Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

ApsieGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 652

31 Dec 2010, 11:49 am

Verdandi wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I would imagine it might be a sex-linked trait-
it lies on the X chromosome,
so males, having only one X, are more likely to develop it than females,
who would have to have it on both Xes.


flawed logic....

more men (XY) than women (XX) are found....

thus...

it should mostly be bound to the Y-chromosome.... not the X!

only males have the Y-chromosome... remember? ;-)

if it was bound to the X-chromosome... woman should have doubled their chances of having autism....


No, if it were bound to the X chromosome, males would only have one X, which means the autistic trait can express unopposed. With two X chromosomes, females are less likely to be autistic because one of those Xs is unlikely to have the trait.

But the thing is while the bit about autism and X chromosomes is true, it's only true for about 15% of all autistic people. It does bias toward males having autism, but there are other genetic causes.





..............and this will turn into a "Which Gender Has it Easier Thread?" in about 10-30 post.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

31 Dec 2010, 12:35 pm

ApsieGuy wrote:

..............and this will turn into a "Which Gender Has it Easier Thread?" in about 10-30 post.


I hope my post doesn't instigate that. I just dislike seeing inaccuracies about genetics and inherited traits.



menintights
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 895

31 Dec 2010, 3:12 pm

Wow, some of you really need to take advanced biology and maybe child psychology.



aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

31 Dec 2010, 3:37 pm

Verdandi wrote:
ApsieGuy wrote:

..............and this will turn into a "Which Gender Has it Easier Thread?" in about 10-30 post.


I hope my post doesn't instigate that. I just dislike seeing inaccuracies about genetics and inherited traits.


+1 :wink:



kat_ross
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 205

31 Dec 2010, 3:43 pm

As a female with AS, I think two of the main reasons that I was not diagnosed as a child are:

1) It is more socially acceptable for young girls to be shy

2) I believe that girls in general are better able to mimic the speech patterns and mannerisms of women around them. I rarely spoke, but when I did I managed to avoid the stereotypical monotone Aspie voice, for the most part.

I was often too uncomfortable in public to really act like myself and therefore my more obvious symptoms were not always on display for people to notice.

I think that attempts to find the genetic source of autism symptoms will prove to be extremely difficult and complicated by issues such as multiple genes with incomplete dominance and/or variable expressivity, as well as environmental influences. I am 100% sure in my mind that I inherited something from my father's mother that is causing my mental problems, because we shared many symptoms. However, my father shows very mild spectrum traits and my mother is NT, so it doesn't really make sense why I am in some ways even more severely affected than my grandmother was. There must be multiple factors involved.



StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

02 Jan 2011, 6:00 pm

Verdandi wrote:
StuartN wrote:
I agree. The data strongly suggest a real excess of men with ASDs. Women with ASD are under-diagnosed and receive less support even when they are diagnosed. However, there is currently a political movement to claim that the sex ratio is 1:1 and it is a movement that is based on ideology and not based on scientific data.


It may not be 1:1 but is it really as low as 4:1 or 6:1?


This is one reason why an objective physical or biological measurement would be so useful.

To answer your question, I would guess that 4:1 is in the middle of most credible large-scale studies at the moment. I would love to see if large-scale population studies using an objective measure brought that ratio down.



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

02 Jan 2011, 7:34 pm

1)I think that it has a lot to do with social development being stressed in girls more than in boys in our culture/society. Girls are taught to be more co-operative whereas boys are taught to be more cooperative. Therefore girls may learn more compensatory mechanisms, may learn them faster, and may mask their social difficulties better. It may be that it is far less acceptable for a girl that for a boy to be socially inept.( Of course a lot more is expected from girls than from boys in social situations and therefore as the girls get older their social difficulties may cause them quite a lot of distress and difficulty)

2)Girls may be less likely to fit the stereotype of AS (although some do) than boys and may manifest their symptoms differently. For example girls are more likely to have all consuming people obsessions which may be hard to spot and classify as s obsessive interests. .....an all consuming interest in say train spotting or computers might be more apparent and alarming to parents.

3)Boys with AS, just like boys in general, tend to display more "aggressive" and "oppositional" behaviour. With regard to AS this may be "aggressive" behaviour in response to unexpected change, sensory overload etc. On average girls tend to be more passive and compliant than boys and therefore many neurological/psychological conditions are over-looked in girls (e.g. ADHD). This is not to say that girls don't have meltdowns when they experience sensory/emotional overload. Also some girls do show disruptive behaviour (I am an AS girl...(I don't know why I kept saying "they" when referring to AS girls )..and I used to be class policeman and yell at kids to line up properly etc, and at one point I reacted by hitting/pinching some kids who were bullying). Nonetheless destructive behaviour is less common in girls and destructive behaviour get attention!!



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

02 Jan 2011, 7:38 pm

Ohhh sorry for all the typos and grammar mistakes. I meant to say boys are taught to be more competitive! :oops:



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

02 Jan 2011, 7:47 pm

antonblock wrote:
Hello,

as we all know, the ratio between male and female aspies is very high, (i think something around 6:1). Furthermore, many assume that autism is not a gender-specific phenomenon. This raises the question, why the ratio is like that, why are so few female detected?

Do they cope better? Do they have less problems? Different problems? Why?

thanks,
anton


If a girl is having problems in school, people don't think it's autism because of stereotypes. Professionals might not be aware it occurs in girls, thinking it's a boys only disorder. They might blame not fitting in or behaviors that have their root in ASDs on the child, not recognizing that it could be autism.
It's like that with ADHD also. Some people still think only boys have it.
Not sure if they actually do cope better. They probably have just as many problems, just not the benefit of knowing what is causing them.



Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 02 Jan 2011, 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2011, 7:49 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I would imagine it might be a sex-linked trait-
it lies on the X chromosome,
so males, having only one X, are more likely to develop it than females,
who would have to have it on both Xes.


flawed logic....

more men (XY) than women (XX) are found....

thus...

it should mostly be bound to the Y-chromosome.... not the X!

only males have the Y-chromosome... remember? ;-)

if it was bound to the X-chromosome... woman should have doubled their chances of having autism....


Not true. If the factor on the X chromosome is recessive (assuming it exists at all) then the Y chromosome could leave it uncovered and it would assert itself in all males where the X from the mother has the recessive gene.

ruveyn



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

02 Jan 2011, 7:56 pm

Yep. Males have the shorter chromosome and may be more susceptible to what's on the right lower leg of the X.
That could mean males are vulnerable to whatever is occurring on certain parts of the X while females have a greater chance of the lower right leg of their second X mitigating the first.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2011, 7:59 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yep. Males have the shorter chromosome and may be more susceptible to what's on the right lower leg of the X.
That could mean males are vulnerable to whatever is occurring on certain parts of the X while females have a greater chance of the lower right leg of their second X mitigating the first.


Baldness is an example of a sex linked factor which affects many more men than women.

ruveyn



PunkyKat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,492
Location: Kalahari Desert

02 Jan 2011, 8:00 pm

Becasuse girls are usualy "mothered" by other girls. I know I was until grade three. So it appears they can make friends. Girls are often more quiet and shy and don't usualy cause as much of a scene as boys. I was diagnosed because I was agressive and hyper but then I probably really have bipolar as well. Bipolar wasn't even a diagnosis for adults when I was a kid but I resimbled these little bipolar kids than I do most kids with AS.


_________________
I'm not weird, you're just too normal.


Cicely
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 928
Location: USA

02 Jan 2011, 8:02 pm

In my case, there were several different reasons. One, I was very well-behaved at both home and school, and I was successful academically. That was enough to convince my parents and teachers that I couldn't possibly have a disorder. Two, I was explicity taught etiquette and politeness, so I was able to display superficially good social skills. At some point I started observing and imitating other kids. Three, for the most part I did have friends. Kids from my neighborhood, kids who felt sorry for me, kids who wanted more friends and considered me a safe choice...I was often alone, but it was by choice. Four, I'd long been labeled intellectually gifted, which was apparently a good enough explanation for my social awkwardness, weird interests, and clumsiness. And five, my mom's family is full of Aspies and she may be one herself, so she didn't think my behavior was so unusual.



kruger4
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 264

02 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm

antonblock wrote:
i want to add something:

I wondered since my teen years, how i know if a girl likes me or not, it was comletely mysterious to me. I always tried to figure out of her behavior. Now at the age of 29 i found out, that the eyes play a very important role, and that it is used oftenly to tell someone some interest in him or her.

And i must do it consciously, the others seem to have intuition for that, maybe i do it also automatically when i trained it more.

I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


So how do you tell if she's interested?



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

02 Jan 2011, 8:28 pm

StuartN wrote:
This is one reason why an objective physical or biological measurement would be so useful.

To answer your question, I would guess that 4:1 is in the middle of most credible large-scale studies at the moment. I would love to see if large-scale population studies using an objective measure brought that ratio down.


The scientific data being derived from essentially two populations - one that is typically diagnosed and one that is typically underdiagnosed. It seems like the data would reinforce itself a bit.