The female genome
Patri Friedman pointed out Robert Lee Hotz's (2005) report on research by Hunt Willard and Laura Carrel. Willard and Carrel's work has focused largely on x chromosome inactivation, and the way in which this expresses itself in between-and-within sex phenotypes. Hotz quotes Willard: "In essence, there is not one human genome, but two: male and female."
As discussed in a previous post, Steven Pinker (2005) theorizes that there is greater variation in ability in males; basically, that males are the guinea pigs for evolutionary change. This is part of Pinker's explanation of why men are overrepresented at the highest levels of achievement. Critics such as Chabris and Glickman (2006) have attempted to disprove this using examples such as chess achievement, but Hotz suggests that Willard and Carrel's research may have found genetic evidence to the contrary: "Females can differ from each other almost as much as they do from males in the way many genes at the heart of sexual identity behave."
The assertion that there is a male and female genome, as exciting as it is, troubles me. It reminds me of a "lie my teacher told me" -- I was taught that women missed being a separate species from men by only a couple of votes, when animal classification was standardized. However, I'm not finding anything online to back this up. But more importantly, unless this is a distinctly human characteristic (that is, that males and females of other species are more similar) the statement that women are more unlike men than men are unlike chimpanzees seems meaningless: like male or female chimpanzees?
As discussed in a previous post, Steven Pinker (2005) theorizes that there is greater variation in ability in males; basically, that males are the guinea pigs for evolutionary change. This is part of Pinker's explanation of why men are overrepresented at the highest levels of achievement. Critics such as Chabris and Glickman (2006) have attempted to disprove this using examples such as chess achievement, but Hotz suggests that Willard and Carrel's research may have found genetic evidence to the contrary: "Females can differ from each other almost as much as they do from males in the way many genes at the heart of sexual identity behave."
The assertion that there is a male and female genome, as exciting as it is, troubles me. It reminds me of a "lie my teacher told me" -- I was taught that women missed being a separate species from men by only a couple of votes, when animal classification was standardized. However, I'm not finding anything online to back this up. But more importantly, unless this is a distinctly human characteristic (that is, that males and females of other species are more similar) the statement that women are more unlike men than men are unlike chimpanzees seems meaningless: like male or female chimpanzees?