That is not the summary. The summary is that the molecule involved in deactivation of one of the X chromosomes has side effects that lead to autoimmune problems. Most men don’t have a second X chromosome that needs deactivation.
The summary is that the molecule involved in deactivation of one of the X chromosomes has side effects that lead to autoimmune problems.
Ok, so the X chromosomes are a collection of genes. So, genes.
Most men don’t have a second X chromosome that needs deactivation.
From this, it follows that “XX folks” have twice as many X chromosomes as XY folks.
Since chromosomes are genes, then “XX folks” have twice as many (genes) as “XY folks.”
So, “the genes (that need deactivation) are on the X chromosomes (all of their genes, actually), so XX folks have twice as many (X chromosomes, derived from the fact that most men don’t have a second X chromosome) as XY’s.”
So:
The genes are on the X chromosome, so XX folks have twice as many as XYs.
You can’t tell me that nothing in what you wrote implies the above at least a little bit.
But don’t take me too seriously. I’m just half-joking. Your explanation is definitely better, so I appreciate it.
Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.
The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn’t necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.
Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.
Nope. That’s not my claim.
The article seems to imply that women have more chances of autoimmune diseases because they have more genes that could be affected by the side effects of that molecule. Did I get it wrong?
And again, don’t take me too seriously, but I am curious now.
Tldr: the genes are on the X chromosome so XX folks have twice as many as XY’s.
Now that’s what I call a summary.
That is not the summary. The summary is that the molecule involved in deactivation of one of the X chromosomes has side effects that lead to autoimmune problems. Most men don’t have a second X chromosome that needs deactivation.
So what you’re saying is…
The genes are on the X chromosome so XX folks have twice as many as XY’s.
No, and nothing in what I wrote implies that.
How so? This is how I see it:
Ok, so the X chromosomes are a collection of genes. So, genes.
From this, it follows that “XX folks” have twice as many X chromosomes as XY folks.
Since chromosomes are genes, then “XX folks” have twice as many (genes) as “XY folks.”
So, “the genes (that need deactivation) are on the X chromosomes (all of their genes, actually), so XX folks have twice as many (X chromosomes, derived from the fact that most men don’t have a second X chromosome) as XY’s.”
So:
You can’t tell me that nothing in what you wrote implies the above at least a little bit.
But don’t take me too seriously. I’m just half-joking. Your explanation is definitely better, so I appreciate it.
Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.
The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn’t necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.
Nope. That’s not my claim.
The article seems to imply that women have more chances of autoimmune diseases because they have more genes that could be affected by the side effects of that molecule. Did I get it wrong?
And again, don’t take me too seriously, but I am curious now.
I did the math this checks out