I’m curious about which image Ronson was referencing here. @Glinner Any thoughts? Do you remember?
Was it 50 year old 6’6’’ Gabrielle Ludwig taking a place from an adolescent female?
Was it Fallon Fox breaking her opponent’s face?
Was it Hannah Mouncey dragging young women around the field?
Was it ‘genetically gifted’ Rachel McKinnon?
Was it Cece Telfer’s penis bouncing across the finish line?
Was it Laurel Hubbard’s smug satisfaction?
Was it Tiffany Abreu breaking female scoring records?
Was it Mary Gregory breaking female lifting records?
Was it one of these two, now being sniffed around by colleges keen to bolster their female track team?
All incendiary, unpleasant and harmful? You’re damn right they are. Here’s Selina Soule talking about Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller (directly above).
I have to ask: is there a non-incendiary way to show a massive older male looming over his young female teammates?
It’s incendiary only because it looks so shocking. And it looks so shocking because the bare facts about what is happening to female sport *is* shocking.
IIRC, in Publicly Shamed, @jonronson writes about attracting dissent for calling Twitter ‘the Stasi’ - a statement he acknowledges as ‘overblown’ (incendiary?) - and dismissing it as his detractor having not really grasped the issue. I might respectfully suggest the same here.
Appalling grammar which I’d normally ignore but it’s the very word I’ve highlighted 🙈
*are* shocking.
Why should we ignore this? Why should we ‘be nice’? God knows these males get enough gushing press attention - awards aplenty.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Birds use genetic sex determination, just like humans.
The "make male" gene for humans is called SRY, and it lives on the Y chromosome.
If you have functional SRY and its downstream transcriptional storm, you will make testes and make male.
Birds differ. Their "make male" gene is called DMRT1.
It pretty much works like SRY, in that it's immediate downstream target is the parallel gene in both humans and parrots, and the ensuing transcriptional storm triggers testes development (testes being male, of course).
"This model of estradiol’s role in improving resistance to wound sepsis predicts at least four “sexes” across two treatment groups: females who are in the proestrus phase, females who are in the diestrus phase, females who are postmenopausal, and males."
This is Sarah Richardson, of the Fuentes review.
Four "sexes", three of them female and the other male. JFC.
Apparently-female athletes who test positive for SRY will have a consultation with WA, with a view to medical assessment to better understand any medical conditions (DSDs) they have.
It is this diagnosis that will determine eligibility (or not).
After a primer on sex development, Sinclair tries a gotcha.
Describing Swyer Syndrome and CAIS, he argues these athletes would be unfairly excluded.
But WA makes it clear that CAIS is exempt from exclusion. It’s in both the policy and the press release. I doubt Swyer would be excluded either.
Five years ago, I gave a speech comparing sex denialism to creationism.
At the time, my partner-in-crime, Colin Wright, and I were near-lone academic voices willing to stand up and say “Biology! We have a problem!”
@SwipeWright
Reflecting, back in 2020, on that state of affairs:
“[That] there are two sexes, male and female is apparently something that biologists do not think needs to be said.
I think they are wrong.”
Since then, biologists with far more authority than an unknown developmental biologist who was trying to work out how nerves navigate over muscles and an unknown evolutionary biologist who was studying what makes insects mad have spoken up.