This knife is relatively blunt and tame-looking. I wouldn’t recommend peeling an apple with it.
Here is another knife, which Cuts Stuff.
This is a beast of a knife. You could peel an apple with this. And your fingers, if you’re not careful.
This is a fork. Its function is to Spear Stuff.
This is a pretty fork.
This is another fork, and it Spears Stuff.
It has a different number of Spearing Things to the fork before. No worries, it still works just as well. I wouldn’t use it to Spear Peas en route to mouth though, unless you want disapproving looks and immediate danger to eyes.
This is a broken knife. By altering your technique, you could still Cut Stuff with it, but it’s suboptimal function.
This is not a fork. It is not More Fork than an intact knife.
This is a broken fork that likes heavy metal.
It still works to Spear Stuff.
It doesn’t Cut Stuff. It is not a knife.
This is a knork, combining both the functions of Cutting Stuff and Spearing Stuff in one implement.
Easier to make knorks rather than separate knives and forks, but total functionality of knorks is more limited than having two separate implements.
If it works for you, great.
One could cut channels into a blunt knife and turn it into a fork. Maybe one could also sharpen a single-tined fork to render it a knife.
Switching from Cutting Stuff to Spearing Stuff (or vice versa) is a functional switch.
No pictures of this process were available.
Cutting Stuff and Spearing Stuff are two sub-functions that form the wider function of Eating Stuff.
The purpose of this analogy is to demonstrate that one can elucidate two different and complementary functions, *regardless* of how those functions are split (or not) across implements. One can elucidate function even in broken implements.
There is a spectrum of implements. There is no spectrum of function.
There is no implement that Scoops Stuff in the system of sex.
This is a pair of chopsticks. They have no discernible differential function.
Left hand, right hand, whichever you use for whatever piece of food, it makes no difference.
They get the job done, but imagine if you made one a little pointier and one with a flatter edge…
• • •
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.