After Semenya: Tracking Male and Female, Injury and Insult
UPDATE: News of the "gender testing" is leaking out, supposedly showing that she has internal testes and much higher than average levels of testosterone for a woman. This is not supposed to lead to her retroactive disqualification, because it is considered a medical condition of which she was not aware - rather than, like doping, deliberate cheating. However, her future as a woman's athlete is in doubt.
By now some good writers have used the controversy over South African runner Caster Semenya as a lesson in how sex and gender are not perfectly dichotomous. Like night and day, male and female exist as opposite concepts in the human mind. There is a reasonable cause for this, reproductively speaking. It is not a heterosexist plot to suppress sex diversity -- or at least not only such a plot. But, to spin out the metaphor, there are times during each twirl of the Earth that defy characterization into one of those opposing categories. Thankfully, we have people to not only explain this scientifically, but to speak up for those who might otherwise be confined to the shadows in between.
Neither is men's sex advantage in some sports a sexist myth, as The Nation would have you believe. They write that "being male is not the be-all, end-all of athletic success. A country's wealth, coaching facilities, nutrition and opportunity determine the creation of a world-class athlete far more than a Y chromosome or a penis ever could." Believe me, I appreciate the social construction of gender -- and even the social construction of sex, explained most rivetingly by Donna Haraway. But Zirin and Wolf strongly imply that the male sex advantage in track and field is the result of greater resources devoted to male athletes. If they were correct, women from rich countries would beat the times of men from poor countries in Olympic track events, but they don't.
In fact, without taking anything away from Semenya's phenomenal accomplishments on the track, she is nowhere near as fast as the world's top male runners.
Since the 1970s, the fastest women have been running 800 meters in times between 1:53 and 1:57 - Semenya ran 1:55.5, more than two seconds slower than the female world record - set in 1983 by the presumed-to-be-doping Czech, Jarmila Kratochvílová (who bore a surprising resemblance to Roger Daltrey). Meanwhile, the world's fastest men have been running between 1:41 and 1:44 -- light years ahead. In this race (unlike the 100 meters) neither sex has improved its fastest times much in the last 30 years.
This does not mean women are the weaker sex. In fact, the opposite is true. Where it really counts, survival, women's advantage is unchallenged. In every single year of age, males are more likely to die than females.
Nor does this deny the advantages of wealth, nutrition and other opportunities. It is not a feat of racial genetics that leads Whites to dominate in sports like golf, swimming and figure skating. These are expensive sports to train for, compared with running. Until recent years most of the best golfers weren't even especially strong men, but they were rich. Socially, though, such opportunities matter much more for the average person than they do for the extreme bodies that compete on the Olympic stage.
For example, contrary to popular stereotype, the average White man in America is taller than the average Black man. It is not the average height of the two populations that determines who plays in the NBA, but the uses to which tall individuals put their relative advantages -- given the opportunities they have to choose from. How many magnificently gifted athletes threw away all their athletic potential just because they had the opportunity to get filthy rich as investment bankers or neurosurgeons?
So why are there women's sports? At least in track and field, it's because otherwise, at the top levels, mostly men would win. That means that, in at least one way, women's track and field is like the Special Olympics -- by which I mean no disrespect to either. We have different categories of athletes so that people who belong to groups that have historically been marginalized in athletics have a chance to compete at the top of their potential and be rewarded as champions for winning. In such cases, the definition of the categories is important. Think of an under 6' league in basketball. You'd have to measure the height of the players, because many would be 5'11".
Having thought about it just this much, and with no expertise in sports but a commitment to gender equality, I think it's OK to have sex-stratified sports in the context of overall gender inequality. More important than what happens at the very top level is what happens to all the people who just want to be athletic. Sex-stratified sports are motivational for women and girls, and help promote the dedication of social and economic resources to female athletes, which remains a big problem despite Title IX.
For fairness at the top levels, you have to police that sex boundary. Of course, as Alice Dreger explains, female elite athletes are not typical women. They are likely to have succeeded in part because they have some of the hormonal advantage that men have -- sex is a continuum, and top female runners are more likely to have bodies closer to the male side of the social dividing line (wherever that happens to be).
And contrary to the impression left by some critics, the International Association of Athletics Federations is not rigidly imposing a stereotypical line between "male" and "female," so that women who are "too good" are thrown into the "male" category. In fact, they have a very complicated explanation of their "Policy On Gender Verification," which attempts to identify and exclude from female competition only those who possess a hormonal advantage over other women. Unfortunately, while they helpfully list intersex conditions that are allowed in "female" events, they don't define those that are disallowed, except in the case of sex reassignment, which is what the policy seems intended to address.
As satisfying as it would be from a social constructionist perspective, and as patriarchal as it seems to demand sex tests, I don't think it is fair to rely solely on gender self-identity for athletic grouping at the top levels. That is what The Nation would do, as they call for an end to sex testing without opposing sex segregated sports. But clearly to avoid the kind of abuse that Caster Semenya has gone through, the testing has to be universal and confidential. (And for reasons of fairness I'd support testing for the "male" category, too.)
Where to draw the line -- or how to fit a line over the curve of human variation? I'm not expert on the science of the sex continuum, but I think that given the gap in ability between the top men and even the "suspect" top women, the fair place to draw the line is way over toward the male end of female. That might seem unfair to some of the other female competitors, but in this case they've been complaining even though Semenya hasn't even broken the women's record -- she's just faster than them. So I have little sympathy.
Unless we find intersex domination of "female" sporting events, I think the risk of giving them an advantage is the price we should pay, since the alternative is forcing women with some ambiguous hormonal advantage to run with the top men, against whom they would lose, and thus effectively excluding them from top competition. And that would just add injury to insult.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"However, her future as a woman's athlete is in doubt."
Really. I mean, really. I feel like Amy Poehler from a bad SNL Weekend Update segment. Really?
REALLY?
What is there to doubt?
Shouldn't it be clear by now that she has, uh, NO FUTURE in women's sports? Or are you still hung up on the "complexities of gender" and mired in sociology babble?
Everyone is back-tracking as fast as they can on this and throwing Leonard Cheune, South Africa's top sports official, under the bus.
For those, like the writers in the Nation, who oppose sex testing, let's do a simple mental experiment:
Caster Semenya won the 800m in a time of 1:55, which is a very impressive time for a woman -- close to the women's WR -- and that's after running in two previous rounds to get to the final. However, for a man even to be eligible to compete in the 800 in Berlin he had to meet the minimum B standard of 1:46:60, 5 seconds faster than the women's WR. It's safe to say that there are dozens of men around the world, including fast high school boys, who can run the 800 faster than Semenya and who could break the women's world record on any given day.
Semenya won $60,000 by winning the IAAF world championship in Berlin. If she had broken the women's world record she would have won $100,000. If the IAAF abolished sex testing, then why WOULDN'T dozens of men enter the "women's" 800m with that kind of money at stake? There would be plenty of men who would compete in the "women's division" if they knew they could take home $160,000.
Thus, when those of us who closely follow the sport, saw Semenya toying with the premier athletics field at the World Championships, we knew something was out of place. You have to understand that it is not simply that she won that race...it's HOW she did it, after 2 brutal qualifying rounds, running from the front, evenly splitting, looking back with a 20 m lead...my God, she had MORE in the tank. Indeed, had she wanted to, she very well could have hit the 1:54 or 1:53 mark set by those women who seemed absolutely doped to the gills back in the 80's.
I hope that you understand that the women who were complaining were not simply upset that they were beaten by someone faster. They felt violated, that in a sports era when drug cheats are finally starting to be caught, a monolith from the past was once again besting them on the track. Except, this one wasn't using drugs...it was simply another type of human altogether.
Just wanted to point out that the 'complaining' of elite female athletes this year is not entirely unjustified. As you noted, there are other women in the past who have run faster than Semenya. However, you need to acknowledge that many of those sub-1:57 clockings have come from or during eras when PED testing was archaic, and nationwide systematic doping programs were rampant. Especially accused of this, were the eastern Europeans and Chinese. Even the U.S. has recently been shown to have taken part in a cover-up, wherein they pre-tested their athletes, then forewarned them of possible positive drug tests.
In this new era of scrutiny and testing. Russian and German 800m women seem unable to perform at the level which they previously did during that record setting era. This year, when Maggie Vessey held the world leading time less than a month before the track and field World Championships, she clocked a 1:59 against what was considered the top field in the world. The only woman I can think of who has performed near the level of Semenya in recent years, is Pamela Jelimo of Kenya (I think she ran 1:56 at some point), who was considered an absolute phenom, but hasn't been able to approach that level all year long.
This is a thoughtful essay. You explore the postmodern condition. In some ways the comfort or pain of a dichotomous world has dissolved. How gender has been such a pervasive determinant of so many aspects of human existence in earlier times will likely become a riddle to future generations. In the meantime, many talented and brilliant people have been repressed by ignorance. How many people making meaningful contributions to our society are omitted from a privileged recorded history based on a narrow view of gender? How much longer must we endure this as common humans before we recognize our shared humanity?
"How much longer must we endure this as common humans before we recognize our shared humanity?"
That's quite vague. This is NOT an issue of whether or not an individual has less or more worth because of his or her sex and/or gender. Everyone has the same inherent worth. As you stated, we want to recognize our shared humanity, and that is not respective of gender, chromosome makeup or genetics. However, we submit this recognition of our shared humanity in various manner; athletic achievement is one of them.
What meaningful contributions have been omitted? Please share. If anything contributions have been more widely celebrated because of distinguishing gender. If our shared humanity only wanted to recognize the fastest homo sapien on earth, gender would not even factor. It is because of your so-called "narrow view of gender" that has allowed us to celebrate respective accomplishments and laud them appropriately.
"How gender has been such a pervasive determinant of so many aspects of human existence in earlier times will likely become a riddle to future generations."
We've progressed a great deal as a society and only the frail in mind would view the "pervasive determinant" that is gender as a riddle.
Is there anything a woman isn't capable of that a man is capable of?
Here's your answer to the riddle: No.
Admitting our once ignorant condition does not mean to continue in it and allow it to remain an enigma, mystery or riddle. That's quite regressive.
See Philip N. Cohen's Profile
Thanks for reading. You might get a kick out of that Donna Haraway essay I linked, which reads, in part: "There is not even such a state as 'being' female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practices."
By acknowledging the existing of intersex, but insisting science creates clear categories, you try to make it "scientifically" straightfoward decide who's *not* male and female, but that doesn't solve the problem of social construction. Why not just sort people by genitalia? Lots of women have an inherent advantage - like those with long legs - so why get into hormone composition? Point is, as Kimmel said, "believing is seeing."
The "problem" of intersex athletes crowding out "female" athletes does not appear serious, so there is no reason insist on a narrow hormonal "female" definition.
(btw, it might be within the rules for women to play MLB, but in international track and field, there are "men" and "women" -- not "women" and "best".)
Biological Science doesn't need to solve the problem of social construction. It's the social construction that appears to be the problem.
You wrote:
"The 'problem' of intersex athletes crowding out 'female' athletes does not appear serious ... no reason insist on a narrow hormonal 'female' definition."
If by "serious" you're referring to frequency, then yes, you're correct because Intersex is still by and large a rare phenomenon.
But whether or not it's a "serious problem" doesn't factor into insisting on the narrow, hormonal female definition AND one based on chromosomal composition.
Furthermore, it is a problem because as soon as someone that's not XX-chromosome carrying woman takes the podium in a women's event, another XX-chromosome carrying woman HAS been crowded out.
Again, refer to the Partially Blind vs. Blind argument. Taking that further, if a world class male sprinter began taking estrogen (which may actually hinder his speed) which allowed him to now compete against and beat the best female sprinters, should that be permitted? From a "social construction" perspective, the man decided he was a female in his own mind. Nobody is disqualified from female competition because of elevated levels of estrogen, unless it's a precursor for testosterone use. Estrogen itself isn't a performance enhancer.
Where does social fairness factor into science? IT DOESN'T.
The length of one's legs doesn't make anyone more or less female so not a valid argument. When I refer to "inherent," I am referring to chromosome make-up, not genetically beneficial traits.
And I'm not suggesting an Intersex individual doesn't possess extraordinary talent or ability. You just can't pit that against an XX-chromosome carrying woman in the same field of competition.
Lastly, while international track and field is categorized by men and women, until the top women's scores rival that of their male counterparts, it's just semantics. We use those classifications for the benefit of women. Other non-track and field sports such as gymnastics or figure skating do have true "men," "women" categories because those are not based on pure timed speed, distance thrown or height cleared but other elements such as style and grace.
"Why not just sort people by genitalia?"
As long as it was not 'modified' shortly after birth and thereafter, that would work too.
An intersex person shouldn't be allowed to compete against non-Intersex women because the Intersex person has an inherent, competitive advantage. Tough, that's just reality. We try to blur the lines because the Intersex may possess female characteristics but the point is, even though we use the term gender, we are actually referring to sex.
So if the Intersex are not permitted to compete against women, well then, what is the alternative? Again, there aren't Men's sports and Women's sports, just Sports and Women's Sports. Well, can't let them compete in the Women's class. So either make an Intersex class or have the Intersex compete in a class that favors no one. Coincidentally, that class happens to be dominated by males, though it welcomes all comers: women, intersex and men.
Perhaps a career as an investment banker or a neurosurgeon aint so bad after all.
I'm curious.... how do you come to the conclusion that ALL intersex people have an advantage over non intersex women? I don't think anyone's ever done any research on that topic, but maybe you have?
Have you tested ALL female competitors in sports and compared physical performance of ALL female athletes - intersexed and not?
How would a woman with AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - an inability for the body to respond to androgens (which includes testosterone)) compete against a woman with higher than normal levels of testosterone? (not related to an intersex condition).
I would love to view the research and would be very happy if you could provide me with the resources. Thank you.
Here's another way to look at it. Say we had the Blind Olympics with one event consisting of putting together a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle in world-record time. Would a partially-blind or legally blind person have an advantage over someone who is completely blind? Should the legally blind person be forced to compete against people in the Seeing-Eye Division, where he would ultimately lose, or would the legally blind be permitted to dominate against the otherwise blind field? Based on your conclusion, you'd allow the legally blind to compete against the fully blind. Otherwise it would add insult to injury. Gee, how's that for fairness?
The point is, in many cases, there are no "men's sports," just Sports and Women's Sports. We don't call it Men's National Football League. We don't call it Men's National Basketball Association. We don't call it Men's Major League Baseball. However, if a woman can compete against men, she's fully allowed to do so whether it's baseball, archery, NASCAR or golf. If a woman can throw 90mph strikes, she might find a career as a reliever in major league baseball. But to maintain the honor and dignity of Women's sports and athletics, the opposite is never the case. For example, currently there are no men playing in the W-NBA. Tiger Woods is not allowed to compete in the L-PGA. Men cannot play in college women's softball.
Really, that's your conclusion?
First, where's the defense that Caster Semenya is fully woman? We're already introducing the "Intersex defense" even before the outcome of the gender (sex) test. This leads me to believe those who claim when they see Semenya that they have no doubts that she is a woman are either being politically correct or disingenuous.
Secondly, why should we short-change the ability of Intersex individuals and assume the Intersex would not be able to compete against men? (Is that a sexist thought or a half-sexist thought?) I argue, there are many reasons that would exclude a person from competition in sports and sports with a specific class requirement, not just limited to gender. You even mentioned a 6' and under basketball league. There's weight classes in boxing and wrestling. The idea of gender may be ambiguous but science is not. If you want to compete in women's sports, you must possess only XX-chromosome. If you have a Y-chromosome, or androgynous insensitivity, sociologically-speaking, you might consider yourself a woman but scientifically, you are not.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
