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
“Most of the studies used to ban transgender women so far are based on the performances of cisgender men, which scientists have argued is not an appropriate comparison.”
That’s me, @TLexercise and others.
“Others” including the ones moaning about not having their say. You know, the say they took for granted. The one they didn’t tell @nrarmour about.
Ever read their archery paper?
“Other studies have compared the performances of transgender women athletes with sedentary cisgender women, also argued as an inappropriate comparison.”
NGL, bit flummoxed here. Any ideas?
If you want inappropriate comparisons, try the Fat Bloke Study. Written by the scientists moaning about being excluded.
Nancy @nrarmour links to it. Fails to care that the reason why trans-identifying males can’t jump as high as the female comparators is that they are 20kg heavier, carrying way more fat, and are far less fit.
For disclosure, I have not been part of this IOC working group.
So the actual paper is fine. I’ve only skimmed, but it looks at gene expression between male and female humans and mice, to answer questions about the evolution of genes associated (or not) with sex.
The authors - who admit in peer review that these graphs exaggerate overlap - suggest in discussion that if one were to look at gene expression in, say, the skin from an individual within the overlap, you could not identify whether that individual was male or female.
It’s a high-level take on a more simple principle in this debate: overlapping height, and is a 5’8” individual male or female?
The authors use the same analogy in the introduction.
Even the ones who said it was “just a few”. They knew the scale.
Even the ones who said “you’re racist” as they fervently argued that black women are fundamentally different to white women. They knew the scale.
Also a poorly kept “secret” is that the majority of this cohort are 5ARD, where males can appear to be female at birth but have male-pattern athletic advantage.
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.