah. He can make 7.

Imagine his facial hair (more coiffed and trimmed on a slimmer more fit face).

Also if he treats his Acne.

If he lost about 70 lbs?

He can clearly grow hair on top of his head, so he would have enough hair to do any of theses: http://i0.wp.com/pulptastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Girly-Group-Squat.jpg?resize=605%2C601

In my opinion all of those guys in that pic I sent you are above 7. And all of them can easily look like the guy you sent. The fat guy you sent could pull off a beard like the guy on the left.

You seriously underestimate the power of a true makeover. I watch a lot of makeover shows. Some of those guys break down in tears because they went from looking fugs to hot.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I really don't think so. People regurgitate the same stuff because people tend to ask the same questions. You, however, seem to turn every conversation you're in, on any given topic into "lulz, unattractive guys are lazy and should stop complaining". I don't know why a woman would put so much effort into shitting on guys you don't even associate with.

Not really. I've posted hundredssss of times in this sub and I don't think the majority of my posts say that.

You are simply unnerved by my observations.

I never said they were lazy. You did.

I said they prioritized what they prioritized.

And other people prioritized what they prioritized.

I don't know why a woman would put so much effort into shitting on guys you don't even associate with.

This personally resonates with you because no one else seems to think I'm shitting on them. Perhaps you can't handle no bullshit critiques or observations.

I will not alter my language. If you feel personally attacked, stop being so sensitive.

[–]DreamCatcher240 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreamCatcher243 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreamCatcher244 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Petticoat_Rule[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Petticoat_Rule[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Petticoat_Rule[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Let me reel in because I think I am not conveying my thoughts well. Also I spoke in more absolute terms than I should have.

Ultimately whether or not my statement is true in an absolute sense depends on your definition of variation and on an assumption about the inheritance of sex-linked genes. Let me pose one of each that make my statement true, and then maybe some others that show that really the statement doesn't have as much weight as it seems.

Let us say that each gene has N possible alleles and that each allele is separated by a width d on an arbitrary number line. Create a number line with each possible permutation of alleles. We can compute the "average" allele across a single-sex population of people by taking the average of each person's alleles on each number line and then averaging the results together. We can compute the standard deviation in a similar way. Let's define "allelic variation" for a population as this standard deviation. Allelic variation as defined this way, across all sex-linked genes (in fact all genes), should be identical between men and women, because men and women are drawing their alleles from the same distribution (actually mutual distributions). You can actually show that men and women, even if they start with different allelic distributions, will eventually have those distributions converge. As an aside let's prove this for a simple case. let's say that, for some sex-linked gene, women only have allele A to begin with and men only have allele B.

GEN 1
If their child is a daughter their punnet square looks like this:

 father B mother A AB A AB

If their child is a son, their punnet square looks like this:

 father B mother A A A A

After 1 iteration, women are heterozygous and men are homozygous. For simplicity, let's assume that each generation only mates with itself.

GEN 2
If their child is a daughter their punnet square looks like this:

 father A mother A AA B AB

If their child is a son, their punnet square looks like this:

 father A mother A A B B

Now fathers have both alleles. One more generation:

GEN 3
Daughter (there are 4 combinations of each man and woman from the prev gen):

 father A mother A AA A AA father B mother A AB A AB father A mother A AA B AB father B mother A AB B BB

Son:

 father B mother A A A A father B mother A A A A father B mother A A B B father B mother A A B B

At this point the allelic frequencies are converging, 4:1 A to B for men and 5:3 A to B for women. Of course they'll go back and forth randomly among different generations but they will average around the same -- intuitively, because men get their sex-linked alleles directly from their mothers, and mothers from both their parents. You can write these as mutually recursive functions and prove that any input converges upon iterating between them.

You can try a more general proof that this works independent of the starting frequencies and number of alleles if you want, but it might be painful. And yes this is very oversimplified, because the derivation is really painful and super super long for the general case. I hope my point is getting made though.

We can do the same thing with genotypes: take the set of all possible genotypes based on the alleles. In fact, women have more genotypes (because they are heterozygous on the x chromosome) and will thus, by default, have greater genotypic variation.

Now let's take the set of phenotypes for a gene -- if the gene is completely dominant and has two alleles, there are two phenotypes. If a gene exhibits incomplete dominance, it should be placed between the dominant and recessive genes on the number line (as it is a combination of them). If a gene exhibits codominance, half-weighted values should be placed at each of the two separate phenotypes on the number line. You can go on and on and define how to reasonably capture other types of gene expression. Then we can define the phenotypic variation as the standard deviation the points on each line, averaged.

Playing out some Punnett squares and calculating the standard deviation based on the phenotypes produced will show that men have more phenotypic variation -- simply because they are hemizygous. Dominant gene expression simply lowers the standard deviation of this metric. I can do out an example if you want; in fact, in the one above, you can see it plainly: women have a very low chance of getting a recessive phenotype (if the trait is completely dominant) and a more centered distribution of A-expression for incomplete dominance; for codominance, women have slightly more phenotypic variation, but not all traits are codominant, and this step in the generations happens to have a lot of heterozygotes.

Now one could argue about my mappings of things like incomplete dominance and codominance to a metric for variation. You could also argue that I oversimplified the whole thing way too much, e.g. most phenotypes are polygenes and that inheritance of sex-linked genes is not primarily dominant (even less so recessive, though). (Here's a paper showing the fact, from the Wikipedia citation, if you're interested.)

And you'd be right. For single-gene traits like many diseases (e.g. autism), men have more phenotypic variance because they don't need two recessive alleles to express the disease. These cases are simple. For more complex traits, I imagine that some are more phenotypically diverse in females because of things like bizarre forms of expression and inheritance; others are probably less phenotypically diverse. On average I'd argue that, because the building blocks hint at female sex-linked traits being less phenotypically diverse, that similar properties would manifest in more complex scenarios. But I certainly can't prove that and don't know it as a fact or any such thing. Measurements like IQ are tainted by anthropological/sociological variables and although it's certainly feasible that the "narrower bands" (as an RPer above put it) around the averages for things like IQ could be explained by this mechanism, no link has been directly shown yet.

Here are some other interesting links (hur hur):

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/why-the-human-x-chromosome-is-less-diverse/#.VK9mTlRGh0M http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

And one final thought. I want to say that "diverse" is a really overloaded and confusing word in this conversation, which is why I tried to be a bit more precise about saying what I meant. The metric I described above that might not be well-described (since I typed it out pretty fast and am not sure how comprehensible my explanation of it is), but it's still a precise metric. In the above paper, they talk about diversity in a different way, basically meaning "there is less inter-organism variation on genes" hence, the term they use is "genetic diversity." No they are not talking about the same thing I'm talking about, and that particular statement does not have anything to do with male/female differences -- though they do go into that in the paper a bit. Know that I'm not trying to prescribe some all-important definition of genetic diversity here, just trying to answer the OP's question as well as possible.

Simply put, my personal beliefs on the matter are that women are slightly more phenotypically similar to each other than men, especially for simple (e.g. single-gene) traits. But, I don't think that is bad or good! And I think the difference is so slight to be negligible (except in the case of single-gene traits).

edited out some Punnett square mistakes
edited some terminology inconsistencies

[–]BaconLove1010 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soylentblueissmurfsSoylent Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]soylentblueissmurfsSoylent Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]soylentblueissmurfsSoylent Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreamCatcher244 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Calico cat:

Calico cats are domestic cats with a spotted or parti-colored coat that is predominantly white, with patches of two other colors (often, the two other colors are orange tabby and black). Outside of North America, the pattern is more usually called tortoiseshell-and-white. In the province of Quebec, they are sometimes called chatte d'Espagne (French for '(female) cat of Spain'). Other names include brindle, tricolor cat, mi-ke (Japanese for 'triple fur'), and lapjeskat (Dutch for 'patches cat'); calicoes with diluted coloration have been called calimanco or clouded tiger. Occasionally, the tri-color calico coloration is combined with a tabby patterning. This calico patched tabby is called a caliby.

Image ⁱ - A typical calico

^Interesting: ^The ^Duel ^(poem) ^| ^{Tortoiseshell} ^cat ^| ^Calico ^(textile) ^| ^Tama ^(cat)

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Antiteetotaler 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrodPops all pills when necessary. And keeps a heavy stash of RPs.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pointless_Endeavors-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconLove1016 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link