P.S. I was looking through some of the early posts from 2019 and found this statement: "the X or the 23 stores up alleles and is called the sticky gene. The genetic term is ativism. It downloads generations later and can store it up for 1000 years."
I think there is some confusion here. Google for X-chromosome ativism and you get nothing. It doesn't seem to be an accepted scientific concept Google for X-chromosome inactivation and you'll get an explanation of how in females, one gene in each pair on the X randomly switches "off" so that X-chromosome expression is balanced in males and females. Males have only one X and it is fully active. Females have two X's, but in terms of functionality it's like they have only one because half the genes have been switched off.
The X doesn't "store up alleles" any differently than the rest of the chromosomes do. It just has a different inheritance pattern than the other chromosomes. "Sticky" DNA refers to DNA segments that have persisted in a lineage for longer than average. You need to find some sticky segments if you want to prove descent from 10 generations ago using atDNA, but stickiness is a matter of random probability.
X-DNA does tend to be more sticky than autosomal because of its inheritance pattern. Women can recombine their X DNA like any other chromosome pair because they have two X's. But men have only one X that they can't recombine. The X that a man gives to his daughter is exactly the same as the X that he received from his mother, assuming that there haven't been any random mutations. So the X DNA is NOT being recombined in both parents in every single generation. For tracing a line of descent from a specific ancestor, you tend to get the greatest stickiness when each generation alternates between males and females, and the least stickiness when there's a long string of consecutive females. If there are two consecutive males, the chain of X descent is broken because a male does not give an X chromosome to his son.
Erica Howton you're getting mysterious Scandinavian percentages in your ethnicity estimates because making these estimates is a most inexact science. It's quite good at the continental level (for example telling the difference between European, African, and/or Asian), but breaking down the results within the continent is a lot more of a crapshoot. Each different company has their own algorithm, so you get different results from different companies. The Vikings had a lot of influence in Britain and a few other places, which makes the ethnicity estimate go haywire for some companies. FTDNA thinks I'm 29% Scandinavian, Ancestry thinks it 6%, and 23andMe and MyHeritage think it's zero. The correct answer is zero or something very close to it - my last Scandinavian ancestor was a sixth great grandmother. I actually have identified a 13cM segment that apparently have come from her, but that's like a quarter of a percent.
The paper trail says that I should be roughly 60% British Isles, 40% German, and precious little of anything else. The ethnicity estimates range from 82% British and 12% German to 25% British and 68% German, with some other random crap thrown in for fun. My favorite is the 0.3% Coptic Egyptian that 23andMe came up with. So don't take the ethnicity estimate too seriously. The bigger percents are probably somewhere in the general ballpark, although some items might not be described in the way you'd expect. Items under 2% are likely to be junk. Some companies are giving me a few percents of Eastern European, which is probably mislabeled eastern Germany.