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
I blocked Dope because he could not entertain a discussion that wasn’t on his terms within his framework.
I don’t accept his framework. And because he wouldn’t discuss a single thing within mine, it was pointless.
Because he wouldn’t discuss anything outside of his own narrow ideology, I am left with no idea whether he even understands that my framework is different to his.
His repeated questions indicate he seems to think they were natural progressions of my framework.
They were not.
I and others have discussed - at length, ad nauseum - about how reducing sex to a composite tally of characteristics is ideological.
It is an abuse of the system in use to describe the sometimes incongruent reproductive biology of those with DSDs.
Clownfish. Some dominant males can change their biological sex to female. We know they have switched sex because they change their gonad tissue, stop making sperm and start making eggs.
Two sexes? Yes.
Sex change? Yes.
Trans Nemo? He’s way down the pecking order of “dominant male”. Doubtful clownfish have gender identities.
Ruff. Males have three different body types/behaviours, one is mimicking females (males pretending to be females is not exactly unique). We know it is a male pretending to be female because he makes sperm.
Two sexes? Yes.
Sex change? No.
Tranimal? Maybe, if transgenderism is based on gendered stereotypes, and we keep getting told it definitely isn’t ever based on stereotypes, so no.
1. We disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework [fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations] is consistent with existing scientific/medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation.
2. Testosterone exposure in male development:
--> physical differences between male and female bodies
--> male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity.
The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality.
3. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females.
Male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression.
What does “feeling 80% female” actually feel like?
Is it only 80% of your clitoris being sliced off in childhood? Maybe 80% probability of being kidnapped to warlords? You bleed through your knickers 4/5 periods? Only 80% of men try to control your fertility?
Female people - women - are real human beings, my friend.
We aren’t a feeling, whether 100%, 80% or 0.01% of the time.
We are not 80% of a skirt, or 80% nurturing, or 80% good at fucking handwriting.
Do you have any concept - any? - of how it feels to be female and see a man talk about our material reality as if it’s something you can wake up to and feel about four fifths of?
Here @SkyNews repeat one of the most pervasive lies in sport, and one that has held back honest (and admittedly often uncomfortable) discussion about male bodies with male advantage in female sport.
@SkyNews I say precisely nothing about Semenya’s legal and social status.
I say this very precisely: Semenya is male with a DSD. That DSD does not affect male development that is relevant for sports performance. Males with this DSD should not be eligible for female categories.