Emma Hilton Profile picture
Sep 27, 2021 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
With this comment, Peter demonstrates the disconnect of understanding between what sex is and how sex is expressed.

Here follows some cutlery.
This is a knife. It’s function is to Cut Stuff.

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
 

Keep Current with Emma Hilton

Emma Hilton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @FondOfBeetles

Nov 13
Why male advantage in sport is not a social construct: height.

Height is a key difference between males and females. What is nature v nurture? What does that mean for sport?Image
Bigger skeletons are most obviously driven by longer bone growth. Key bones like those in your thigh (“long bones”) grow from their end to get longer, making you taller. Image
The site of bone lengthening is called the “epiphyseal plate” or “growth plate”. Here, cells divide/enlarge, making new tissue that pushes the bone ends apart. This tissue calcifies and is replaced by bone, leading to lengthwise growth. Image
Read 21 tweets
Nov 11
Ok, my charity wears off.

Bekker’s presentation of the “Hilton and Lundberg” argument is nonsense.

At no point have either of us, or anyone else we work with, reduced male advantage to simply muscle mass/strength. @TLexercise @Scienceofsport Image
In the contrary, we have consistently argued that male advantage stems from many physical then functional outcomes of male development.

We spent hours (actually days 😂) creating this graphic, trying to highlight key areas of physicality that underpin male advantage.

HowTF is this reduced to “it’s all muscle”?Image
In our original paper, we had a table upfront, highlighting (in a less pleasing presentation) the same type of metrics. Image
Read 7 tweets
Nov 11
I’m going to put my charitable hat on, and try to elucidate - maybe even, as good practice, steelman - an opposition argument.

Specifically, this one: Image
Let’s set a concrete example: the 10 second barrier (100m sprint).

Wiki - allowing for small errors - tells me that around 200 male sprinters have broken it. We know, of course, that no female sprinter has been close (Flo Jo record 10.49s).
For the following, I’m going to ignore the premise that humans might be close to biomechanical limits over a 100m sprint. It’s just an illustration.

If we follow world record progressions, we see trends (not just in sprinting, the graph below is from a swimming event). Image
Read 18 tweets
Nov 4
As the latest on Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is reported, a diagnosis of 5ARD is almost certain. I and others first raised the likelihood of this DSD a few months ago.

Understanding how the developmental biology of DSDs interacts with sports categorisation is crucial.
I spoke about this with Andrew Gold during the competition:

And I recently gave a talk at a meeting, on DSDs, male advantage and sports categorisation. I will add some slides below.
Read 15 tweets
Nov 4
In August, we were invited by the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports @WileyGlobal to make an argument for screening for eligibility into the female category.

We proposed a cheek swab screen of DNA, performed before an athlete is thrust into the spotlight, with follow up care in the case of unexpected results.
@WileyGlobal This month, two responses to this editorial have been published side-by-side.

The first was an argument against our proposal:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
@WileyGlobal The second was our response to those arguments:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
Read 11 tweets
Oct 29
Ricin is extremely bad for people.

So bad, it’s a viable way to way to wipe out populations.

So bad, it’s regulated at the same level of weapon as sarin and mustard gas.

So bad, the ricin lab at my alma mater was more heavily-regulated than the HIV (live, infectious) lab.
Anyone found with some home stash of ricin has no defence.

It comes from castor beans (common enough). But you don’t accidentally grind them up and extract the toxin as a kitchen experiment.
Ricin is a toxin that targets ribosomes. These are the molecules that, in each cell, make proteins.

Proteins are how your cells do their jobs. Stopping proteins being made is very bad.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(