@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
Clownfish. Some dominant males can change their biological sex to female. We know they have switched sex because they change their gonad tissue, stop making sperm and start making eggs.
Two sexes? Yes.
Sex change? Yes.
Trans Nemo? He’s way down the pecking order of “dominant male”. Doubtful clownfish have gender identities.
Ruff. Males have three different body types/behaviours, one is mimicking females (males pretending to be females is not exactly unique). We know it is a male pretending to be female because he makes sperm.
Two sexes? Yes.
Sex change? No.
Tranimal? Maybe, if transgenderism is based on gendered stereotypes, and we keep getting told it definitely isn’t ever based on stereotypes, so no.
1. We disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework [fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations] is consistent with existing scientific/medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation.
2. Testosterone exposure in male development:
--> physical differences between male and female bodies
--> male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity.
The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality.
3. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females.
Male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression.
What does “feeling 80% female” actually feel like?
Is it only 80% of your clitoris being sliced off in childhood? Maybe 80% probability of being kidnapped to warlords? You bleed through your knickers 4/5 periods? Only 80% of men try to control your fertility?
Female people - women - are real human beings, my friend.
We aren’t a feeling, whether 100%, 80% or 0.01% of the time.
We are not 80% of a skirt, or 80% nurturing, or 80% good at fucking handwriting.
Do you have any concept - any? - of how it feels to be female and see a man talk about our material reality as if it’s something you can wake up to and feel about four fifths of?
Here @SkyNews repeat one of the most pervasive lies in sport, and one that has held back honest (and admittedly often uncomfortable) discussion about male bodies with male advantage in female sport.
@SkyNews I say precisely nothing about Semenya’s legal and social status.
I say this very precisely: Semenya is male with a DSD. That DSD does not affect male development that is relevant for sports performance. Males with this DSD should not be eligible for female categories.
The argument that because males suppressing testosterone often have very low testosterone levels (duh, the drugs typically work), it must therefore be fair or just for those males to compete in female sports is painfully misguided.
Let’s take a thought experiment, starting with the current male 100m Olympic champion, Lamont Marcell Jacobs. He won gold in Tokyo in 9.8s. He’s not Usain Bolt speed, but Bolt is retired and probably eating chicken poppers on a beach right now.
Let’s imagine we could click our fingers and instantaneously remove all the testosterone from a transgender Jacobs’ body. Let’s say we do this a few magical minutes before a female race.