@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: Oh look, half the people have a dangly thing between their legs and the other half are way less weird looking. I wonder if this division is important?
RW: Nah, I don’t think so.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: But look, the majority of the little people seem to be associated with two big people, one of each type, and the really little people spend a lot of time inside then fixed via their mouth to just one type of big person.
RW: I don’t see it.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: If you look at all the other life around these parts, they also seem to be divided into two main groups of body type. This seems pretty universal, now I look deeper. Are you sure this isn’t important?
RW: Ignore it.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: I really think I should consider whether I’ve discovered something fundamental here. Someone might give me a prize.
RW: I think we should group people not according to whether they *have* dangly or undangly bits, but whether they *want* dangly or undangly bits.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: <doubtful look>
RW: Yes, that makes a lot more sense as a categorisation.
Scientist: OK, but I’m going to carry on studying the Danglies and Undanglies. <gets labcoat on and runs after passing Dangly>
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon RW: <calling> Hang on, how do you know that person is a Dangly?
Scientist: <points to dangly bits>
RW: That’s a bit presumptuous though.
Scientist: <bats dangly bits>
RW: What if this person is really an Undangly?
Scientist: <eyes dart between RW and gently swaying dangly bits>
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: I’ve discovered something cool about Danglies. Wanna hear?
RW: You can’t call them that.
Scientist: W..what? Do you remember back there when I swatted one of them?
RW: That wasn’t a Dangly.
Scientist: It dangled.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon RW: That’s not how we recognise Danglies. We recognise them by their internal sense of Dangliness.
Scientist: I can’t see inside their heads.
RW: They don’t have Dangly brains.
Scientists: <backing away slowly> But you clearly have a lot of dangle going on in your head. I’m off.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a computer-generated series, transitioning between "hyper male" and "hyper female".
Where does your perception of the sex of the person shift?
Which face is the most ambiguous?
If you reply, please include your sex (the actual one).
OK, in the paper, the data was:
Faces 1-3: 100>97% scored "male"
Faces 5-7: 94>100% scored "female"
Face 4 was the transition face, with 68% scoring it "male".
FTR, I didn't hesitate on 4/male then 5/female.
Next set: same series, now skinned 🤣
I won't ask for responses. It is probably obvious that people were less able to detect any sharp transition from male>female, from face-on bone structure.
Note to archeologists: this doesn't mean you can't tell a male from female face, so stop pretending you can't.
In defence of Semenya et al, many argue: 1. athletes with 5ARD are female; 2. features associated with 5ARD are normal female variation; 3. these athletes should be included in female sports.
The first claim is incoherent.
To understand 5ARD, let's look at healthy reproductive development.
Both male and female development are well-understood.
Male development 1. Y chromosome carrying functional SRY that directs testes development 2. testes produce hormones, notably testosterone (T) 3. T first drives male internal genitalia development 4. T>DHT conversion drives male external genital development
In our recent paper (cited by World Athletics @sebcoe) calling for the reintroduction of sex screening in the female category, we make it very clear that this type of screening must be:
1. Cohort-wide | performed in all athletes wishing to enter the female category, regardless of skin colour, religion, nationality etc.
2. Early | to protect privacy and dignity, and avoid athletes being front-page news.
With these parameters in mind, the sex screen itself cannot be considered “racist”.
Citing historic ethical issues won’t wash. We all acknowledge these. Early, cohort-wide screening will avoid the failures of the past.
So the cry of “racism” must be aimed elsewhere, presumably anchored on the premise that previous targeted screening (which is precisely what I and others advocate against) brought multiple black athletes and very few white athletes to our front pages.
Now, let’s grant that and think about what that means.
The charge against me and others is that we are “policing sex” in a way that excludes black women (when measured against “white femininity”).
My friends, I am here to tell you that I - an adult human female with white skin - am precisely the same quality and amount of female as any adult human female with black skin.
Black women aren’t female by some weird voodoo. They are women in precisely the same way as white women are women.
In fact, it starts to look a bit racist on your part to suggest that black women aren’t women in the same way as white women are women.