There hugs AND kisses people?

I swear I was learning about extra X and Y in high school 20 years ago and that studies (at the time) were showing correlation between different traits displayed by effected people. Just that alone shows incredible gender fluidity.

So where we are, 20 years later, you’d think we’d have a better understanding within society but instead somehow it’s literally regressed since then.

Fig 1 is a modified emotional change curve applied in learning and business settings. The term "Valley of Despair" is used in both concepts, and it's cool, memorable verbiage, but it shouldn't imply relation between Dunning-Kreuger and the change curve

https://forfengdesigns.com/tips-on-clawing-your-way-out-of-the-valley-of-despair-when-you-are-starting-a-new-business/

Image description: A modified emotional change curve from Evocon with Y-Axis being "attitude during change process" and X-Axis is time. There are 6 emotional phases described on this chart: 1. Neutral attitude, no knowledge; 2. Initial excitement, motivated; 3. Denial, indifferent, passive, apathy; 4. Resistance, frustration, doubt, anxiety (this phase falls below neutral and is described as "The Valley of Despair"); 5. Exploration, energized, small wins, creative; 6. Commitment, enthusiasm, problem solving, focus, team work.

Yeah, it's really frustrating and quite ironic that pop culture keeps using this obscure scientific reference, that they don't really understand in its intended context, to describe something that really ought be plainly said: that we all have a tendency to overinflate our competence. if anything Dunning-Krueger showed that only the most seasoned experts judge themselves modestly. (and even then we'd likely only find their modesty in that particular area of expertise). it's a commentary on all of us!

But no, people name-drop this research just to dunk on people and feel smugly superior. (and I am glad I agree with the politics of the intellectual in the OP, that means it's okay and I'm a bit more competent too!) ugh. I cringe every time i read someone say Dunning-Krueger.

PS on your first image, whoever failed to put "phd student" at the trough of that curve fucked up

"That's doctor Evil. I didn't spend 8 years in evil medical school to be called mister, thank you very much."

I think it's sus that a Math Lecturer decides to post an article about philosophy and then doesn't describe any of the steps he took. The article basically just says i did a thing, but doesnt explain what he did/how to reproduce the result... On the other hand, philosophy is a field with many wrong conclusions and the like, so it is believable. But again in my eyes it's not proven, since it's just 'one guy' saying something and not replicated nor reproduced.

Edit after replied comment edit: The second article you linked (actually the first in the post) changes my believe about the dunning-kruger effect. Thank you for sharing!

De La Chappell syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, androgen exposure in utero, ovotesticular disorder of of sex development all result in a person with cis male characteristics and in some cases cis male typical genitalia despite having xx chromosomes

Gene expression is not as straightforward as people think. All sorts of weird shit can happen, and that's not even including gene mutations.

https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/Pitch_sketch_final.png?w=2000

This is the best resource I've seen to show things relatively simply.

The TL;DR is that a whole "Y" chromosome isn't exactly responsible for "maleness", the SRY gene is. It's normally on the Y chromosome, but mutations can occur placing that gene onto the X chromosome. Inversely, someone could inherit a Y chromosome without that gene, in which case they would develop with female traits.

It's not considered trans because someone with 46XX plus the SRY gene would develop male genitalia, be identified as male at birth, and likely identify themselves as male. For some types of these conditions, there are plenty of people walking around with no clue that their chromosomes don't match their gender.

Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist, so i could have explained something a little off.

I googled it for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.[2][7] When the X with the SRY gene combines with a normal X from the mother during fertilization, the result is an XX genetic male. Less common are SRY-negative individuals, those who are genetically females, which can be caused by a mutation in an autosomal or X chromosomal gene.[2] The masculinization of XX males is variable.

I mean yeah, if you spent 5 years of your life pushing the edge of human understanding on a subject, and a shithead tells you to do the science on your research subject, it's relevant lol

Tbf, they kinda earned the right to brag.

True, but I do think it was warranted in this case.

Well you don't know people with PhD that don't tell you they have one

This is putting confirmation bias to the extreme.

Sometimes they don't tell you and just quietly update all of their usernames...

There's a bunch of them, but one more common example is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

It's also possible to have a non-functional SRY (XY but female), or to be XX with an SRY translocation (XX but male).

Biology is complicated: pretty much anyone who says it only happens one way or is really simple is wrong.