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
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.