ok so in your world if I just apply make up I'm a female then ffs, no it's simply not a male, the Y is the only thing making something male ffs this is bollocks. Boring as fuck this shit now and simply wrong.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
100% male with feminized seeds?
- Thread starter Yagar2000
- Start date
ok so in your world if I just apply make up I'm a female then ffs, no it's simply not a male, the Y is the only thing making something male ffs this is bollocks. Boring as fuck this shit now and simply wrong.
Swyer syndrome (females with XY chromosome) occurs in approximately 1 in 80,000 individuals. Would it seem so strange to you if it occurred in 1 in 1000 plants? Taking into account the sexual plasticity of this plant, this mutation certainly does not seem so unlikely to me.
They are males that haven't developed, pretty f-cking simple. I and others have explained about the development of male looking plants in all female lots countless times yet we still have all this shit.
I mean there's a f-cking clue it's a male in the above scenario and that's the fact it has the chromosomes XY.
Its evident similar shit happens with plants hence males that are f-cked up via the SRY and therefore you get intersex, we know the SRY is important to the male characteristic development during embryogenesis and therefore the absence or malfunction/dysfunction of the SRY leads to this, ie a male that looks like a female phenotypically.
But here's the thing they aren't f-cking women they just look like them!! see if they have periods and can reproduce???
Last edited by a moderator:
Kend, that's not what's happening though man. That's the point here, mutations on that level are so unlikely ever to be the case, they aren't worth considering. At least not as the probable answer.
Pete, while everything you say is correct, I think we need to give some leeway. Given that in X:A, the causation of the female plant to grow phenotypically male, is an evolutionary methodology to separate the sexes into its own version of dioecy. The sex determining genes are natural and healthy versions of themselves, and are doing the job they are meant to. So unlike in X:Y, where for a female to show balls, is a genetic error, in X:A a female showing phenotypically male, is merely a function of the genes set possessed.
Therefore, while I think it's fair to say blokes need to stay out of little girls bathrooms, in XY lines, you don't get feminised males, cats don't have puppies, but in X:A Lines, there are females who are phenotypically showing as male Ps, and not as a result of mutations, or genetic errors, but as a normal function of the genome.
This is why we need to separate the two species in order to discuss this stuff.
Pete, while everything you say is correct, I think we need to give some leeway. Given that in X:A, the causation of the female plant to grow phenotypically male, is an evolutionary methodology to separate the sexes into its own version of dioecy. The sex determining genes are natural and healthy versions of themselves, and are doing the job they are meant to. So unlike in X:Y, where for a female to show balls, is a genetic error, in X:A a female showing phenotypically male, is merely a function of the genes set possessed.
Therefore, while I think it's fair to say blokes need to stay out of little girls bathrooms, in XY lines, you don't get feminised males, cats don't have puppies, but in X:A Lines, there are females who are phenotypically showing as male Ps, and not as a result of mutations, or genetic errors, but as a normal function of the genome.
This is why we need to separate the two species in order to discuss this stuff.
mudballs
Well-known member
Thing is, can we call a natural process, an imbalance? If this was merely a common mutation, then yes, we can say to remove them, but in a line whereby that is the natural way by which it deviates it's plant function, through the inheritance of sex genes rather than chromosomes, I think we need a new label.
Out of interest, did you read any of my lemon Thai posts?
Out of interest, did you read any of my lemon Thai posts?
I once found an OG male from regular seeds that I really liked for its amount of resin and intense smell. I put it to revegetate to preserve it, and I saw that it grew some pistils.
I ruled it out, but then talking to other people, they told me that those males are not bad, that they only pass the intersexual tendency to the males, and not to the females.
What do you think about this? Wasn't he an XY male?
Its vigor, stature, wide internodal distance, and the shape of the sac clusters, was like a normal male.
I have seen intersex females, and they are like when you revert a female with STS, they shed sacs but the structure is clearly female.
mudballs
Well-known member
That the intersex is only passed to the male i think we should file in bro science after all this wild talk in the thread. It could pass it on to any offspring, bar none....as far as I've seen reading into this stuff.
I do that to males, clone them, look for pistils/stigmas watever they wanna call them...and generally i just look for how freaked out it goes...just a few, go with it...but a male clone in reveg that throws pistils everywhere i don't like those
From your point of view I understand that it is not possible to reverse a male with Ethephon either.
I also understand that many regular crosses really are not, since it is difficult to detect a true male. I think not everyone has cut the bunches of sacs and revegetated males to see if they grow pistils.
I don't share it, but I understand and respect your point of view.
That is not my point of view. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it wasn't from anything I've written.
No of course not, not without chemical stimulation or extreme mutation. You have to separate expression from genetic content. You can force things to happen with chemical stimulus, that would not happen without it. But that is a function of the biology that we manipulate to do our bidding, and not something that just happens.
It's not just X:Y lines either. Males are not intersexed as a normal function of their biology. This has nothing to do with being able to reverse them. I'm not sure you know the location of the relevant genes or how they work. You seem to think, that a male must be intersexed in order to be able to reverse him. Which is as daft as saying we can only get pollen from Hermie females.
It's not just X:Y lines either. Males are not intersexed as a normal function of their biology. This has nothing to do with being able to reverse them. I'm not sure you know the location of the relevant genes or how they work. You seem to think, that a male must be intersexed in order to be able to reverse him. Which is as daft as saying we can only get pollen from Hermie females.
Chemical treatments only amplify what happens under high stress conditions.
There is much literature corroborating that both females and males can produce flowers of the opposite sex under high stress conditions. Schaffner's studies come to mind growing dioecious varieties in the greenhouse in winter, with very reduced light photoperiods.
And it makes a lot of sense, it is a survival mechanism... With few hours of light, in winter the males delay too much, or even make pollen production impossible, so they have this possibility of generating pistils, to be pollinated by the few males that have been able to produce pollen, or by females that have also produced pollen.
It is a mechanism that both plants have to produce seeds, or in other words, to ensure offspring under harsh conditions.
CannaZen
Well-known member
Look, the argument is that if they carry xx and xy that you cannot produce testicle with out xy. I haven't seen adequate explanation with a scientific study I can read about it specifically research about intersex being xy or xx with male parts. But they're not like humans there would be infertility. You might not be wrong.
Last edited:
mudballs
Well-known member
Alot of progress is from speculation and theory based off existing data...they inferred elements missing in the periodical table of elements, yeah? ...then they found them. Mendels pea experiment forced him to infer conclusions.
This isn't bullshit but may be at a dead end idk...that SRY thing pete touched on
This isn't bullshit but may be at a dead end idk...that SRY thing pete touched on
