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
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.