Matt Davies

that one loser with the lamest usernames

23,996 notes &

jawdusted:

sparkamovement:

Olympics struggle with ‘policing femininity’:

There are female athletes who will be competing at the Olympic Games this summer after undergoing treatment to make them less masculine.
Still others are being secretly investigated for displaying overly manly characteristics, as sport’s highest medical officials attempt to quantify — and regulate — the hormonal difference between male and female athletes.
Caster Semenya, the South African runner who was so fast and muscular that many suspected she was a man, exploded onto the front pages three years ago. She was considered an outlier, a one-time anomaly.
But similar cases are emerging all over the world, and Semenya, who was banned from competition for 11 months while authorities investigated her sex, is back, vying for gold.
Semenya and other women like her face a complex question: Does a female athlete whose body naturally produces unusually high levels of male hormones, allowing them to put on more muscle mass and recover faster, have an “unfair” advantage?
In a move critics call “policing femininity,” recent rule changes by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, state that for a woman to compete, her testosterone must not exceed the male threshold.
If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring. So far, at least a handful of athletes — the figure is confidential — have been prescribed treatment, but their numbers could increase. Last month, the International Olympic Committee began the approval process to adopt similar rules for the Games.

There’s a lot going on here, but here’s what jumped out at us immediately: Women, particularly women athletes, are constantly told they’re not as strong or fast as men—and now that they’re proving otherwise, they’re being forced to undergo hormone treatments. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that women of color are coming under fire for this more than white women. From the article: “Lindsay Perry, another scientist, says sometimes whole teams of African women are dead ringers for men.” This is a clear example of how we’ve constructed a very particular, very narrow ideal of femininity and womanhood that devalues and casts aside black women in particular.

doesn’t this suggest that maybe we should reconsider our gender norms if they’re clearly failing to conform to prescribed biological remits? 

The biological remits are ridiculous too. Surpassing a hormone threshold alone doesn’t change a person’s sex. There is a natural variability amongst people. How much do you want to bet male athletes’ hormones vary as much as those of female athletes? Not to mention how potentially dangerous it is to mess with people’s hormones like that.This is blatant misogyny, cissexism, and pseudoscience - all the things I hate - all rolled into one.

jawdusted:

sparkamovement:

Olympics struggle with ‘policing femininity’:

There are female athletes who will be competing at the Olympic Games this summer after undergoing treatment to make them less masculine.

Still others are being secretly investigated for displaying overly manly characteristics, as sport’s highest medical officials attempt to quantify — and regulate — the hormonal difference between male and female athletes.

Caster Semenya, the South African runner who was so fast and muscular that many suspected she was a man, exploded onto the front pages three years ago. She was considered an outlier, a one-time anomaly.

But similar cases are emerging all over the world, and Semenya, who was banned from competition for 11 months while authorities investigated her sex, is back, vying for gold.

Semenya and other women like her face a complex question: Does a female athlete whose body naturally produces unusually high levels of male hormones, allowing them to put on more muscle mass and recover faster, have an “unfair” advantage?

In a move critics call “policing femininity,” recent rule changes by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, state that for a woman to compete, her testosterone must not exceed the male threshold.

If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring. So far, at least a handful of athletes — the figure is confidential — have been prescribed treatment, but their numbers could increase. Last month, the International Olympic Committee began the approval process to adopt similar rules for the Games.

There’s a lot going on here, but here’s what jumped out at us immediately: Women, particularly women athletes, are constantly told they’re not as strong or fast as men—and now that they’re proving otherwise, they’re being forced to undergo hormone treatments. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that women of color are coming under fire for this more than white women. From the article: “Lindsay Perry, another scientist, says sometimes whole teams of African women are dead ringers for men.” This is a clear example of how we’ve constructed a very particular, very narrow ideal of femininity and womanhood that devalues and casts aside black women in particular.

doesn’t this suggest that maybe we should reconsider our gender norms if they’re clearly failing to conform to prescribed biological remits? 

The biological remits are ridiculous too. Surpassing a hormone threshold alone doesn’t change a person’s sex. There is a natural variability amongst people. How much do you want to bet male athletes’ hormones vary as much as those of female athletes? Not to mention how potentially dangerous it is to mess with people’s hormones like that.

This is blatant misogyny, cissexism, and pseudoscience - all the things I hate - all rolled into one.

125,441 notes &

flash-thunder:

Women make up 45% of the gaming community and 0% of the protagonists of the 25 biggest games of the year.

"Yes, but that’s still a minority! If more women played video games, there would be more reason to have female protagonists!"

Men make up 35% of the cinema audience and 84% of the protagonists of the 25 biggest movies of the year.

(via jawdusted)

2 notes &

My dear Lyell

[…]

What a wonderful case the Bedford case.– Does not the N. American view of warmer or more equable period after great Glacial period become much more probable in Europe?–

But I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything. One lives only to make blunders.– I am going to write a little Book for Murray on orchids & today I hate them worse than everything so farewell & in a sweet frame of mind, I am

Ever yours

C. Darwin

Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell (1861)

(Source: jawdusted)

77 notes &

tramampoline:

supercargautier:

it’s time to put my cards on the table. it’s time to make a grab for superstardom

I made an entire gifset detailing the absurd process by which I arrived at this conclusion. tumblr cannot handle the gifs. tumblr is not strong enough. here are links instead:

Grid Maths

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

highlights include:

  • a character select screen comprised of 75 marios
  • mewtwo trying to get onto the screen but failing

now watch bandana waddle dee get revealed this week or something

Return of the grid

220,963 notes &

msmorstans:

fucoid:

Spend 7 minutes of your life watching this show on gendered marketing

This is brilliant. I specifically buy razors and shaving cream marketed to men because it’s at least 30% cheaper in the US, and yet the quality is way better. 

(via alewing)

4 notes &

BIOSPHERE: Brand New Popular Science Magazine

thatmattdavies:

Why hasn’t this been funded yet?!

It looks GREAT (full disclosure: I know the creator, but I would still be stoked even if I didn’t!), truly accessible and truly accurate/up-to-date science is so rare in the media but this is going to change that!

It is ESSENTIAL for anyone interested in the natural world, and it’s designed to be especially accessible for students. And if you back it now, you can get a full year’s subscription for £15 (that is a BARGAIN for twelve issues of current, proper science)!

Back it, NOW! (And then reblog to signal boost!)

One week left!

(via thatmattdavies)

Filed under biosphere biology conservation evolution kickstarter

4 notes &

BIOSPHERE: Brand New Popular Science Magazine

thatmattdavies:

Why hasn’t this been funded yet?!

It looks GREAT (full disclosure: I know the creator, but I would still be stoked even if I didn’t!), truly accessible and truly accurate/up-to-date science is so rare in the media but this is going to change that!

It is ESSENTIAL for anyone interested in the natural world, and it’s designed to be especially accessible for students. And if you back it now, you can get a full year’s subscription for £15 (that is a BARGAIN for twelve issues of current, proper science)!

Back it, NOW! (And then reblog to signal boost!)

Filed under again biosphere kickstarter ecology behaviour biology

4 notes &

BIOSPHERE: Brand New Popular Science Magazine

Why hasn’t this been funded yet?!

It looks GREAT (full disclosure: I know the creator, but I would still be stoked even if I didn’t!), truly accessible and truly accurate/up-to-date science is so rare in the media but this is going to change that!

It is ESSENTIAL for anyone interested in the natural world, and it’s designed to be especially accessible for students. And if you back it now, you can get a full year’s subscription for £15 (that is a BARGAIN for twelve issues of current, proper science)!

Back it, NOW! (And then reblog to signal boost!)

(Source: thatmattdavies, via thatmattdavies)

Filed under biosphere biology conservation evolution kickstarter