“Nothing new” is a dangerous same ole same ole mentality.

There is something new – that is the portion of those being raped and the gender of their sexual attractions. If girls are raped by a man then they are straight and if girls are raped by a woman then they turn out gay and if boys are raped by a man they turn gay etc…. that logic has beed found to be not true when you take into account a greater population. Say for example, a family of sisters or brothers who are raped by the same person and each child responds differently. How would you explain that??

Nothing new is dangerous when trying to help people understand their sexuality. We all have much to learn.

More data on extreme skewing

Skewed X-chromosome inactivation is common in fetuses or newborns associated with confined placental mosaicism

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1716095

From the abstract:

The inactivation of one X chromosome in females is normally random with regard to which X is inactivated. However, exclusive or almost-exclusive inactivation of one X may be observed in association with some X-autosomal rearrangements, mutations of the XIST gene, certain X-linked diseases, and MZ twinning.

What the heck is confined placental mosaicism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confined_placental_mosaicism

The short answer is that it can cause birth defects and general pregnancy problems but typically the baby develops more or less normally.

A Rett syndrome patient with a ring X chromosome: further evidence for skewing of X inactivation and heterogeneity in the aetiology of the disease

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v9/n3/abs/5200604a.html

If I understood this one correctly a TOTAL inactivation of one chromosome can cause Rett Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett_syndrome

INTERESTING!!! Once again a partial connection with Autism.

Thanks for the post, I think I understand. BTW, I had to read it 5 times to figure it out. 😎

Essentially the skewing could be caused by a Strong X.

Thats interesting because the first several articles I read mentioned that X inactivation was random. Although I don’t know much about the process my B.S. meter went up because hardly ANYTHING in nature is random. There is always competition. Then I saw some stories where scientists suspected that forces besides randomness were at work. A Strong X weak x certainly fits in with a non-random theory.

As for how DNA methylation creates risk factors its time for me to do some more reading. That paragraph stretched my cognitive abilities. 😎

To the first yes, because they saw it sometimes in daughters, if my memory serves me right. To the second, it shows inheritance in the skew towards one X-chromosome – at least that is how I read it. When I first saw this I thought of it as a “strong X-chromosome” one that was dominant and resist methylation in the same way genes are either dominant or recessive.

As to diseases, such epigenetic changes, particularly DNA methylation, are susceptible to change and are excellent candidates to explain how certain environmental factors may increase the risk of cancer. Changes may lead to chromosomal instability, loss of imprinting, illegitimate expression, and mutations, and may contribute to the silencing of tumour suppressor genes. And yeah, I had some help writing that.

Drowssap furtherwrote: “What I’m saying is that X inactivation (skewed or otherwise) is not heritable. It is a theoreticaly random process that occurs in the moms while they are forming in the womb. That process isn’t heritable and it isn’t sent to the sons who are born gay. Men don’t even have X inactivation.

Heredity? Wha??? ”

The X-chromosome inactivation is supposed to be random, the skew is a trend against that randomness in favor of one or the other X-chromosomes which resists methylation. Thus if an entire X-chromosome resists methylation, then that epigenetic state is inheritable with the chromosome.

At least that is the way I see it.

What I’m saying is that X inactivation (skewed or otherwise) is not heritable. It is a theoreticaly random process that occurs in the moms while they are forming in the womb. That process isn’t heritable and it isn’t sent to the sons who are born gay. Men don’t even have X inactivation.

Heredity? Wha???

Once again brain melting

I’ve got a question and you might understand this better than me. (correct me if/when I go crazy) X inactivation is a random process in women (except a few with rare genetic disorders) that occurs after fertilization but before the fetus reaches about 64 cells. In each of these cells 1 X chromosome is made dominant and the other is silenced. In most cases each X is used in roughly equal amounts. In a few percent of women it skews one way or the other. This skewing is a risk factor for some diseases. Rarely it skews in a severe fashion towards one chromosome. A brief google search shows that extreme skewing can be big trouble.

This process is considered Epigenetic not genetic because it deals with expression of genes, not inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic

Doesn’t the Hamer study make the case that skewing of X Inactivation in moms who have gay kids shows some type of inheritance? That might make sense but I think my brain is going to melt. If X inactivation is a natural random process that occurs after fertilization how does it show inheritance?

Ok… so more stuff about X inactivation

High frequency of skewed X inactivation in young breast cancer patients

http://jmg.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/30

It is also more common in people with Schizophrenia and Autism. Maybe other stuff too, I dunno all I’ve got is Google.

Interestingly enough some scientists are starting to suspect that the process isn’t random. This would explain why it might be associated with health risks.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1470940

Address the person who wrote the artcle.

“Everybody knows it” doesn’t count as an argument for the validity of your claims, does it?

And Warren, the footnotes DO NOT adress the issue of how “sissiness” was measured and how those measurements were used.