@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
At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva.
This reproductive system begins to differentiate at around six weeks post-fertilisation, when the embryonic gonads - two balls of cells clumped in your pelvic area - turn into ovaries and not testes.
The ongoing development of internal and external genitalia follows this gonadal differentiation into ovaries.
This is what is meant by “organisation” - the coordinated, sequential development of multiple tissues that have evolved around a given reproductive function.
I ran a fairly straightforward analysis of track and field performances across junior ages in different track and field competitions.
The raw analysis looks like this for international records. Above the line is male advantage, below the line is female advantage.
This pattern its repeated across national and state-level competitions. You can see that for almost all events at all ages, boys hold advantage over girls.
Where female advantage is detected, this is easily explained.
At 10 years old, girls grow ahead of boys, and catch up/overtake them briefly in running.
The female advantage in discus at 15-16 years old is because girls throw lighter implements.
The distance drop off as boys move to the 2 kg discus is obvious.
But actually, while these data are good for getting a handle on the magnitude of advantage, I came up with a slightly different question to ask of them.
With help from @johnarmstrong5, I came up with a null hypothesis: if there is no difference between boys and girls pre-puberty, the frequency of boys and girls "winning" should be around 50/50.
So I collapsed the performances as wins or losses. See below for international records, scored as wins for the boys above the line and wins for the girls below the line.
Let’s have a think what hormone categories looks like. And let’s assume that @neiltyson is considering a high/low T category. This has also been proposed by @AliceDreger
The proposal only works if you don’t deny evolution and sexual selection. Remarkably, there are academics who argue there is no biological basis for why males run faster than females. While it is plausible ongoing underinvestment in female sport means female athletes have not yet reached their full potential, it is frankly ridiculous to think this can explain the entirety of the performance gap.
See Sheree Bekker et al for more details on why, because one time, this one female figure skater won a medal, Usain Bolt should be allowed to race against females.
The proposal only makes sense if we recognise that the action of T on a body gives advantage in sport. This is by no means universally-accepted. Many humanities types argue T is not a key part of sports performance, citing males with low T and people registered as female with high T. Even though both phenomena are explicable by factors like illness, doping and male DSDs, still this argument persists.
See Veronica Ivy, Katrina Karkazis et al for why we should pretend that the stupidly high prevalence of weightlifting males with low T is not because they have just finished an off-period jacking up.
Why male advantage in sport is not a social construct: height.
Height is a key difference between males and females. What is nature v nurture? What does that mean for sport?
Bigger skeletons are most obviously driven by longer bone growth. Key bones like those in your thigh (“long bones”) grow from their end to get longer, making you taller.
The site of bone lengthening is called the “epiphyseal plate” or “growth plate”. Here, cells divide/enlarge, making new tissue that pushes the bone ends apart. This tissue calcifies and is replaced by bone, leading to lengthwise growth.