![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Caster Semenya: Too Good To Compete?
Apr. 12th, 2011 05:23 pmI don't know why, but ever since I saw Caster Semenya run and win that, now, historical 800m track, I've tried to stay on top of the story, which has not been easy because eventually people got bored with speculating whether she is or isn't female.
Note that I use sex rather than gender, because Semenya herself asserted time and again that she is a woman, she was never treated by anyone else as anything other than a woman and it was only during the gender testing she had to undergo was she ever treated as anything other than human.
I can't recommend hard enough the documentary about her time after she was banned from racing: Too Fast To Be a Woman?. To hear her own voice, her own opinion about what had happened after the 2009 World Championships in Berlin was amazing.
She's a very strong person, I regret the fact that my admiration for her comes from anything other than her ability in sports.
One of the things that was really emphasised in the film is the double standard between male and female athletes when it comes to ability. It was really fascinating to hear people who deal in sport talk in dismay about Semenya being singled out, because it wasn't as though she had broken any speed records and her body wasn't any more "freakish" than other athletes.
As is said in the movie:
"All athletes are freaks of nature, it's what makes them good".
That echoed in my mind for a long time, because take Michael Phelps, the record breaking Olympic Swimmer. His feet are enormous. His arms and legs are longer than is proportional to his torso. No one said he had an unfair advantage over his competitors, on the contrary, he was said to have been "built for swimming".
Or Usain Bolt, the fastest man alive. No one speculated whether he was too fast for a man.
But women, ah, women. They can't be too good, otherwise they're simply not suitable for competing with other (not as freakish?) women.
It drives me up the fucking wall.
There is no limit to what men should be able to do. In fact, the faster, the higher, the more challenging, the better.
No, women, who have an "unfair" biological advantage (like more than average androgen hormones flowing) need to be controlled. They can't be too good, because then, well, what makes them so different from the men we admire so much.
There needs to be enough arbitrary difference so that women who are females with hyperandrogenism can be curtailed and not threaten the status quo of femininity on the field.
The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) have published new regulations to deal with the issue of hyperandrpgenism.
The article linked above says:
It's nice that they call the singling out, media frenzy and utter disaster in treating a female athlete with respect, an "episode".
The problems with implicating that there are "abnormally" high levels of testosterone in women are myriad, starting from the fact that it is hormones that dictate ability, rather than be a part of the body-machine. As well as the implication that these hormones dictate gender and thus the differences of gender.
Also, the only time androgens are too high, is when there is a life threatening issue of hormone regulation like with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (one of the better known cases of intersexuality).
But okay, some female athletes have higher levels of testostorone than the, say, non-athletic woman, why this insistence on doing a comparison to men?
I'm pretty sure, though please correct me if I'm wrong, that male athletes will most likely have on average, higher levels of testosterone than non-athletic men.
As I said, women will be tested for hormone levels, to make sure they're not, you know, too "masculine", or on the contrary, just "feminine enough". While men will continue on their hyper-masculine merry way.
Remember "ladies", if you're too close to male level athleticism, you're too good to compete.
Suck on that.
Note that I use sex rather than gender, because Semenya herself asserted time and again that she is a woman, she was never treated by anyone else as anything other than a woman and it was only during the gender testing she had to undergo was she ever treated as anything other than human.
I can't recommend hard enough the documentary about her time after she was banned from racing: Too Fast To Be a Woman?. To hear her own voice, her own opinion about what had happened after the 2009 World Championships in Berlin was amazing.
She's a very strong person, I regret the fact that my admiration for her comes from anything other than her ability in sports.
One of the things that was really emphasised in the film is the double standard between male and female athletes when it comes to ability. It was really fascinating to hear people who deal in sport talk in dismay about Semenya being singled out, because it wasn't as though she had broken any speed records and her body wasn't any more "freakish" than other athletes.
As is said in the movie:
"All athletes are freaks of nature, it's what makes them good".
That echoed in my mind for a long time, because take Michael Phelps, the record breaking Olympic Swimmer. His feet are enormous. His arms and legs are longer than is proportional to his torso. No one said he had an unfair advantage over his competitors, on the contrary, he was said to have been "built for swimming".
Or Usain Bolt, the fastest man alive. No one speculated whether he was too fast for a man.
But women, ah, women. They can't be too good, otherwise they're simply not suitable for competing with other (not as freakish?) women.
It drives me up the fucking wall.
There is no limit to what men should be able to do. In fact, the faster, the higher, the more challenging, the better.
No, women, who have an "unfair" biological advantage (like more than average androgen hormones flowing) need to be controlled. They can't be too good, because then, well, what makes them so different from the men we admire so much.
There needs to be enough arbitrary difference so that women who are females with hyperandrogenism can be curtailed and not threaten the status quo of femininity on the field.
The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) have published new regulations to deal with the issue of hyperandrpgenism.
The article linked above says:
Hyperandrogenism causes abnormally high levels of androgens [testosterone] and a female athlete with the condition could, under the previous regulations, be prevented from competing, as was the case with Semenya.
She has since returned to competition, but the episode lead to the IAAF Council commissioning a review which has taken 18 months to complete.
It's nice that they call the singling out, media frenzy and utter disaster in treating a female athlete with respect, an "episode".
The problems with implicating that there are "abnormally" high levels of testosterone in women are myriad, starting from the fact that it is hormones that dictate ability, rather than be a part of the body-machine. As well as the implication that these hormones dictate gender and thus the differences of gender.
Also, the only time androgens are too high, is when there is a life threatening issue of hormone regulation like with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (one of the better known cases of intersexuality).
But okay, some female athletes have higher levels of testostorone than the, say, non-athletic woman, why this insistence on doing a comparison to men?
Testing levels for men and women differ because males naturally produce more androgens. A female athlete will be permitted to compete in women's competition if their androgen levels are below the male range.
I'm pretty sure, though please correct me if I'm wrong, that male athletes will most likely have on average, higher levels of testosterone than non-athletic men.
As I said, women will be tested for hormone levels, to make sure they're not, you know, too "masculine", or on the contrary, just "feminine enough". While men will continue on their hyper-masculine merry way.
If a female athlete has androgen levels within the male range, they may compete if they have an androgen resistance, which would reduce any competitive advantage.
Remember "ladies", if you're too close to male level athleticism, you're too good to compete.
Suck on that.
