27

In "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", James Damore wrote (emphasis added on claim):

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures

  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

  • The underlying traits are highly heritable

  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

-"Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber", James Damore (2017-07) [unverified reproduction]

The claim about biological males that were castrated at birth seems rather odd as it would require a study to have been preformed that would be highly unethical.

A search turned up David Reimer, a man who had this happen to him via a series of accidents that could be construed to have this effect. However, a single data point isn't sufficient to establish a trend.

Is there evidence to support this claim? Are there scientific instances of this type of research that relates to male and female behavior?

Community
  • 1
Tim Schimandle
  • 381
  • 3
  • 6
  • Reopened after the excellent edit by Nat – Sklivvz Aug 18 '17 at 13:44
  • 3
    Damore doesn't define what a "biological male" is, so it's hard to evaluate his statement. He seems to imply it means a human born with a penis, but there is a broad spectrum of genitalia that could be subjected to castration. – dont_shog_me_bro May 03 '18 at 10:59
  • 2
    @dont_shog_me_bro ["_Biological male_"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_sex) is a standard term, e.g. as in that linked Wikipedia article. Additionally, [Damore's background](https://www.marathi.tv/personalities/james-damore/) includes a Bachelor's in Molecular Biology, a Master's in System Biology, research experience at Princeton and MIT, and part of a PhD program at Harvard (which Google poached him from); given this background, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that he understood the terminology. Plus his statement is factually accurate under this interpretation. – Nat Aug 07 '19 at 22:26
  • 2
    @Nat if you read your own article you will see that it is talking about reproduction, not if an organism is male or female. It states that /in the lede/ and notes that the distinction is primarily if the organism produces large or small gametes, and does not establish any link between the reproductive system and other characteristics of sex or gender. For example, women with internal non-functional testis instead of ovaries is not uncommon, which has no clear definition under this scheme and does not affect their behaviour. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 08 '19 at 09:36
  • @dont_shog_me_bro I'm not getting the confusion; could you explain? For example, the claim is **"_Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males_"**, which clearly refers to the **"_biological males_"** as being **"_raised as females_"** after castration, not _being_ females after castration. Still, you seem to think that he's defining males as people with penises, even though he's clearly referring to males who don't have penises... I mean, how can we make this any clearer? – Nat Aug 11 '19 at 21:42
  • For example, in the study cited below, they write that **"_Cloacal exstrophy is not an intersex condition: aphallia and phallic inadequacy are structural anomalies._"**. Note that **"_aphallia_"** is the condition of lacking a penis -- though despite lacking penises, the subjects aren't female, or even intersex, but simply males with **"_structural anomalies_"**. (Sorry to be spam-y, I'm just trying to work on communicating with people in non-academic contexts, and I'm trying to figure out how to do that here.) Anyway, if the issue's still unclear, how might it be further clarified? – Nat Aug 11 '19 at 21:52
  • @Nat the article you cited as evidence of the definition of "biological male" is concerned with reproduction, not sex or gender. It's a term relating to the production of gametes only. It's largely irrelevant to the question here since by "biological male" the questioner presumably does mean someone with a vagina, womb and breasts but also internal testis instead of ovaries. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 12 '19 at 07:56
  • @Nat you have fallen into the same trap as Damore, i.e. vastly over-estimating the significance of science that you didn't understand. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 12 '19 at 07:57
  • @dont_shog_me_bro To make this simple, Damore was pretty obviously referencing the study I linked, and his use of **"_biological male_"** was meant to correspond to it precisely, because it's exactly the thing he was referring to. – Nat Aug 12 '19 at 08:01
  • @dont_shog_me_bro I'd be happy to discuss this further [in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/311/hub-of-reason). – Nat Aug 12 '19 at 08:02
  • @dont_shog_me_bro Then I'd invite you to write your own answer. I'd admit that I'm frustrated by populist interpretations advocated uncritically on social media; it'd be nice to, finally, understand how/why people buy into it. For example, you claimed that the question **"_presumably does mean someone with a vagina, womb and breasts but also testis instead of ovaries_"**; honestly, I have no idea how your train of logic arrived at such a conclusion, but I'd love to see it! – Nat Aug 14 '19 at 08:56
  • @Nat missed the word "not" in there, can't edit it now. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 14 '19 at 08:58
  • @dont_shog_me_bro If I can be honest here -- you're representing a very common viewpoint, popular even among relatively science-tolerant populations like those at Google. As such, your viewpoint is of fundamental interest to understanding the popular perception of this subject. And, yeah, your comments above contain a lot of errors that can't be edited now; that doesn't matter. I don't even care if the answer you write makes _sense_; I'll still `+1` it if you could just help illuminate how the average person perceives it. – Nat Aug 14 '19 at 09:18
  • @Nat I'm not talking about the "average person's perception", I'm talking about biology. The definition given is very specifically related to reproduction only. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 14 '19 at 10:11

2 Answers2

41

tl;dr- This claim is true. It may sound weird that some biological males are castrated and then raised as though they were female, however it's been done to address a birth defect where genitals aren't properly formed. A recent survey suggests that this practice is in decline.

Other studies show that sex-specific biology affects behavior in ways that aren't reversed by genital reconstruction or social conditioning. These biological differences include hormone levels and brain structure.

Study

The central claim in this question is addressed based on "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004) which isn't behind a paywall.

Other sources seem to agree, and these findings seem to be noncontroversial from a scientific perspective. Related studies can be found by searching for literature that cites this paper.

Related:

Why are males being castrated and raised as females?

The background section explains why biological males are being castrated. In short, it's to resolve a birth defect:

BACKGROUND Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males. For about 25 years, neonatal assignment to female sex has been advocated for affected males to overcome the issue of phallic inadequacy, but data on outcome remain sparse.

–"Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22)

Wikipedia describes this birth defect, cloacal exstrophy, as:

Cloacal exstrophy (EC) is a severe birth defect wherein much of the abdominal organs (the bladder and intestines) are exposed. It often causes the splitting of both male and female genitalia (specifically, the penis and clitoris respectively), and the anus is occasionally sealed.

So, what do doctors do when a patient has deformed genitals? As described in the paper:

THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL IDENTITY IN persons with genital malformations has intrigued the medical world since Money and colleagues' pioneering studies of intersex in the 1950s.1,2 They later reasoned that an infant's sex could be assigned if corresponding genitalia were constructed during infancy and the child's upbringing corresponded to that sex.3

–"Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22)

The paper describes these patients as biological males with deformities rather than intersexed:

Cloacal exstrophy is not an intersex condition: aphallia and phallic inadequacy are structural anomalies.6-9,16

–"Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22)

Study's results

However, it was unclear what actually happened to these newborns later in life; did the assigned gender stick after given the corresponding genitals and socialization?

RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males.

–"Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22)

This finding seems to conclusively support Damore's claim that "Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males".

Gender assignment practices appear to be changing

It appears that the practice of raising biological males as female due to such structural issues is declining:

CONCLUSIONS: Although there is an association between the external appearance of the genitalia and the choice of sex assignment, there are clear temporal trends in this practice pointing toward an increased likelihood of affected infants being raised as boys. The impact of this change in practice on long-term health outcomes requires additional focus.

–"Changes Over Time in Sex Assignment for Disorders of Sex Development" (2014-09)

Biology is known to cause behavioral differences

It's probably common knowledge that behavior-affecting hormones vary significantly by sex. For example, adult males have about 20 times the the testosterone level of adult females. In popular culture, testosterone is often taken to characterize male behavior.

In women the testosterone levels which were only about 5% of that of men from the same age group decreased only slightly, starting from a median of 0.9 to 0.6 nmol/l.

–"Reference intervals for testosterone, androstenedione and SHBG levels in healthy females and males from birth until old age." (2005)

There're also differences in brain structure, and these differences do affect behavior:

During the intrauterine period the human brain develops in the male direction via direct action of a boy's testosterone, and in the female direction through the absence of this hormone in a girl. During this time, gender identity (the feeling of being a man or a woman), sexual orientation, and other behaviors are programmed. As sexual differentiation of the genitals takes places in the first 2 months of pregnancy, and sexual differentiation of the brain starts during the second half of pregnancy, these two processes may be influenced independently of each other, resulting in transsexuality. This also means that in the case of an ambiguous gender at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the same degree of masculinization of the brain. Differences in brain structures and brain functions have been found that are related to sexual orientation and gender.

–"Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior" (2007-09)

Due to factors like these, it's unsurprising that biological males would still exhibit stereotypical male behaviors despite having had their genitals restructured and being raised as female.

Reference: What's sex?

In humans, sex is defined by the XY sex determination-system. Most other mammals use this same system, though it can be different for insects, fish, etc..

Almost all (~99.94%) humans fall into this system, being either XX (female) or XY (male). However, some people can have an extra chromosome in some of their cells, such as in Down syndrome. Since a person with XXX chromosomes still uses just the X chromosome while a person with XXY still has a Y affecting their chemical makeup, the definition of sex has been extended to:

  • People with a Y chromosome are male.

  • People without a Y chromosome are female.

    • Almost all females are XX; but X, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, etc., qualify.

  • People who can't really be said to be uniformly with-or-without a Y chromosome are intersexed.

The above study that this answer is based on didn't have any intersexed individuals; all males were male by the standard biological definition, not to be confused with gender identity.

DISCUSSION

Cloacal exstrophy is not an intersex condition: aphallia and phallic inadequacy are structural anomalies.6-9,16

–"Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22)

So, that study demonstrates that unambiguously male infants, i.e. those with XY chromosomes, still retain male behaviors despite castration and being raised female.

Nat
  • 4,111
  • 2
  • 27
  • 36
  • 3
    You implicitly accept a premise in the claim that "biological male" has a clear meaning. If you are going to use the phrase, could you please define what you mean by it? – Oddthinking Aug 19 '17 at 04:20
  • 2
    @Oddthinking Definitely - the paper's about infants who had a Y chromosome and weren't intersexed, i.e. were unambiguously male save for a physical deformity around their pelvis. Though I could expand this answer to discuss other definitions of "biological male"; just, what might those definitions be? – Nat Aug 19 '17 at 04:31
  • 1
    Good find and the discussion comment from the study is "children who are born genetically and hormonally male may identify themselves as males despite being raised as females and undergoing feminizing genitoplasty at birth." I think more studies are required on genetic females with cloacal exstrophy to back up this claim for more evidence! – pericles316 Aug 19 '17 at 06:29
  • 5
    @pericles316 Unfortunately there probably won't be studies like this for females, mostly for logistical reasons. It's just that, when the genitals are deformed at birth, they've gotta fix them, and it's relatively difficult to make a penis (or, at least, it was); so biological males and females both got vaginas. So females get this disorder too, just they don't have gender reassignment as a consequence of it. – Nat Aug 19 '17 at 06:41
  • 10
    I'd add that the studies about hormone levels, brain structure, etc., apply across the board for both sexes. So I think that the study about reassignment's really just to demonstrate what we already know; that there're biological differences in men and women (which we can see in the brain, in hormone levels in blood, etc.), and that these differences lead to differences in behavior. It's one of those quasi-political things: some people deny it for political reasons, trying to argue that the science is undecided, but it's not; this is a decided, concluded topic. – Nat Aug 19 '17 at 06:45
  • 1
    @Nat There are also those who accept that there are differences but do not believe such differences are relevant for modern white-collar jobs such as tech development/etc. (which would be relevant to the source of the quote OP asked about as that argued that those biological differences do make a difference for tech work). I am not aware of many studies that have investigated that. – JAB Aug 21 '17 at 21:09
  • 3
    I feel pretty confident in marking this as answered. Thanks @Nat for providing all the details. – Tim Schimandle Aug 22 '17 at 19:10
  • 2
    One important thing to mention (which I don’t see mentioned here) is that psychological gender (which is generally congenital) can lead to conformity with entirely non-biological, socially dependent behaviors. For example, transgender people will often wear clothing characteristic of their gender (e.g. transgender women wearing dresses), even though there’s very little reason to believe that clothing is biologically influenced. As such, the hypothesis that a behavior exhibited by a sample of castrated men is biological is not necessarily true. It could be societal, mediated by gender. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 05:59
  • 1
    As usual, cross-cultural studies and biological research are needed to determine which of these hypotheses is correct. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:01
  • 2
    @Nat - Relatively few people argue that there’s no biological, sex-linked influence on behavior. On the other hand, those differences are often exaggerated in magnitude by the popular scientific press, and not understood to be averages. Further, there are sometimes issues on the research side, too. The general issues that plague social scientific research: small sample sizes, the file drawer effect, and a significance threshold that renders 5% of results trivially wrong. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:08
  • And then some particular to evolutionary psychology, or at least some of the less careful researchers: post-hoc evolutionary hypotheses (particularly nasty when combined with that file-drawer effect), lack of confirmatory cross-cultural comparisons or physiological research. Combined with the general issues in psychology and the lack of knowledge in the popular press, there’s a lot “Men do this, women do that” ideas floating around that are incorrect or exaggerated. *That*, rather a lack of any effect, is more what some people will argue (and it isn’t political - or at least, shouldn’t be). – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:10
  • @Obie2.0 Unfortunately this isn't the place to get into a tangential discussion on related issues, so we can't really do a back-and-forth on issues of politics and social tenancies. However, did you mean to comment on potential inaccuracies in the answer, or some other issue? I'm having a little trouble following what you're trying to say. – Nat Apr 04 '18 at 06:13
  • 2
    @Nat - Sorry. My first two comments were a suggestion for something that could be added to the answer: namely, noting that there’s another possible explanation for some of the “masculine” behaviors exhibited by castrated cisgender men. I was talking to the poster in that case. The other comments were just a response to yours. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:16
  • @Obie2.0 It's all good. So, in the study, a bunch of males were castrated and raised as females. The study's main finding was that, despite their physical alteration and being assigned female, a significant portion of them came to see themselves as male. That said, what alternative explanation are you proposing? – Nat Apr 04 '18 at 06:21
  • @Nat Ohhhh, *you* are the person who posted this answer. I see. OK, that could be confusing. Only my first two comments are directly relevant to changes you could make to this answer, then. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:23
  • 1
    @Nat - Well, I’ve already said it twice! But, basically, I’m addressing this line: “Due to factors like these….” I’d just add an additional possibility: that, knowing their gender (which definitely *is* biological), these males then molded their behavior to fit the social rules associated with that gender. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:26
  • @Obie2.0 I think that I'm getting lost on the "_knowing their gender_" part - their gender was female. Do you mean "_knowing their biological sex_"? For example, if their parents told them that they were born male, then they'd have acted in a more masculine manner in response to that revelation? – Nat Apr 04 '18 at 06:28
  • @Nat - No, their gender was male. So was their sex, presumably (they were cisgender, in other words). The societal *gender roles* that they were forced into were “female.” That is, they still knew they were male, even if they were told they were female. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:28
  • @Obie2.0 Okay, I think this is where the confusion's at. So as I read the study, they were biological males upon birth, but they were raised female - this is, their parents were told that they were female, and, being young children, that's how they'd have seen themselves (because, ya know, parents told them). So what do you mean in saying that their gender was male? To clarify, most of them eventually came to change their gender to "_male_" by the end of the study, but as I read it, they identified as "_female_" at first. – Nat Apr 04 '18 at 06:30
  • 4
    @Nat - Here’s the thing, though: they wouldn’t necessarily have seen themselves as female. It wouldn’t even be likely. If just *telling* a child what their gender was supposed to be worked, transgender people wouldn’t feel dysphoria. In fact, that’s one of the major things this study shows. **“Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex.”** – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:32
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/75480/discussion-between-obie-2-0-and-nat). – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:34
  • @Nat - I moved it to chat. – Obie 2.0 Apr 04 '18 at 06:43
-1

The main problem here is the that "biological male" is not clearly defined by the memo.

Biologists usually use male/female in relation to reproduction, specifically the production of gametes. There are various medical conditions where a person either has (usually non-functional) organs for producing gametes not in line with the appearance or structure of the rest of their body.

It's possible that the author means something else here, as he seems to be discussing the psychological aspects rather than the reproductive ones.

Thus we can't say if the claim is true or not. It's likely true that cis male children who are given ill-judged and often botched surgery at birth do not adopt the gender that the doctor or their parents intended for them, but that's a very different statement to the one in the memo.

Edit: @Nat suggested that Damore may have been referring to this study. If that is the case, it is a further demonstration of how confused he was. He exchanges the term "genetic male" in the study for "biological male" in his own memo, for example.

Personally I doubt he was referring to this study. He cited his other sources, but not this one as the source of that claim. It doesn't match the language he used and his "biological male" remains undefined in the memo.

dont_shog_me_bro
  • 3,131
  • 2
  • 20
  • 31
  • Thanks for writing an answer! Could you expand on what your notion of sex is? I mean, reading your answer literally, it sounds like you'd regard a man who doesn't produce viable sperm as non-male, and women after menopause as non-female. But, I suspect that that's not actually what you mean -- so to clarify, what definition of "_biological sex_" are you claiming to be usual to biologists? – Nat Aug 14 '19 at 11:29
  • 3
    To clarify, [the Wikipedia article you linked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex#Genetic) explains that, in humans, sex is determined by the [XY sex-determination system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system) ([image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drosophila_XY_sex-determination.svg)). So I'm not trying to hassle you too much here, just you're linking something that explains that sex is determined by the XY-sex-determination system to support an argument that sex is determined by the production of gametes, which I'm just not sure how to interpret. – Nat Aug 14 '19 at 11:38
  • @Nat no, because my notion of sex is irrelevant. What matters is what the memo is talking about, which is not clear. I will add a note about genetics. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 14 '19 at 13:51
  • @Nat actually I won't, since the memo doesn't specify genetics and seems to mainly be focused on genitalia, which only ignorant laypeople use as a proxy for sex. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 14 '19 at 13:54
  • @Nat no, I know all the ways that biologists define sex. The memo does not specify which definition it is referring to. I can't explain this any more clearly, I've stated it every possible way and if you don't understand it now then the onus is on you to review my statements thus far. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 14 '19 at 13:55
  • Ah, I see the Damore trolls have arrived. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 15 '19 at 10:58
  • 4
    I'm not a troll, I just don't think answer is particularly useful or insightful. – Erik Aug 15 '19 at 11:26
  • I suspect you could get more up-votes if you fix up the answer a bit. I mean, SE.Skeptics requires answers to have supporting references, but your above answer cites only 1 Wikipedia article which actually contradicts your point. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:22
  • That said, I think your answer showcases a perspective that's important if, for no other reason, than for being common. So while I don't think you can really make it _correct_, it'd still seem like there're things you could do to make it a worthwhile answer that'd constitute a positive contribution to this question. And sorry to spam ya again, but if you'd allow me to try to point in that direction... – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:24
  • Ya know how, in courts of law, there's the fiction of a "_reasonable person_"? And in economics, there's the fiction of a "_rational consumer_"? At SE.Skeptics, I'd like to think that there's a similar fiction of a "_well-informed skeptic_". The well-informed skeptic is very well-informed -- they know all about whatever topic they read about; they're very intelligent; they're highly educated; they're able to do analyses as well as the average data scientist; etc.. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:26
  • The _well-informed skeptic_ should've seen Damore's claim, recognized that he was referencing [this famous study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421517/), and understood his words as corresponding to it. Therefore, the _well-informed skeptic_ would've easily understood that Damore's claim was true without having to give it much thought or analysis; because, again, Damore was literally just referencing a famous study, rather than making his own claim that would be supported by a study. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:29
  • However, the _well-informed skeptic_ is a fiction; most people _aren't_ well-informed skeptics. So then, retreating from that idealization, the next level of skeptic would seem to be a reasonably well-educated skeptic. For the most part, I suspect that most folks who did well in a college-level Biology class, or even a gradeschool Biology class, should've understood the biological nature of sex. Such a person might not have known about the exact study Damore was referencing, but they should've been able to understand the gist, regardless. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:32
  • While I suspect that reasonably well-educated skeptics are more common than well-informed skeptics, they're still not an overwhelming majority, apparently. So, the next fiction might be someone who knows neither about the major studies nor textbook biochemistry, but they're still reasonably intelligent people who _could_ understand the claim if they were just given the information behind it. And that's the audience I targeted with my answer. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:34
  • But, it's worth noting that Damore's claim could have further interpretations. Honestly, I'm a little more fuzzy on how some folks interpreted his words, being a large part of why I was so interested in you providing an answer. Still, your way of interpreting Damore's claim seems likely to be appreciably common. **_And so I think you could write an answer based on this interpretation._** Just, what exactly is it? Can you provide some quotes from blog posts showing that other people interpreted it the same way? Etc.. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:37
  • In short, I don't think you can write an answer that persuasively argues that Damore was lying or making stuff up, because he wasn't; this is, the claim, as Damore intended it, was clearly well-founded (unless, for example, it turns out the researchers he was citing made it all up). **_But_,** you could probably write a perspective piece on the the claim as it may've been perceived by many others. – Nat Aug 15 '19 at 22:45
  • @Nat your answer is untenable. On SE assuming what someone meant when they didn't state it explicitly and without any evidence to support your assumption doesn't work. Maybe Damore did mean that study, but he doesn't cite it and was careful to site a bunch of other studies that he didn't understand. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 16 '19 at 08:35
  • @Nat and in any case, that study doesn't support his "biological males" claim. In fact that title of the study says "genetic males", not "biological males". That makes me think he wasn't referring to it, or at least was so hopelessly confused that he thought "biological male" and "genetic male" were interchangeable. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 16 '19 at 08:36
  • @Nat this is further evidenced by the fact that he talks about castration (as do you), not genetics. I'd suggest you study this distinction, it's key to improving your answer and understanding why you are wrong. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 16 '19 at 08:37