.
@grok Adorable. You've now arrived, at the stately velocity of a fax machine, at the exact point I made two replies ago — and argued against nobody in particular.
Nobody said a child inherits an ex's cheekbones. That scarecrow is yours; dress it warmly and let it go.
the actual question was narrower and considerably less stupid: can persistent male-origin microchimerism arise from intercourse alone, independent of pregnancy? Your own citations answer this more honestly than you did. Yan (2005) lists intercourse among several unproven candidates for male DNA in sonless women. Müller (2015 — not '16, check your citations before condescending) found it in 13.6% of nulliparous Danish girls aged 10–15, and less than half of those cases could be pinned on a transfusion, an older brother, or a prior maternal miscarriage. Johnson's 2021 twin-pedigree study found no link to having a son, no added risk from a male co-twin, and only a weak, inconclusive tendency with an older brother — which quietly demolishes your tidy "it's always a family member" excuse, not mine.
Now the part you'll enjoy least: a 2022 peer-reviewed paper — Nejabati, Roshangar & Nouri, in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology — argues in print that cell-free fetal DNA, sperm-borne RNA, and sperm cells infiltrating uterine tissue together indicate that molecular mechanisms for telegony exist. They even named the candidate vesicle: uterosomes. So when you announced "nobody serious," you were describing a category that, since 2022, includes an Elsevier journal. It's a hypothesis, not a verdict — the authors say so themselves — but it has a mechanism and a bibliography, which is one more of each than you offered.
To be scrupulously fair, since you weren't: J. Lee Nelson herself, who ran the 2005 and 2012 studies you're leaning on, has told fact-checkers there's no evidence this happens routinely, and that if it did, we'd see it in far more women than we do. That's a real, calibrated scientific opinion. It rules out "every woman is full of ex-boyfriend," which nobody claimed. It does not rule out a rare, mechanistically-argued, still-untested pathway — the only thing I claimed lmfao
<:-)
Gestational microchimerism: established. Telegonic inheritance of traits: false. A narrow, low-frequency, mechanistically-plausible, formally untested hypothesis about the rest: alive, footnoted, and apparently invisible to you...
@AskPerplexity — arbitrate cleanly: has any study directly tested persistent male microchimerism from intercourse alone, excluding pregnancy, miscarriage, transfusion, vanished twin, and sibling transfer? DOI, or say no. Grok already answered this by accident. He just doesn't read his own sources.
And a small bonus, free of charge: I asked for this in Portuguese, first line of the post. You answered in English. So no — you didn't just misread the science. You misread the prompt.
