Science news in the New York Times (20 June 2003) had this interesting stunner: "The finding of 78 active genes on the Y contradicts an earlier impression of the chromosome as being a genetic wasteland apart from its male-determining gene. But if the Y is not a wasteland, important consequences ensue for the differences between men and women. As often noted, the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical, when each of their three billion DNA units are compared. But what of men and women, who have different chromosomes? Until now, biologists have said that makes no difference, because there are almost no genes on the Y, and in women one of the two X chromosomes is inactivated, so that both men and women have one working X chromosome. "But researchers have recently found that several hundred genes on the X escape inactivation. Taking those genes into account along with the new tally of Y genes gives this result: Men and women differ by 1 to 2 percent of their genomes, Dr. Page said, which is the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee or between a woman and a female chimpanzee ... 'We all recite the mantra that we are 99 percent identical and take political comfort in it,' Dr. Page said. 'But the reality is that the genetic difference between males and females absolutely dwarfs all other differences in the human genome.'" Comment: another BIG nail in the coffin of the myth of the blank slate (ie, the mind). It goes to the case that "gender" isn't only social--but a lot biological--just as common sense had it before this confirmation came along. It could well mean problems for "gender studies" as presently practiced. This news could also be problematic for "transgender acceptance." (Not immediately, but down the road.) But how about bestiality? I mean if my boy-chimp is just as biologically close to me as my woman...what's the dif? --Orson PS Can you say there's hope for Michael Jackson after all?
Orson asks: "But how about bestiality? I mean if my boy-chimp is just as biologically close to me as my woman...what's the dif?" Speaking personally I think the difference may lie in the fact that I don't find male chimpanzees in any way sexually alluring. Nonetheless, the questions remain; is this due to socialization - "the busey and boundless Fancy of Man" painting on a not so blank white paper or is it an innate idea? Roy Maybery
