Post a response:
|
It's not about what you "can" claim, just what is and is not accurate. Why a phenotype is the way that it is, is irrelevant. But, indeed, estrogen activates parts of the genes. This is why females typically develop breasts and males typically do not. If you artificially take estrogen as a male, it has the same impact on that breast genes, they're expressed, your body doesn't run a chromosome check. Mechanistically, a contact lense does not impact phenotype or genotype. This is why I specified that breasts grown through hormones, but not silicone breasts, are phenotypical. If you were somehow able to deactivate or activate parts of your genome to change your eye colour, then yes, you have changed your phenotype. In the most simplistic sense, genotype is potentiality, phenotype is actuality. The potential for breast tissue is in almost all humans, so it nearly universally exists in the genotype, but it's usually only fully realised by females, or males with endocrinological disorders. With this in mind, what matters for phenotype is just if a gene is or is not expressed. What triggers it, whether it is natural or artificial, is not relevant. Surgeries generally won't give you opposite sex characteristics, however they can sometimes negate sex characteristics. E.g, removal of breast tissue removes the phenotype. Clothing is irrelevant here, though I think that was already implicit, re: transsexualism being about hormonal/surgical intervention, not just identity. It has bodily changes. As for height, I doubt your body has a strict "he can only be 6ft 3inches" limit. It might be moreso a complex web that impacts growth rates, rather than having cut offs. Castrati would often grow to be much taller than most cisgender men, with huge ribcages that gave their voices tremendous power, but their bones never fused. I think they only stopped growing because the human growth hormone diminishes with age. So, it might be less about "Between X and Y height", and more like "X amount of minerals and energy leads to Y growth". More of a ratio than parameters. Though, this is entirely speculation. |