4 ms·
> Only testes and ovaries are clearly distinguishable Is it just me who reads these kinds of things and just cringes. Always some nonsense along the lines of "
by kingstnap 1y ago
> Only testes and ovaries are clearly distinguishable
Is it just me who reads these kinds of things and just cringes. Always some nonsense along the lines of "well its not binary so therefore it's a spectrum".
You have obviously measured a biomodal distribution, not a guassian. That is in fact is direct evidence of distinct groups, not evidence of the contrary.
I'd also argue bimodal is not erasive terminology, but that's neither here nore there.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoThe article isn't claiming that sexual dimorphism doesn't show up as clusters in a population. The article is claiming that the gene expression of tissues in an individual doesn't show strong clustering. The paper quantifies the extent to which it does (which is: not much, in humans, and a little bit in mice, but it varies a lot depending on which mice). I read these kind of comments and just cringe, because sexual dimorphism in mammals is not a hard clustering (so yes, the word "spectrum" is apt), and the projecting of cultural foibles onto unrelated scientific research leads to counterproductive discussion of the same ≈three points over and over.