Dudes, You Started Out As Girls. Fun Video Explains How!

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Deanna Ogle

Deanna Ogle hails from the greater Detroit area and her work has appeared in The Good Men Project, The Printed Blog, and Provoketive Magazine. She is studying journalism and religious studies, and writes at her personal blog Soul like a Spider. Loves: carnations, iced espresso, and watching movies with her husband. Find her at Twitter, Google and Facebook.

Comments

  1. wellokaythen says:

    There’s real bad news from the womb for male humans. Once the sex can be established, male embryos are slightly more common than female ones, but male embryos have higher rates of miscarriage, which leads to slightly more female babies born than males, despite the males’ early advantage. This calls into question the overall assumption that males are stronger than females. The time in the uterus says otherwise.

    In utero, early in the pregnancy, it’s the most basic form of female privilege at work, not male privilege….

    • strength differs via age. Before puberty there is no major difference in strength musclewise, after puberty men get more testosterone and more muscle mass, plus better bone structure suited to lifting heavy weights (mostly with the hips n knees, females get more injuries lifting). But women have stronger immunity so what is strength defined by really?

      • wellokaythen says:

        And relative to the weight of the muscle, pound-for-pound the strongest muscle found in humans is the uterus.

  2. Well, Dudette – pleased to learn this, since I can now blame deviancy on my mutant genetic inheritance.

    You possessors of true genetic purity are fortunate to be

    “in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. I can’t help it. I was born sneering. But I struggle hard to overcome this defect. I mortify my pride continually”

    true genetic aristocrats!!

  3. QuantumInc says:

    As the video notes, most researchers call it the “gender neutral” phase. Even after birth boys and girls are not very different, many of the identifying differences don’t show up until puberty. Boys and girls act differently, but they are also treated and raised differently since the day they are born.

    It’s rather depressing to see people scream “female privilege!!!!” right here. I agree that female privilege is a problem, one that most gender activists are not help with. However it seems really irrelevant to this video. I’m sure evolution has come up with a number of mechanisms to keep the number of male and female babies equal, but it doesn’t have any moral significance. Really have no concept what rezam is talking about.

    • QuantumInc
      “As the video notes, most researchers call it the “gender neutral” phase.”

      Well, no, the video states “some prefer to call this stage gender neutral”. Which “some” prefer female, and which prefer neutral? This site prefers female. Scientist prefer neutral – and for good reason.

      “Even after birth boys and girls are not very different, many of the identifying differences don’t show up until puberty. ”
      Only if you insist on ignoring the masculinization of the brain in utero.

      “Boys and girls act differently, but they are also treated and raised differently since the day they are born.”

      This is the re-hashed tabula rasa theory from the seventies. It really is not so. Go back and look at the micro studies that were part of the investigation into attachment theory, and see that it is the infant that does the prompting of the caregiver, and not the reverse. You assert that gender identity is imposed by caregivers through differential treatment – it is not that simple.

      _____________________
      This is noted in the comments on the Youtube page for this clip, and I am using this to point out that the author of this post either did not bother to look at the comments, or did and is ignoring the explanation.

      “Prior to sex development, everyone has DUAL Pre-SEX Anatomical parts, and none of them have differentiated to EITHER ONE or the OTHER!!!
      Everyone has BOTH a Pre-VAGINA (Müllerian – paramesonephric ducts) as well as a Pre-PENIS (Wolffian – mesonephric ducts) set of undifferentiated anatomical parts. This is PROOF, that the body is NOT ‘essentially female’, but COMPLETELY DUAL PRE-SEXED, period.

      All have both PRECURSOR SEX parts!
      The SRY-gene (on the Y) plays a PARTIAL role in signalling for Testesterone to signal for the Wolffian HALF to grow, BUT, in order for that to work, a Testosterone SENSITIVE GENE must EXIST too (found ONLY on the X side), otherwise the Wolffian (Penis) half? will be bypassed, and the Müllerian (Vagina) half grows instead.

      ALSO, in order for the Wolffian (Penis) half to grow, the Müllerian (Vagina) half MUST BE INHIBITED, otherwise BOTH halves will grow (partially/incompletely).
      SO, BEFORE EITHER HALF, Wolffian (Penis) or Müllerian (Vagina) starts to GROW, there is NOTHING ‘female’ about a body (fetal/baby body) that is female or male whatsoever. As for BREASTS/NIPPLES, they are NOT SEX SPECIFIC, as they are common to everyone, and all have ‘pre-ready-made’ HORMONE receptors set to ‘grow or NOT grow’ depending? on available hormones that are turned on later in life to get ‘boobs’. Breasts are NOT ‘female’ NOR ‘male’ characteristics. Oversimplification: Misleading”
      ___________________________

      So the link on the main page says : “Dudes, You Started Out As Girls. Fun Video Explains How!” & “how we all start out as female with this awesome science video”.
      This is simply incorrect science.
      So why is this message being touted?

      This is essentially a feminist site, I assume we can agree on that? What are some of the mesages that have been promulgated when feminists use this issue?

      One is a refutation that Eve was generated from Adam – the feminist reversal is that Adam was generated from Eve, and that this is proof that men have used religion to subvert women’s proper place in the genesis of humanity. (For those that like that kind of thing…)

      Another is that men are a genetic and biological dead-end, due to the deterioration of the Y chromosome. This line of thought, as advanced by Sykes in his 2003 effort ” Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men”, held that essentially men are a dead end. This was picked up by other researchers such as Professor Jennifer Graves “The Decline and Fall of the Y Chromosome and the Future of Men”, and of course Dr Jones “Y: The Descent of Men” . While this shoddy effort at science was corrected in 2012, some feminists made gleeful use of the idea. Maureen Dowd, for instance included this concept in her book, “Are Men Necessary”. Other print feminists enjoyed this as well, such as Zerbisias of the the Toronto Star, writing “What is the role of men in an era when nature seems to be saying they are genetically defective humans?” and “Turns out that testosterone, despite its bad reputation not only in male health (cardiac problems, hypertension, buying red sports cars at age 55, etc.) but also in making war rather than love,”. So how far has it come since Solanas’s screed? Not that far, considering radfemhub.

      A third usage of this has been support for policy that depend on identical distributions of talents between the sexes. If the only difference between the sexes is that when the tissue is internal it is the ovaries, and when it is external, it is called testicles, then clearly, talents must be identically distrubuted. So any discrepancy in outcome – educational, economic, political power – must be due to discrimination. This underlies Title IX regulations, affirmative action programs, and political shortlisting.

      A fourth is the one I allude to in my first sentence. Since men and women start off as women, and men deviate through the actions of the Y chromosome, then all the resultant differences in behavior are a result of this deviancy. Testosterone poisoning (actually used in a federal political campaign in Canada by a female candidate), violence, rape, war, crime, sexual “perversion”, – all are a consequence of the Y chromosome. In fact, this is incorrect, since such greater tendencies are a problem with a failure to segment properly in statistics. It produces the ascription of faults from some men, to all men by imputing causality to the Y chromosome, and testosterone.

      SO, I ask, what is the intention of posting this misleading clip. Are we really expected to gain insight from a clip using a sharpie and modelling clay, that incorrectly uses high school science. What is the purpose ?

      _____________________________________________

      The quote is from the Mikado. The character is Pooh-Ba, a figure portraying aristocractic pride in his antecendents. Substitute genetics for aristocratic pride, and you might get the point.

      _________________________

      “The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.” ( Solanas, who is still offered on women’s and gender stories reading lists)

    • You don’t need equal numbers of males n females, so no, evolution hasn’t. There are more females worldwide, the only balancer is that some cultures prefer male kids so females get killed. Wartime though reduces the number of men significantly in some wars, ie when they use to go kill off ALL males of the opposing faction n take the women. 1 man can impregnate hundreds of women or more so there is no need for equal numbers especially when today we have welfare, baby formula, much better safety etc so the benefits of a 2 parent relationship aren’t as necessary.

Speak Your Mind