WXYZ-Chromosome Theory

So here I am today, thinking again (what luck for me )...

Within genetic theory, the chromosomes that engender the human animal are most notably 'X' and 'Y'. The X-chromosome denotes the 'female' gender; the Y-chromosome denotes the 'male' gender. Classically, what people would call a definitive "Woman" is her genetic phenotype of 'XX'. For a man, it is 'XY'. However, science is not so simple as this. There are many estranged sexual conditions, including cases of apparent retardation and impotency that suggest that deviations away from the 'XX' or 'XY' phenotypes are mutations of the base specie. In other words, although there are 'men' and 'women' in the world, it is not so easy to differentiate this linguistic qualification when some men are actually-comprised of --say-- the 'XXXYYYYYYYYY' phenotype. And that does not make much sense to me, personally-speaking...

Does 'XXXXX' make sense to you? Does 'XXYYY' make sense to you? I do not see that it should (unless it applies to your person):

Quote :

The karyotypes include, 48,XXXX, 49,XXXXX, 48,XXYY, 48,XXXY, 49,XXXXY, 49,XXXYY, 48,XYYY, 49,XYYYY, and 49,XXYYY. Pediatrics 1995 ;96 :672-682 ; sex chromosome abnormalities, tetrasomy, pentasomy, 48,XXXX, 49,XXXXX, 48,XXYY, 48,XXXY, 49,XXXXY, 49,XXXYY, 48,XYYY, 49,XYYYY, 49,XXYYY.

What this leads me to believe is that there is a massive mis-identification when it comes to both labeling and understanding sexual perversions. What I see as truly-occurring, according to the Feminization of Man theory, is that the 'female'-'male' qualification becomes outdated in-and-of itself. What makes a Man a 'man'? What makes a Woman a 'woman'? Is it a functional penis? Is it a functional vagina? Is it something more?

What I propose is a 'W'-'XY'-'Z' classification for the human animal specification of gender. We may treat 'W' and 'Z' as unknown qualifiers.

What I propose further is that the 'W' classification must be a PRE-gression while the 'Z' classification must be a PRO-gression. In other words, the human species is biologically-splitting into two distinct categories of the Human Animal. They are the 'WX' phenotype contrasted to the 'YZ' phenotype. It would appear like this (in scientific terms): 'WX' <- 'XX' <> 'XY' <> 'YY' -> 'YZ'. If Man is linguistically-defined & rooted in the 'XY' phenotype (which it is), then Man is comprised of a duality of genders, 'female' and 'male'. I would then posit that the 'XX' phenotype represents the "Woo"-man and the 'YY' phenotype represents the "Uber"-man. And this is where the Feminization of Man process leads to anyway, a divergence, fragmentation, and full separation of species through its own natural & biological differences. However, none of this happens instantaneously (depending on how you qualify/quantify time). Just because the "Uber"-man is possible, does not mean that he has exposed himself to us yet. Besides, even now on philosophy forums across the internet, nobody seems to understand the clear-differentiation between Man and Woman, except perhaps me and a few other men. So, it would make perfect sense to conclude that yet another fraction of thinkers may not be able to distinguish Man from Uberman.


This implies some necessary predictions:

1) The separation of 'man' from 'woman' will reintroduce hermaphrodites into the human specie (apparently-neither man nor woman).

2) The classifications of Man versus Woman, as a dichotomy, will become exponentially-pronounced. (Duality: God v Nature, Reason v Unreason)

3) The reclassification of the "Middle Man", the new hermaphroditic entities of the human specie. (penis & vagina genitals, or metamorphosing)

4) The proclassification of *TWO* new human genders: 'undefined', 'female', 'male', 'undefined'. (perhaps "uber-female" and "uber-male"?)

5) The proclassification of *TWO* new human species: 'subhuman' v 'transhuman'.



Here is some reading material for anybody who wishes to engage me concerning this topic:

The XYZ Controversy

"XYZ chromosome abnormality"

XYZ (so-called fictional story)

Generation XYZ

gene "Z" debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_and_differentiation_(human)#Other_sex_determination_genes)

Sex Chromosome Abnormalities

A fair & just question:

Quote :

name John M.
status other
age 50s

Question - A question was asked if YY chromosome human could live.
The scientists said a human with YY only could not exist yet 60% of the
Salmon in the Columbia River today who are female in body are in reality,
genetically XY. This is because these pseudo females are induced to grow
as females due to hormonal triggers in the pesticide/fertilizer
ecosystem. XY male mates with XY female and a percentage become YY. So,
if it is possible in fish , then why not in humans?
----------------------------------------
I do not know if a salmon Y chromosome contains enough genetic material for
the fish to live without any Y-chromosome genes present. The issue is not
whether a zygote can be assembled so that its genome is YY, the issue is
whether such a cell can grow into a living adult.

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director
PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois

Funny...

Quote :

Only Bruce Willis, Johnny Depp and Elvis have the ultimate macho YY chromosomes.

Hypotheses

Quote :

Quote :

thisispain posted:
It would be dead, seeing as it wouldn't have any genetic function, since the Y chromosome only stores male-specific DNA.

Basically, just a dead floating ball/dick of testosterone.

So basically it'd be a dick with a lifeless corpse on it? Neat.

But seriously that's a bit lame, I thought there was more to it than that. :p

This leads me to believe that the 'YY' phenotype would be a male predestined-only to reproduce.

It now seems probable that such an "Uberman" would live only old enough to where he could pass on his genes, then die immediately-afterward.

More stuff

Quote :

Trojan sex chromosomes
Recently, Gutierrez and Teem [5] modeled the repeated
introduction of individuals that are phenotypically sex
reversed from that expected given their genotype (i.e.
carriers of so-called Trojan sex chromosomes; [5]). They
showed it to cause a disproportionate influx of one sex
chromosome into subsequent generations, biasing the sex
ratio and leading to potential population extinction. In
some fish species displaying male heterogamety (where
XY = males and XX = females), viable females carrying two
Y chromosomes can be created over two generations using
estrogen treatments during early development (Box 2).
These YY females can then be released into an exotic
population to mate with normal XY males. The resulting
progeny comprise only XY and YY males, and the population
sex ratio becomes male biased. This deviation from
sexual unity increases in subsequent generations owing to
the presence of the YY males, whose offspring will be all XY
males (when mated with an XX female) or all YY males
(when mated with an introduced YY female). Further
introduction of even small numbers of YY females into
the population might therefore be sufficient to cause an
ever-increasing sex ratio bias towards males and a diminishing
number of true (XX) females. The efficacy of eradication
depends on the life history of the target species, but
Gutierrez and Teem [5] estimate that an input of YY
females of !3% of the population would be sufficient to
cause extinction in a population of several hundred individuals
within a few decades. The speed of extinction of the
population increases with the number of YY females introduced
and with heightened rarity of XX females (e.g. as a
result of chance loss or because extreme male-biased sex
ratios increase deleterious harassment of females by males
taxa lag behind that seen currently in fish. Although the
original model [5] envisaged genetic sex determination via
distinct sex chromosomes, we believe that similar
dynamics will also be observed in systems in which sex
is dictated by one or a few major genes.

Viability Disproven

Quote :

By T. Yamamoto
In: "MEDAKA(killifish) : Biology and Strains"
Yamamoto, T. (ed.) , Keigaku Pub. Co., Tokyo, 1975, pp. 236-242.

Successful induction of complete reversal in sex differentiation in the medaka (Oryzias latipes), where the normal sex differentiation is XX for female and XY for male, makes it possible to attack a number of problems otherwise difficult to approach. The viability of YY zygotes is one of challenging problems. Since the time of Bridges (1916) the YY zygote in Drosophila, arising from nondisjunction, has been known to be invariably nonviable. This is because the Y in Drosophila is mostly, if not entirely, inert.

Exceptional fishes that have arisen by genic outbalance between allosomal and autosomal sex-genes can be and have been used for such a purpose. For instance, Winge (1934) and Winge and Ditlevsen (1938, 1947) in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Lebistes reticulatus) demonstrated viability of YMaYPa (Ma = Maculatus, Pa = Pauper) versus lethality of YMaYMa. Aida (1936) showed that YrYr males in Aplocheilus (now Oryzias) latipes are viable. They used exceptional XY females, which sporadically appeared in their breeds. The appearance of such exceptions, however, is often too infrequent and sporadic to be used satisfactorily to attack the problem under consideration. Aida for instance, used only two exceptional XY females, which were inappropriately called sex-reversals.

As stated before viable YRYR zygotes are extremely rare. A lethal action of some sort seems to be operative in the majority of the zygotes having the constitution YRYR. In contrast to the rarity of YRYR males, the majority of YRYr and YrYr males are found to be viable (Yamamoto, 1961, 1964). Furthermore, it was possible to invert sex differentiation of YRYr (Yamamoto, 1963a) and YrYr zygotes (Yamamoto, 1967) and actually to detect them as functional females.

The hypothesis that the writer has been led to adopt (Yamamoto 1964a) is the presence of an inert segment (-) in the regular YR chromosome, which in the duplex condition results in nonviavility, and the presence of a "viability" section (+) at the corresponding region in the X chromosome (Fig. 19-1). It is true that our results could be interpreted as well on the basis of the presence of a recessive lethal factor (l) in the regular YR chromosome. The asymmetry of crossing over occurring in XrYR and XRYr males (Aida, 1930) favors the inertsection hypothesis rather than a single lethal factor, since a point lethal does not, as a rule, affect the frequency of crossing over.

What we see here is that the 'YY' phenotype is definitively-viable in Fish populations ... but apparently-not in Human populations. -- Why?

What is the difference? Luckily, I have an answer for these questions...


How many fish are in the sea? Seriously, how many are there? (Keep in mind that the human population numbers ~6 billion) After searching the internet for awhile I have found that there are ~2 billion TONS of fish in the ocean (not counting lakes & rivers). And a ton is ~2240 lbs of fish. I will just make a flat-out guess and say that an "average" fish is 2 lbs. So that means that there are 1120 fish per ton. This means, I guess...

There are ~2240 BILLION fish in the ocean...

I could be wrong; I probably am. However, The Gods-honest-truth is that nobody actually-knows how many Fish populate the ocean. But, apparently, that number is fucking insane compared to humans on the Earth's surface. This leads us to conclude that the Human population is relatively-*NEW* to Earth. Us human animals have not been around that long, compared to fish for example. My point is this though: if the 'YY' phenotype exists in Fish populations, then it is only due to the bio-genetic diversity of such a staggeringly-high population/number/quantity of fish in the ocean. Humans pale in-comparison to this.

What this leads me to believe is that as the Human population continues to evolve and overpopulate, the human phenotypes will change (regarding sex) at the very least. Just because the 'YY' phenotype has not been observed yet does not mean that it will *NEVER* be observed, or, even more obtusely-stated, that it is "impossible". Because clearly, it is possible...


As the human population continues to expand exponentially, human life will probably witness the birth of the 'YY' phenotype in due time. Let us think of this: 'XX' is "Woman", 'XY' is "Man", and 'WXYZ' is "Hermaphrodite" (or undefined, for now). This implies that the 'XXXYYY' combinations of the Human Sexual Archetype allow 'female' hermaphrodites to birth & carry 'YY' phenotypes to term. And this may be a sign of infertility ... Regardless, it makes necessary sense. For example, let us say that there is a hermaphrodite named Susan. S/he is born 'XXYYY'. Let us assume that she is fertile, defying the odds against possible retardations or deformities (against outlying gender combinations). Let us then say that an 'XY' man impregnates her and passes on his 'Y' gene. There is no reason to disbelieve, being a hermaphrodite, that she is incapable of producing a 'Y' zygote to match the 'Y' sperm. After all, Susan is capable of such a thing, pending her hermaphroditic (mixed) gender.

And this is how reality works anyway. Until I am proven otherwise, anybody can point out to me a "Man" or a "Woman" to prove everything one-way-or-another to me.