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 your regular reminder that I am not an entomologist and I do not study beetles.
My handle is derived from a quote about creationism and I research human genetics and genetic disorders, including one that kills males.
Here is a motor neuron I grew in a dish.
I do not study cool things like…
Jewel beetles. Studies of their iridescence (like liquid crystals) has helped paint chemists. It’s also surprisingly good camo (expt: attach bright or dull wings to mealworms and see which get eaten by birds…).
Dung beetles. They roll crap around all day. Their immune systems are a source of some interest.
Sex is *observed* at birth by “reading” external genitalia, which is a remarkably sensitive marker of sex. Sex is also now routinely observed in utero, again by “reading” external genitalia and, increasingly, by DNA analysis.
@RealTayChaTLC The definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can produce large gametes.
This not a matter of *observation*, this is a matter of *definition*.
@RealTayChaTLC Very few animals and no plants menstruate, yet females exist across almost all complex life.
We do not become men at menopause. We certainly don’t “revert” to men, which implies we were men at some point before menopause. Maybe you think we are men before menstruation?
Across the natural world, male and female are defined by reproductive function, describing the contribution of small gametes (like sperm) or large gametes (like ova), respectively, to the next generation.
In healthy humans, there are two anatomical body types, each corresponding to one of the two reproductive functions. That is, in humans, there are two sexes.
In utero, males and females develop sex-specific primary characteristics pertinent to function during reproduction.
Healthy male anatomy comprises testicles, internal genital structures like the vas deferens and an external penis and scrotum.
Here is a graphic of changes in muscle and strength in transwomen pre- and post- testosterone suppression (12+ months), compared with baseline metrics from demographically matched females.
The original data is presented in Hilton and Lundberg, 2021 (Table 4).
The graphic was created by me for a policy paper I coauthored with Professor Jon Pike @runthinkwrite and Professor Leslie Howe @usask for the Canadian think tank The MacDonald Laurier Institute.
I recently tweeted about people who think I believe humans are asparagus.
This bad faith take stems (ha ha) from an analogy I’ve used to illustrate that the phenomenon of male/female is not limited to the constructions of the human brain.
Like many plants, and like humans, (some) asparagus strains are dioecious - they exist as individuals male and individual female plants. In animals, we call this set up ‘gonochorism’.
Asparagus can reproduce via the fusion of one small and one large gamete (sometimes, they reproduce asexually).
Biological convention denotes the plant morph producing the large gamete, found in the ovules, as ‘female’.
Systematic differences between the two sexes of a gonochoristic species of a physical characteristic (or set thereof), not including reproductive anatomy.
Some sexually dimorphic characteristics are non-overlapping (e.g. deer antlers) while some are very overlapping (e.g. human height).
The extent of overlapping observation/measurement is irrelevant. The only requirement is a robustly-detectable difference between sexes.
Many female humans are taller than many male humans, yet the population descriptions of height in humans consistently reveal that males as a sex class are taller than their demographically-matched female peers.
Height in humans is a sexually dimorphic characteristic.