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
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.
In sport, we are interested in the effects of male or female development on the body, not the booty.
The category boundary between males and females is male-pattern androgenisation - having testes that make testosterone (T) and a functional T response.
Disorders of sex development (DSDs) affect reproductive development, and sometimes challenge legal and social sex classification.
5ARD, for example, means a male baby doesn't make the hormone required for penis development. The baby may be misclassified as female at birth.
But there is no evidence that having 5ARD means you don't go through normal male "rest-of-body" development, and this gives performance advantages in sport.
At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva.
This reproductive system begins to differentiate at around six weeks post-fertilisation, when the embryonic gonads - two balls of cells clumped in your pelvic area - turn into ovaries and not testes.
The ongoing development of internal and external genitalia follows this gonadal differentiation into ovaries.
This is what is meant by “organisation” - the coordinated, sequential development of multiple tissues that have evolved around a given reproductive function.