I also have a PhD. Not in genomics but in physiology. But we all do genetic work now.
The Dr. says that XX persons can become cis men. “CIS men” is explicitly about gender. I was trying to make the point (not very well as it turns out) that all of this hinges on definitions. So you have to unpack CIS men in this context. Without a sound understanding of the basics, all the rest is supposition.
And the gender identity and expression parts have nothing to do with gene expression, penetrance (giggity), DNA, RNA or epigenetic factors in gene expression.
Also the better example for the counter argument would probably be CAIS.
Oh, sorry if my response was too basic-level for your experience.
I get what you’re saying about “cis men” being explicitly about gender. I took it as meaning phenotypic males, and that they used “cis men” either for simplicity (perhaps to avoid getting into the details of trans people that they thought was irrelevant to the point they were making) or because they were just imprecise with their language. It’s also possible it was based off of something from earlier in the conversation that we can’t see because it’s just a screenshot.
Anyways, I agree, it was poorly worded, but I think the point they were trying to make was pretty straightforward (unless you insist on interpreting what they said to be something about genes affecting gender expression, then it doesn’t make sense).
I also have a PhD. Not in genomics but in physiology. But we all do genetic work now.
The Dr. says that XX persons can become cis men. “CIS men” is explicitly about gender. I was trying to make the point (not very well as it turns out) that all of this hinges on definitions. So you have to unpack CIS men in this context. Without a sound understanding of the basics, all the rest is supposition.
And the gender identity and expression parts have nothing to do with gene expression, penetrance (giggity), DNA, RNA or epigenetic factors in gene expression.
Also the better example for the counter argument would probably be CAIS.
Oh, sorry if my response was too basic-level for your experience.
I get what you’re saying about “cis men” being explicitly about gender. I took it as meaning phenotypic males, and that they used “cis men” either for simplicity (perhaps to avoid getting into the details of trans people that they thought was irrelevant to the point they were making) or because they were just imprecise with their language. It’s also possible it was based off of something from earlier in the conversation that we can’t see because it’s just a screenshot.
Anyways, I agree, it was poorly worded, but I think the point they were trying to make was pretty straightforward (unless you insist on interpreting what they said to be something about genes affecting gender expression, then it doesn’t make sense).