“Female Protective Effect” theory

Post Reply New Topic

The female protective effect, explained

I don't get it.

This implies that autistic traits are all coded for on the X chromosome. Like hemophelia.

Females get two X chromosomes, while males get an X and a Y.

The Y is short and stubby, and therefore only has a fraction of the genes that its partner, the X chromosome has.

So if the X has a bad recessive gene there maybe nothing on the Y to overpower it. So a male child would get the effect of the recessive gene. In contrast every gene on a female's X is countered by another gene on the other, same length X, chromosome. The odds being that the corresponding partner gene would be the common version of the gene that would dominate and override the bad recessive gene. A female would have to be dealt two copies of the rare gene to get the condition - which would be far more unlikely than just getting one copy. Ergo the condition would be much rarer in females (much like in hemophelia).

This theory has been developed by people who do not know much about autism, the reality is that autism expresses itself differently in girls.

^ If you had taken the time to process the article you would of seen this comment

The article is a bit seemingly contradictory: they admit that the screening process is skewed to finding autism in boys, and less good at finding the differently manifesting autism in girls. But then they go on with the assumption that autism really is less common in girls and go on to talk about how scientists need to find the biological differences for that innate difference.

I only think this could be the case in some cases.
For instance, fragile x syndrome is a known genetic cause of autism in some people, and this is heritable in the same fashion being described, however if I look at my own family, females and males with autistic traits is rather even. And seeing as the tests are skewed to missing autistic girls and women, I doubt this is the case for so much as even half of autistic people.

Fragile X syndrome is not a cause of autism, Fragile X syndrome and autism are two different diseases.

Autism do not fit with an X chromosome (neither Y chromosome) linked genetic disorder, although autism is obviously genetic (there are many other chromosomes).

Autism diagnosis actual criterias are subjectives and do favor many more diagnosis among boys than among girls. Autistic girls do express their own autism differently than do boys.

Well, since we know that traditionally autism was diagnosed in girls mainly if they had a) very severe autistic traits/comorbids or/and b) low IQ, what the theory is saying is that the younger siblings of children with severe traits or low IQ are more at risk of having autism than the younger siblings of autistic children who run the gamut of the spectrum. Well, duh!

It has nothing to do with gender.

It still seems there are more boys than girls with autism, but in general boys tend to be more vulnerable to a lot of conditions.

A lot of the older theories on autism are absolute rubbish, and not really worth spending time on, considering that they are so gender skewed.

Both are diseases, to consider autism as a simple syndrome or a disorder is a reductive vision of what autism is. Anyone who have an average level of knowledges about autism would understand it.

Depends how you define disease. On a purely medical definition yes, autism is a disease.
Disease - Merriam-Webster

Diseases are either contagious or can kill you, or both.