According to the New York Times, Gold medalist Caster Semenya, a track and field phenom from South Africa, is undergoing sex-determination testing to confirm her eligibility to race as a woman. The testing is being conducted by the International Association of Athletics Federations, the sport's governing body.
There is plenty of useless speculation and a few fucked up quotations in the article from other athletes:
"These kind of people should not run with us," Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. "For me, she's not a woman. She's a man."Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. "Just look at her," Savinova said.
Of course sex can not be determined by looks alone, and gender is not something that we get to decide for others, as Cusma suggests. "These kinds of people" is language taken straight from the bigot's handbook. I think both of these athletes should be asked to do an empathy-determination test, not to mention be schooled in sex, gender, and biology.
Their first reading could be a new book by Gerald N. Callahan, Ph.D.: Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes. He reports that every year more than 65,000 children are born who aren't obviously either boys or girls. He writes, "In truth, humans come in an amazing number of forms, because human development, including human sexual development, is not an either/or proposition. Instead, between 'either' and 'or' there is an entire spectrum of possibilities.'" The book is really beautifully written, highly accessible, and visionary in its own right. For more on this topic, I also suggest Anne Fausto-Sterling.
The ambiguity of sex may not even be at play with Caster Semenya, but the public's reaction to her performance and body are flash points for our continued discomfort with admitting that the world does not come in such simple dichotomies as we safely like to think it does. My heart goes out to Semenya, who meanwhile has to deal with this shit instead of celebrating her victory and reveling in the moment.
Alice Dreger, a professor of medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, appropriately, has the last word in the NYT article, and I'll give it to her here as well: "At the end of the day, they are going to have to make a social decision on what counts as male and female, and they will wrap it up as if it is simply a scientific decision. And the science actually tells us sex is messy. Or as I like to say, 'Humans like categories neat, but nature is a slob.' "
Thanks to so many readers for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sex-Determination Testing in Track and Field.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15593
According to an AP article,
"The test, which takes weeks to complete, requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."
It sounds to me like those who have a problem with Semenya are so ignorant that they would be satisfied with a simple picture of her genitalia, "proving" she's a woman. So where does all of this extensive testing come from, and what happens if you "fail" a psychological gender test while "passing" a gynecological test? Can they really strip someone of a medal or title if their psyche is medicalized as masculine instead of feminine?
I'm a little confused as to why the psychologist is needed. As I think the officials/bodies have got their terminology mixed up: it is the athlete's sex that is the issue not their gender.
IOC regulations, apparently, specify 'gender at birth'. Nobody displays a gender identity at birth, so they must mean sex. Which makes sense, it is on the basis of physical/biological characteristics that athletes should be seperated (if they are to be seperated), not on their identity.
Apart from the appallingly mixed up uneducated use of terminology, needless publicity, etc. I don't have too much of a problem with this. It is undesirable for biological males to be competing in women's events. Women are dissuaded from sport enough by our society as it is; how would it be if it became known that in order to be a top female athlete you had to be a biological male? The notion that sport is for men would be reinforced.
Sure there is an intersex issue. Humans don't always fall neatly into male and female. But for the purposes of competition in sport there needs to be a line drawn in the interest of fairness.
As far as this athlete is concerned: It's not just that she is strong and has a deep voice. If you've seen photos of the athlete, she also has facial stuble which is rare for women, and a masculine jaw line, and masculine shaped upper body. (http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/athletics/195710-caster-semenya-allowed-compete-world-championships-final) None of these things by two or three would arouse suspicion (especially in athletes), but together, and along with a marked improvement in performance at an age when boys mature physically (and women have usually reached physical maturity), seem like reasonable grounds for testing. Bear in mind that unlike when drugs are suspected, they have to schedule a test. Despite the fact that athletes have cheated in this way in the past, there is no routine gender testing.
Personally I hope the athlete is a biological woman, it would bring awareness to the variety of forms "femininity" can take. But if they aren't female they shouldn't be competing in a "woman's event".
"Sure there is an intersex issue. Humans don't always fall neatly into male and female. But for the purposes of competition in sport there needs to be a line drawn in the interest of fairness."
But let's say this test comes back and it turns out she IS intersex, how do you propose they draw the line there? Semenya should not be restricted from racing because of that, however I suspect that "in the interest of fairness" that is probably what will be decided if an intersex diagnosis occurs.
I understand the reasoning behind segregated sports, but in intersex cases, people should not be prohibitted from racing because they don't fall neatly into a man-made category.
"Mens" categories in the vast majority of sports are actually "Open" categories. So she would not be prohibited from racing, just racing in the "Women's" category.
Do we want the "Women's" events to be "Women's and Intersex" events?
What should be the line is an interesting question.
There is an important & obvious fairness principle in preventing men from competing in women's events. In the case of intersex people however its admittedly less obvious.
Its hard to imagine, however, that someone could live their entire life as a woman solely to gain an edge in international competitions. That person, and their parents, would have to know at, say, age 2 that they were destined for international acclaim if only they could compete as a woman. This is as preposterous as suggesting Barack Obama's mother faked his US birth certificate so he could one day be President.
Alternatively, if Semanya made the transition to female a year or two before international competition, I think she derives an unfair advantage.
When I was growing up progressive parents encouraged non gender specific attire and behavior. I have and have had students in my dance programs that I can not identify as male or female. When I was a professional ballet dancer and even when I was a serious ballet student I was given the “young man” all the time.
The entire thing is an out rage and will put a chill through women athletes and women in general. I’ve read a few articles on this story and seen many pictures as well. No she does not look male and her time wasn’t that fast.
The pictures being digital are with out nuance or shadow are inflammatory and probably photo shopped as well.
She will not get over all this and after all the money and time no one is even going to ask for copies of the results when they announce that she is not 100% female as you know after all this they will “find” something’ wrong.
She should sue and should have done so long ago over the harassment.
I have decided to go back to my old no gender specific style in protest.
It’s back to shackles or die for women now.
"Humans like categories neat, but nature is a slob."
I have found my new personal motto.
I suppose this all raises the question as to why we segregate according to gender at all in athletic events. I know there's supposed to be a big difference between men's abilities and women's in running events, but I'm interested to know about other events - is the best female pole vaulter really that different to the best male pole vaulter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_pole_vault_world_record_progression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_pole_vault_world_record_progression
There is over a 1 meter difference.
Well, apparently... yes. Not to go into societal pressures and funding issues and biological matters and what-have-you, but a quick search on Wikipedia (I know, not a proper source) shows that in the last 20 years female pole vaulters have improved from jumping approx. 4m to 5m, while male jumpers have improved from approx 5.5m to 6m. So, women are gaining, but are, as yet, not 'as good' as men.
Again, I'm not commenting on causes, just stating the difference as it seems to stand for now.
Current men's pole vault world record: 6.14 m by Sergey Bubka
Current women's pole vault world record: 5.05 m by Yelena Isinbayeva
When selected and trained for strength or speed, an elite athlete male will be stronger and faster than an elite athlete female. If we didn't segregate for gender, female athletes wouldn't be able to compete.
Homo Sapiens, Humans, are sexually dimorphic.
Cubic centimetre per cubic centimetre biological males have about 60% more upper body strength and 50% more lower body strength than biological females, so putting them up against each other in physical contests is inherently unfair.
Biology >>>> Philosophy/theology/ideology.
It is of course true that there are generally reliable differences in, for example, genetic musculature thresholds between men and women; however if simply being the biggest/strongest/most muscular player meant an automatic win in every kind of sport, then we could look at, for instance baseball, and expect to find that every single highest RBI for the past 100 years was invariably attained by the most gigantic player, and that isn't the case at all. Nor could you simply grab a random male bodybuilder, put him on a golf course, and expect him to win a title. Some sports rely more on nuance and skill than mere strength.
There are clearly sports in which women could probably never hope to win against male competitors (weightlifting, etc.), but there are several major league sports in which a big strong woman could very plausibly meet or exceed male peers. It's unlikely to ever happen not because of inherent biologial limitations but, predictably, because of social ones: no one raises their daughters to believe in, and strive toward, such goals. We implicitly tell our girls they can't grow up and play major league baseball; as long as that message keeps getting passed to each generation, it will remain a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't really agree with this anymore. Participation by women in sports has increased massively in the past 30 years, particularly among young women. Look at school teams and recreational leagues for young people today and you will see that women participate in a good ratio to men.
That and I know many women (including myself I like to think) that are very athletic and who were very competitive in sports when young or even as adults. Certainly I and many women I knew WERE encouraged to participate in sports and were supported by our families, friends and schools.
Women may not get as much exposure in professional sports, etc., and I agree in general men are pushed into it more - but I don't agree that women are discouraged or don't have any opportunities. Heck, there HAVE been women who have participated in male professional sports right beside the men. I expect to see more of this in the future, though with many sports it'll never be 50/50.
Yes, participation by women in athletics certainly has increased dramatically in the past three decades - in the form of "separate but equal". My point isn't at all that we are a society that discourages women from playing sports; it is that we are one in which the prevailing ideology is that women can't play alongside men. Those exceedingly rare exceptions that you allude to have not increased statistically at all over the past 40 years (i.e. as an overall percentage). While I certainly hope to live to see women playing in male major league sports in my lifetime, it's quite unlikely that I will.
i admit ignorance: can someone explain why/when/how gender/sex is not objectively determined. doesn't biology determine this
Usually, biological sex is determined by the chromosomes and genetalia/reproductive organs -- most humans are either XX and have a uterus, vagina etc, or are XY and have a penis, testicles, etc.
And in most of those cases where the chromosomes line up with the reproductive organs, those people ALSO identify with the gender (social construct) that their bodies dictate (IE someone with XX and a uterus identifies as female and feels like a woman).
However, in some cases, these three things (chromosomes, sex organs, and gender) don't line up perfectly.
For example, in androgen insensitivity syndrome, someone might have XY ("male" chromosomes) but have a vagina and clitoris (but no uterus or ovaries), and usually grow up "feeling" and "acting" like a woman. Some types of people with androgen insensitivity syndrome end up identifying and acting as female, but have unusual physical strength. It's possible that this is the case with Semenya.
Or someone might have XX chromosomes and a "normally" functioning female body, but psychologically identify as male and wish to be identified with the male gender, and might even have surgery to change their body (although they obviously can't change their chromosomes) -- this person may identify as transgender or transexual.
In most cases, biology does. Most people have a biological sex that matches their genetic gender, that matches their gender identity. That creates a cis man or woman, who is also genetically cis.
Now, there are (in short) three ways these things can not match up:
- if your biological sex does not fall into the (for some reason obligatory) male/female dichotomy at birth. This happens to quite a lot of children, and means that you cannot tell what sex a child is from looking at their genitalia. These children used to often be referred to as hermaphrodites, but (where I come from) this is now archaic and considered hurtfull, so please don't use the term.
It is often caused by hormonal disorders of either the mother or the child, but there are many causes.
- if your genetic gender (XX for female and XY for male) does not match your biological sex. An example of this is androgen insensitivity syndrome. In these cases a fetus with XY chromosomes (genetically a boy) cannot respond to the hormones that make a fetus develop external characteristics of a boy (ie a penis and scrotum). The child will then look like a girl, with a vagina and will develop (some) breasts. However, she has testes instead of a uterus.
- if your gender identity does not match up with your biological sex.
This is by no means a complete summary. I tried to give a short overview of the 'medical' side, and therefore stayed away from the sociological implications.
When I was growing up progressive parents encouraged non gender specific attire and behavior. I have and have had students in my dance programs that I can not identify as male or female. When I was a professional ballet dancer and even when I was a serious ballet student I was given the “young man” all the time.
The entire thing is an out rage and will put a chill through women athletes and women in general. I’ve read a few articles on this story and seen many pictures as well. No she does not look male and her time wasn’t that fast.
The pictures being digital are with out nuance or shadow are inflammatory and probably photo shopped as well.
She will not get over all this and after all the money and time no one is even going to ask for copies of the results when they announce that she is not 100% female as you know after all this they will “find” something’ wrong.
She should sue and should have done so long ago over the harassment.
I have decided to go back to my old no gender specific style in protest.
It’s back to shackles or die for women now.
You miss the point if she was a bad male runner no one would even ask nor would they if she “acted effeminate” .She is only being harassed because Africa is one country even more sexist then our own. I repeat my entire line of thought from above a million times.
I don’t see much actual study of the article or fake photos here people.
There is a difference between gender and sex. While the terms are used pretty much interchangeably in everday conversation, one is a medical term (sex) and the other has more to do with psychological identity (gender).
In other words, sex=genitalia and other sexually differentiated organs, gender=social identity. Your sex can make you biologically a man--if you are born with a penis, testicles, typically male hormonal levels, typically "male" muscle-to-fat ratio, etc; and also if you are born without a uterus, vagina, clitoris, breasts and typically female hormone levels. But despite being a sexual man, you might identify as "female," meaning your gender identity is in line with being a woman. Your gender identity doesn't necessarily "match"* (your genitalia.
And then there are all the people--intersexed, gender-fluid, transgendered, etc--that don't fit cleanly into one category or the other.
* I use the term "match" for simplicity's sake but I know it's a misleading term; I don't mean to imply that transgendered persons "clash" or anything like that.
Apparently, a similar situation occurred a few years ago with Indian athlete Santhi Soundararajan. She failed the test, and her medal was revoked.
Sorry. I meant to also link this article.
And I spelled her name wrong... it's Soundarajan. I just copied it from Slate, but that's what I get for not double-checking. FML.
I think this raises an interesting question about hermaphrodites and sports. What happens if these tests don't all come back "female"? What if she's anatomically female, but has some chromosomal abnormalities, for example? Who makes the call to determine where "female" ends and "male" begins? What if someone is completely ambiguous yet wishes to compete in sports, do we run a ton of tests and have a doctor determine what sex they are? Or do we let them choose based on their gender identity? I'm not assuming that this woman is a hermaphrodite, this subject just brought these questions to mind and I can't think of any clear-cut answers to them.
"Hermaphrodite" is not really the right term. It refers to someone with both sets of gonads, and that has not been observed in humans. "Intersex" is a more appropriate term, both biologically and socially.
Actually it has been observed in humans. I remember watching a documentary about such an individual in science class in High School. They had one testacle and one ovary. This is, however, much rarer than the birth of someone we would generally consider as intersex.
I only point this out because I think that if you were a true hermaphrodite, you'd probably not be happy with people saying you don't exist. And I've seen this said more than once on this site.
I'm Intersexed.
Most such conditions aren't particularly rare. I have one of the rarer ones, and one of the more spectacular ones too.
I'm dichogamous. To be exact, a protoandrous pseudohermaphrodite.
Most dichogamous humans are protogynous pseudohermaphodites, there'd be perhaps 5,000 in the USA. People who looked somewhat, mostly, or completely female at birth, but changed to look somewhat, mostly or completely male later in life, through natural causes. Some have even fathered children. Looking mostly male at birth and mostly female later is rare, perhaps 1% of dichogamous people.
Unlike some other species, where such changes are quite normal and complete, they're both rare and incomplete for us.
Such a change can either cure existing transsexuality (in 2/3 of cases) or induce it. Don't take those numbers too seriously, they're estimates based on insufficient data.
In my case, it cured it.
Such cases may even be rarer than 46xy women who have given birth. Neither chromosomes, nor appearance at birth are definitive.
thank you for opening up and giving so much useful information about various intersex identities.
just one thing - transsexuality isn't something that needs to be "cured". people can change whether or not they identify as trans throughout their life...but saying that it is "cured" implies that it was a pathological condition. i just had to say something because that just made me cringe a little bit.
I'm a cis woman, so I could be totally off-base about this (and someone please do feel free to contradict or correct me)... but...
Obviously transexuality doesn't need to be "cured" and shouldn't automatically be viewed as a problem. But I can see that in some situations like the ones Zoe Brain described, feeling like one's body had changed to come more in line with one's gender identity could be a relief. For example, someone who is born with a body which looks "female" but identifies or feels more "male" might be relieved when their body changes to look more "male." That person might have previously identified as transexual (a mostly "female" body, but presenting as male) but can now just "be" male with fewer questions, judgments, etc from society. After all, this is what some transsexuals seek out through surgical procedures -- but for some intersex individuals like the folks Zoe Brain describes, the body does this all by itself!
Having experienced it for 47 years, I stand by my statement about "cure".
Here's what a specialist in the area wrote:
Been there, done that. I wasn't quite that dysfunctional when the change happened, no more than one such episode per month, but it's a progressive condition that worsens with age.
From a philosophical viewpoint, perhaps "cured" is the wrong word. From the viewpoint of someone who has acute transsexuality, a practical viewpoint, I feel it fits though.
Consider that many trans people lose family, job, life savings, just to pay for the privilege of a 9-hour surgery, with attendant pain, risk of complications up to and including death... and consider the fact that the alternative is worse.
I knew there had to be a better word, thank you for the correction!
I think that as someone alluded to above, if you really can't make a clear determination of sex then the person should be excluded from the women's events and must compete with the men. That seems fairest to all involved.
I don't know if I can accept that. It seems awfully exclusionary to me and perhaps even demeaning to female athletes. I think it would be unfair to certain intersex individuals who are not quite female, but lack the physical strength and endurance to make them competitive with the men. It also seems to say that women are somehow only equipped to compete with other women because they are too fragile to be expected to compete with those who do not fit into the narrow category of "exclusively female." Maybe there can be a way that sex is determined on multiple levels (anatomical, chromosomal, etc.) for ALL athletes and then they are allowed to compete in whichever category that most of their sex traits fall into... I don't know, the thought of limiting women's sports to people who only fit the narrow critera of FEMALE rubs me the wrong way.
The problem is that it's potentially unfair for SOMEONE, so the best bet is to find the least unfair alternative.
In my suggestion the only people who it might be slightly unfair against are the intersex people themselves, but since they make up the smallest percentage of athletes it seems the most fair.
Whereas with your suggestion it may be very unfair to female athletes, which seems a greater evil.
As for the fragility comment, as long as the mens events are treated as open events (ie: any sex/gender can compete), then I don't see it since women always have the option to enter the open categories.
This seems like the fairest solution to me as well, although it certainly does make me cringe... if someone like Semenya turns out to be XY and unusually strong for a female (for example, if she has androgen insensitivity syndrome), then it would make more sense for her to compete with men -- but since she identifies as female, then she's going to have a hell of a time socially competing in an "open" category where 99.9% of her competitors identify as men.
Yeah, I see what you all are saying. I think a big problem is that even though men's events are technically "open" events, they really aren't viewed that way. I don't know if there's a hugely satisfactory way to resolve this issue without a total overhaul of the system.
Just fyi, your hypothetical situation doesn't make any sense... testosterone correlates to muscular development in females, too - someone with androgen insensitivity disorder would be at a marked *disadvantage*.
Actually, some folks with androgen insensitivity syndrome have testosterone levels which are more in the "typical male" than "typical female" range -- see for example here (Wikipedia):
But that's the whole "androgen insensitive" part... their bodies produce the hormones, but don't react to them normally. It wouldn't matter how much testosterone you pumped into them, they'd never develop into more statistically average "males".
"I think it would be unfair to certain intersex individuals who are not quite female, but lack the physical strength and endurance to make them competitive with the men."
While I'm certainly uncomfortable with excluding certain groups when you think about it, most people are excluded from highly competitive sports for reasons beyond their control. Most of us could train with the top coaches and perfect nutrition and we would still never run a sub 10 second 100m because we aren't in that genetic "elite" category. Likewise an 120 lb kid will never be an all-star football player and to take the argument further, a blind person is not going to be home run king. I can't say that this argument puts me completely at ease, but it's fair to say that sports are not really equal opportunity to begin with.
I see your point, but all of your examples are about people who cannot participate for whatever reason. I think it's another thing all together to exclude someone from a sport because they are just too GOOD. If someone is intersexed and this makes them better at a certain sport, isn't that just another genetic/biological difference that gives them an edge over the competition, just like the 120 lb kid is put at a disadvantage? I know I could never ever be a good runner, my hips and thighs are just too big. But if someone has a slight hormonal/chromosomal abnormality that means they are stronger/faster than your average woman, I think that should not be punished by basically being banned from participating in events they actually have a chance to win. Is it fair? Of course not, just like it's not fair that Giselle Bundchen is a supermodel and I'm just me. But hey, that's life.
But we are already separating based on biology in sport. We are already excluding men from women's events. There are a number of men who aren't quite good enough to compete at the elite level in men's events but could be at the very top in women's events.
Perhaps you think we should just exclude those who are clearly men, but even this is problematic: what is 'clearly'? The line has to be drawn somewhere if we are to have men's and women's events in sport.
And I think we do want women's sport. Women should have the chance to compete at an elite level. You may not be biologically suitable to compete in sport A at the highest level, but that usually won't become obvious at a young age. If you are female there is the assumption that you could never compete at elite level in men's sports. Now if there were only open sports the affect would be to take away the sporting dreams of young girls and reinforce the notion that sport is for men.
I always recommend reading Gender Blender: Intersexual? Transsexual? Male, female aren't so easy to define when discussing trying to use sc ience for sex determination. This was a Los Angeles Times commentary from April of 2004 by the chief of medical genetics at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, Eric Vilain. He succinctly stated in his piece:
Dr. Vilain's article is written from the perspective of being for marriage equality. He bases this in large part on how intersexuals and transsexuals make the point that cannot easily define men and women by just a simple look at the private parts, or by genetic testing -- often people don't fit easily into sex classifications.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) the decided to "refrain from performing gender tests" beginning with the 2000 Olympics, conceding that no single test provided a complete answer. Given the IOC's previous decision, this testing of this athlete seems both pointless and offensive.
I think this is more of a concern with hormonal factors giving this athlete an unforeseen advantage. Which is valid.
However everyone interviewed are being shown as nasty bigots. Which may or may not be the case.
But no one can deny that men have an advantage in body strength over women. And a woman with male characteristics may have an advantage over women who don't.
Is this right to single her out? I don't know. Its a game changer, that is for sure.
The South African press is going further to call the controversy racist as well in that they are expecting an African woman to conform to what white womens bodies look like.
I really feel for all of the athletes involved here. While I find it *incredibly* unlikely that Semenya's gender identification has anything at all to do with her chosen sport, I do feel badly for the other athletes who have to compete against someone who has a birth-male body make-up.
As someone else already mentioned, elite male athletes perform much better in track and field events than elite women, due to differences in muscular/fat/body make-up determined by birth sex. In this sense, Semenya may have a definite advantage, athletically.
However, I think, ultimately, it should in no way bar her from competing. She should be able to perform her very best in her chosen sport, just as any other woman could choose to. But I do understand how the other athletes might feel that this is an unfair advantage. As for me, I think it is an advantage, certainly, but a perfectly fair one.
Also, I wonder ... Does anyone know how hormone treatments might affect athletic performance in trans women?
In the end, these determinations are pretty arbitrary. All of these athletes have some biological advantages that allowed them to compete at this level. I have wide hips and a big bust, which means I don’t run very fast. I’m also short. Is it unfair that I don’t have the same genetic advantages as these other women? Sure it is. But that’s the nature of competitive sports. The same is true for Semenya. If she is identifying and living as a woman, then leave her be. Social stigma against simply *being woman* is strong enough that I don’t worry about a bunch of male athletes heading over to conquer women’s sports.
I've been trying to phrase a similar sentiment since I saw this news being passed around yesterday...
Since the idea of "athlete" is somewhat rooted in the idea of "doing a sport/physical feat better than average people", most sports do, on some level, come down to base physical attributes*, and that females are statistically weaker/slower/shorter than men, it seems to me like trying to deal with women in sports without actively dismantling some of the ideas of "sport" and "athlete" inherently requires setting up women as a protected, special class. Which rubs me the wrong way. Individuals who are "too good" to be women are going to throw a wrench in the works.
Not really "how I think sports should be fixed", more "why I really don't understand sports at all".
*for the sake of argument, I'm kind of restricting myself to things like track and field rather than team sports where strategy, group composition, etc are factors.
I’m a competitive distance runner and aspiring tri-athlete, and I don’t feel like I’m being treated as a protected class at all by competing only against women. At least as far as distance running is concerned, performance in any given race can be determined as much by mental exertion and mind games that you play. When I know that I’m running against women (many of whom have to overcome the same challenges and obstacles I’ve faced in training—anything from learning to run through awful menstrual cramps to dealing with sports bra chafing) it’s just a race and I’m running my best and running with and against my peers. In open races I often put more pressure on myself to “prove” something over the male runners and end up psyching myself out. The fact that I’m running with and against men and feel the need to prove something is just one more goddamn thing I worry about instead of focusing on the task at hand. Racing and consistently getting comparing yourself to how guys are doing gets quite frustrating and can be totally demoralizing.
I can certainly empathise with the social/mental challenges faced by female athletes, and I don't mean to diminish that... it just doesn't seem like that's really the case in the context of "one person who needs to be reclassified because she doesn't qualify as a woman". If the challenges of being a woman in society are the measure, than the whole "gender test" idea is kinda bunk.
Part of my point was in how arbitrary using "males" and "females" as our categories are, when we're using biological sex as shorthand for physical characteristics. Why not use the actual relevant physical characteristics? Group long-jumpers by height? Distance runners by oxygen utilisation? Maybe group athletes by hormone levels? (Honestly, I'm not well-versed in any sport, so maybe those examples don't actually make any sense... hopefully you see where I'm going.)
It's not just the hormone levels that are important. I'm lead to believe the female reproductive system costs more energy to run than a male's. In fact I believe this is what lead, evolutionarily speaking, to the development of sexes in the first place. There are other trade-offs as well, wider hips to accommodate a uterus being the main one.
Female athletes tend to be stronger and have narrower hips but still manage to be functioning females. Some intersex individuals may not have these disadvantages.
This is my understanding, from accumulated reading and various discussions with a biology lecturer but this is not my area of expertise. If someone has a better knowledge of biological or medical science as it relates to humans in this area, I would very much appreciate any corrections or additions that might be appropriate.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, let's be sensitive here. *You* aren't bothered by this because *you* aren't competing. Your life, dreams, and livelihood aren't at stake. For some people this is their income, or their lifelong dream.
and somehow the needs of cis women are more important than that of intersex or gender nonconforming women? im legitimately confused as to what you are trying to push here.
She's not pushing anything. She's explaining why professional athletes are concerned about their competitors' advantages in a way that amateurs don't have to be.
Back when the Soviet Union was being attacked for disguising male athletes as women, the Olympics instituted sex testing. While I suspect testing for steroids and other performance enhancing drugs might have shown a lot of positives, none of the Eastern Bloc athletes in question were anything other than XX women.
However, a significant number of other athletes were discovered to not be XX. They didn't look masculine. They were obviously top athletes in their sports, but not out of the ordinary for women athletes and not among the record setters. Nobody ever suspected they were anything other than XX. And in many cases it was the first time they were aware they were intersex until they were dismissed.
One has to remember Roller Derby is trans inclusive. From what I know there is no physical advantage of trans women involved over cis women from those I know who are involved in that sport. For most younger trans women, a period on HRT basically puts your streangth on par with most atheletic women.
I really think these gender tests with the olympics are absurd and should be banned. They have caused enough problems for IS women as it stands and have come off as intrusive.
As a roller derby player for a local league, myself, I think the difference here is that we are talking about, with Semenya, an elite athlete. Most derby leagues are amateur.
But thanks for answering my question about hormone treatment. If HRT evens out strength issues, then I can't even understand anyone's argument against Semenya, much less agree with it.
The sex tests are primarily tests for hormonal and metabolic levels ouside the range of the 'accepted' female definition. Anyone beyond that range is considered male for competitive athletic purposes. The tests were introduced because of some work the Soviets and East Germans started. Amazingly a whole lot of their female athletes immediately stopped competing once sex testing was introduced. It hasn't been used much since then because it is a crude easily detectable way to cheat compared to various forms of steroids and blood doping.
It is likely to become much more common as advances in medical science and genetics make it a more viable form of cheating. I believe the psychologist is there for counseling any athlete who inadvertently falls outside the accepted range. Many countries don't provide psych counseling and the IAAF is trying to be somewhat sensitive.
Personally, I think her physical characteristics suggest that she is likely to fail the sex test and be stripped of her medals.
"In truth, humans come in an amazing number of forms, because human development, including human sexual development, is not an either/or proposition. Instead, between 'either' and 'or' there is an entire spectrum of possibilities.'"
And we must never lose sight of just how desperately invested society is in trying to violently shut down that ambiguity - when the rare parents stand up to doctors who insist that an intersexed infant "must" undergo surgery to assign one clear sex, they can find themselves being sued for guardianship, as was the case several years ago in California. Greater than 99% of healthy intersexed infants are arbitrarily surgically assigned at birth. (I'm not including in this category cases in which there is a legitimate medial need to do genital surgery - inverted urethral tissues, a necrotic ovary, etc.) Hegemony's doing an horrifically efficient job of keeping the reality of "messy nature" and the truth that sex is a spectrum well elided.
the problem that i see with this situation, is that as a runner, i train hard and long hours just to be in the middle of the pack. in an interview with the running times, caster sad that she rested for 4 months last year. to be at that level of competition, and be resting that much, doesn't seem plausible to me.
when the tests come back, which are long, embarrassing and most-likely uncomfortable, we'll see where she stands.
this is a case of sexual identity, not gender. the athletics commission has rules about trans people, for example if someone is post-op and taking hormones they can compete under that sex, but if they haven't, they can't. why? because testosterone makes you run faster.
here's a link to an interesting blog on the subject:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...or-female.html
You miss the point "feminists" if this was a man there would be no issue or harassment neither would there be a problem if she wore lip gloss and nail polish. Ballet dancers are completely flat chested or they do not get hired and also covered in muscle with body fat below 10%.Do you want society to go back to institutionalizing women for being unfeminine? When I was at the top of my form I had almost zero estrogen and would have failed an endocrine test which by the way fluctuates. And more testosterone doesn’t necessarily make you faster or stronger. And different ethnic groups amass muscle and other tissue differently. The body of an African woman was just recently retuned from Europe to Africa she was during the eighteen hundreds paraded around naked because African women have larger clitorises so she was a side show act against her will I might add. This is where the rubber meets the road people.