Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 8, 2009
Sports She Go Say
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Those cornrows? Gone! Caster Semenya wants the doubting to stop right here. Yahoo Sports reports:
It's been a week of change for Caster Semenya, the South African runner at the center of a gender controversy at last month's world track championships. First, one of her South African coaches quit the team in shame for not telling Semenya that she was being subjected to gender tests. (Semenya had thought she was taking a doping test.)Then, Semenya appeared on the cover of South Africa's You magazine with a complete makeover designed to silence critics who insist she is a man.
In the words of the great Fela Kuti: "She go say-ooo I'm a lady-ooo."
2
First: It's either Fela or Femi (Father and Son). There's no Feli.
Second: The first thing I thought when seeing the picture was, 'That's a man in drag'.
Tra la.
Second: The first thing I thought when seeing the picture was, 'That's a man in drag'.
Tra la.
9
She looks totally great. She should, with that much makeover and Photoshop on. And, just for the record, I'm just about exactly as hot as her in women's clothes.
12
Ambiguous gender features make people very uncomfortable. And I'll admit that I'm one of the people they make uncomfortable.
But seriously: the reaction that so many people have (I'm looking at you, Fifty) seems to be "I'm going to deflect attention away from my discomfort by making an insulting remark about this person." I understand the reaction, but I really have little sympathy with people who indulge themselves in this reaction.
Intersex/transgender/gender-ambiguous people are already pretty ostracized. The fact that any thinking person would willingly contribute to this merely to make themselves feel slightly less embarrassed is something I don't understand.
But seriously: the reaction that so many people have (I'm looking at you, Fifty) seems to be "I'm going to deflect attention away from my discomfort by making an insulting remark about this person." I understand the reaction, but I really have little sympathy with people who indulge themselves in this reaction.
Intersex/transgender/gender-ambiguous people are already pretty ostracized. The fact that any thinking person would willingly contribute to this merely to make themselves feel slightly less embarrassed is something I don't understand.
13
Lee, I completely agree with you about the negative tone and insults here.
But in this instance, do you really think that Caster has a "gender-ambiguous" appearance? To me, she looks like a man, and not at all like a woman. She doesn't have the somewhat ambiguous mix of the sexes that my FTM friends have had when they started transitioning--she looks like them when they're done... you know, when everyone is comfortable calling him a him, rather than at the beginning when there's still a fair number of indicators in either direction.
I do think it's wrong to judge Caster on her appearance, and it's not ok to be cruel to anyone. But if she is indeed not a woman, it's still not fair to allow her to compete as a woman.
But in this instance, do you really think that Caster has a "gender-ambiguous" appearance? To me, she looks like a man, and not at all like a woman. She doesn't have the somewhat ambiguous mix of the sexes that my FTM friends have had when they started transitioning--she looks like them when they're done... you know, when everyone is comfortable calling him a him, rather than at the beginning when there's still a fair number of indicators in either direction.
I do think it's wrong to judge Caster on her appearance, and it's not ok to be cruel to anyone. But if she is indeed not a woman, it's still not fair to allow her to compete as a woman.
14
@13: Yes, I think her features are ambiguous, but regardless, no one is accusing her of having a penis. The question for the athletic authorities has been about hormone levels, and this "is she really a man?" nonsense is a newspaper-selling ploy.
As for "fairness": the problem that this case is exposing is that athleticism is seen as a masculine attribute. Women can be more athletic than other women, but once they are able to compete against men (the *real* athletes), they are suddenly suspected of being closet men?
That represents a problem with how athletes are classified. It's like saying, "Well, Jesse Owens, you are clearly better than everyone else here. Therefore, you are immortal. You should not be allowed to compete in this mortal league. It's unfair."
As for "fairness": the problem that this case is exposing is that athleticism is seen as a masculine attribute. Women can be more athletic than other women, but once they are able to compete against men (the *real* athletes), they are suddenly suspected of being closet men?
That represents a problem with how athletes are classified. It's like saying, "Well, Jesse Owens, you are clearly better than everyone else here. Therefore, you are immortal. You should not be allowed to compete in this mortal league. It's unfair."
15
@13 who do you think you are? "to me she looks likes a man, and not at all like a woman"? are you serious?
just to be clear, your comment is of equal value to @7. nearly 7 billion people in the world, and however they were born and made by their 7 billion different lives, people like you are sure you know right where the line is; your eyes are pure and the correct measure?
oh, and that last para of your "argument" is called a straw man. it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and designed to make it look like you have a point, when you don't.
just to be clear, your comment is of equal value to @7. nearly 7 billion people in the world, and however they were born and made by their 7 billion different lives, people like you are sure you know right where the line is; your eyes are pure and the correct measure?
oh, and that last para of your "argument" is called a straw man. it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and designed to make it look like you have a point, when you don't.
16
Easy check -- look at the fingers. If the ring finger is longer than the index finger, it's a man. If the index finger is longer than the ring finger, it's a woman. You can clearly see that the index finger on her right hand in the picture is shorter than her ring finger (follow the links to the BBC page, enlarge the image).
17
@16 you are officially the stupidest person on earth. maybe not the most evil, but definitely the stupidest typing ape. congratulations.
20
@15, I wasn't really arguing anything, but feel free to take offense to my asking Lee about what he thought.
And of course I'm serious. That's why I said "to me, she looks like a man." I didn't say, "beyond all reasonable doubt, this chick is intentionally lying about her sex to win stuff! OMG!! Kiiiiillll!!" Do you have eyes? She looks like a dude. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with looking like a man, or having masculine body proportions, even if she is not, in fact, a man, or intersexed, or if she just has unfortunate looks.
However, very masculine looks in females are related to doping (remember East Germany?), which is why I don't think she should be allowed to compete in an all-female race **if** she has crazy levels of testosterone. It's equivalent to stacking the deck--which ties into Lee's point about classification of athletes.
And of course I'm serious. That's why I said "to me, she looks like a man." I didn't say, "beyond all reasonable doubt, this chick is intentionally lying about her sex to win stuff! OMG!! Kiiiiillll!!" Do you have eyes? She looks like a dude. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with looking like a man, or having masculine body proportions, even if she is not, in fact, a man, or intersexed, or if she just has unfortunate looks.
However, very masculine looks in females are related to doping (remember East Germany?), which is why I don't think she should be allowed to compete in an all-female race **if** she has crazy levels of testosterone. It's equivalent to stacking the deck--which ties into Lee's point about classification of athletes.
22
@20: Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my head around this: I said, basically, that by your logic, Jesse Owens should be forbidden from competing with mortals, because his athletic abilities were amazing (for his day; of course he holds no records now).
Are you saying that Jesse Owens was actually immortal (he's dead, by the way), and that he should be stripped of his 1936 Olympic Medals?
Just askin'!
Are you saying that Jesse Owens was actually immortal (he's dead, by the way), and that he should be stripped of his 1936 Olympic Medals?
Just askin'!
23
@21, yeah, I know--we obviously don't agree 100%. But what is your proposal of the "fair" way to do it? Obviously an inter-universal league for Jesse Owens is impractical. ;) But would we then make everything gender-neutral, so we don't have to divide athletes at all? Eliminate testosterone testing as a means for finding illegal doping (in both sexes)? How would we keep from destroying women's athletic programs in the process?
24
@20 it was clearly a waste of my time. you can't even understand that the essential problem is that you believe men look one way, and women another, and that you know are capable of knowing what that means for 7 billion people across things like race and reality.
here is an exercise in thinking: write everything that is true about "men's eyes", that is not true of "women's eyes", then write down everything that is true of women's eyes, but not not true of men's. did you learn anything?
here is an exercise in thinking: write everything that is true about "men's eyes", that is not true of "women's eyes", then write down everything that is true of women's eyes, but not not true of men's. did you learn anything?
25
@22, No, Lee. And no. Jesse Owens being the awesomest dead sprinter of all time has nothing to do with sex and gender and women's athletics. The whole immortality thing, being, you know, impossible and all, has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand.
The reason that there are separate women's and men's leagues are because there are differences in what our respective bodies can do. Do you accept that? The field is already not level between the sexes--this is why it's hard to accept Caster as a female competitor **if** she has elevated levels of hormones that give her an edge over her female competitors, who would have to dope to get the same advantage. If she's working with the same equipment, that means the rest of us ladies are going to have to up our game, because clearly she's the umm "Jessica" Owens of our time.
The reason that there are separate women's and men's leagues are because there are differences in what our respective bodies can do. Do you accept that? The field is already not level between the sexes--this is why it's hard to accept Caster as a female competitor **if** she has elevated levels of hormones that give her an edge over her female competitors, who would have to dope to get the same advantage. If she's working with the same equipment, that means the rest of us ladies are going to have to up our game, because clearly she's the umm "Jessica" Owens of our time.
26
@25: So, you want to define male and female by hormone levels? Where do you draw the line?
Moreover, if hormone levels constitute an unfair dis/advantage, shouldn't we have a separate league for each possible combination of athletically-relevant hormone levels?
Look: the problem here is that the officials decided to question someone's gender on the basis of her looking mannish. And the deciding factor, apparently, is a hormone level that most of the world has never had tested. You say you're a lady, but how do you know, given the definitions you support?
Moreover, if hormone levels constitute an unfair dis/advantage, shouldn't we have a separate league for each possible combination of athletically-relevant hormone levels?
Look: the problem here is that the officials decided to question someone's gender on the basis of her looking mannish. And the deciding factor, apparently, is a hormone level that most of the world has never had tested. You say you're a lady, but how do you know, given the definitions you support?
27
@24, oh, yes. Obviously you're so evolved that you can't see differences between the sexes. Have you never learned about what androgens and estrogens do to the human face? That those same estrogens tend to make women's eyes (to take your example) larger than men's? Smaller chins, fuller lips, softer jawlines, lighter skin? This is true across the human race, although of course the individuals vary in as many ways as there are people. There are differences between the sexes. If you don't recognize that, then I don't know what to tell you.
28
@26, no, I don't really want to define gender by hormone levels. I'm just recognizing that as a challenge. I don't know how we would do it, if we change how we organize sports. Seriously, I'm not your enemy here. I'm just asking questions.
30
@27 you reading comprehension is poor.
generalities are easy, we all know them.
you said she looked nothing like a woman. but tell me, what is the measure of her eye that makes it a man's eye? what about her skin makes it not a woman's? i want to know what you know, so that i can draw the line between us and them, you and ToddO are the only ones who can teach us!
generalities are easy, we all know them.
you said she looked nothing like a woman. but tell me, what is the measure of her eye that makes it a man's eye? what about her skin makes it not a woman's? i want to know what you know, so that i can draw the line between us and them, you and ToddO are the only ones who can teach us!
31
More specific responses to 25:
"Jesse Owens being the awesomest dead sprinter of all time has nothing to do with sex and gender and women's athletics. The whole immortality thing, being, you know, impossible and all, has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand."
It's a reduction ad absurdum argument. If you don't see the relevance then you have no place participating in this discussion.
"The reason that there are separate women's and men's leagues are because there are differences in what our respective bodies can do. Do you accept that?"
Yes and no. Obviously, there are women like Caster Semenya who can do far more with their bodies than I can. That does not prove that I am a woman and she is a man.
"The field is already not level between the sexes--this is why it's hard to accept Caster as a female competitor **if** she has elevated levels of hormones that give her an edge over her female competitors, who would have to dope to get the same advantage."
Again, the conclusion that one has to draw from this statement is that you believe that only people who are absolutely equal in every respect should be allowed to compete against one another. I understand that you believe you are raising this as a "problem" rather than making a statement, but the film Gattaca did a far better job of raising this problem than you are doing. I recommend seeing it, if you haven't.
"If she's working with the same equipment, that means the rest of us ladies are going to have to up our game, because clearly she's the umm "Jessica" Owens of our time."
Are you saying she has a prostate? Testicles? What "equipment"?
If hormone levels are going to used to decide someone's gender, we have a gigantic problem with all existing athletic records.
My basic point boils down to one thing: consistency. You can't retroactively define Semenya out of the women's competition by calling her a man without a penis.
More...
"Jesse Owens being the awesomest dead sprinter of all time has nothing to do with sex and gender and women's athletics. The whole immortality thing, being, you know, impossible and all, has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand."
It's a reduction ad absurdum argument. If you don't see the relevance then you have no place participating in this discussion.
"The reason that there are separate women's and men's leagues are because there are differences in what our respective bodies can do. Do you accept that?"
Yes and no. Obviously, there are women like Caster Semenya who can do far more with their bodies than I can. That does not prove that I am a woman and she is a man.
"The field is already not level between the sexes--this is why it's hard to accept Caster as a female competitor **if** she has elevated levels of hormones that give her an edge over her female competitors, who would have to dope to get the same advantage."
Again, the conclusion that one has to draw from this statement is that you believe that only people who are absolutely equal in every respect should be allowed to compete against one another. I understand that you believe you are raising this as a "problem" rather than making a statement, but the film Gattaca did a far better job of raising this problem than you are doing. I recommend seeing it, if you haven't.
"If she's working with the same equipment, that means the rest of us ladies are going to have to up our game, because clearly she's the umm "Jessica" Owens of our time."
Are you saying she has a prostate? Testicles? What "equipment"?
If hormone levels are going to used to decide someone's gender, we have a gigantic problem with all existing athletic records.
My basic point boils down to one thing: consistency. You can't retroactively define Semenya out of the women's competition by calling her a man without a penis.
32
@30 I said that TO ME she looks like a man. Her body proportions look like a man's. Her facial proportions look like a man's. We are encoded to tell the sexes apart, which is then reinforced by social experience. I am not the only person to see it. I am still not accusing her of actually being a man, or doping, or intentionally lying about anything. Stop being a sanctimonious jackass.
Also: "your"
Also: "your"
33
@30 Do some research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio would be a good place to start. It's not a perfect measure, but it's a place to start.
34
@31: reductio ad absurdum
When one is throwing around latin phrases, typos look especially bad.
I'm ashamed.
When one is throwing around latin phrases, typos look especially bad.
I'm ashamed.
35
Does this mean we are going to have to add more initials to the world's longest acronym, GLBTQFQA etc etc? Because I don't think I could handle that.
36
Seesh!
So this comment thread turns into peeps thinking THEY get to decide who is male and female.
or
If a woman has masculine features she is not a person with much value, or even worse a man after all.
got privilege?
got misogyny?
again. . . for fuck's sake.
So this comment thread turns into peeps thinking THEY get to decide who is male and female.
or
If a woman has masculine features she is not a person with much value, or even worse a man after all.
got privilege?
got misogyny?
again. . . for fuck's sake.
37
anyone care to point out what bullshit this is?
An 18 YO was (i'll assume by people older than her, claiming to be looking out for her) encouraged her to make this into a beauty contest?
. . . If she's pretty than she's legitimate? . . . oh for fuck's sake.
An 18 YO was (i'll assume by people older than her, claiming to be looking out for her) encouraged her to make this into a beauty contest?
. . . If she's pretty than she's legitimate? . . . oh for fuck's sake.
38
@12:
". . .make people umcomfortable."
". . . already ostracized."
WTF? Hardly. Keep your generalizations to yourself - they only embarrass you.
Too bad I make you uncomfortable, Sparkles. With a little therapy may be you can get over your bullshit self.
". . .make people umcomfortable."
". . . already ostracized."
WTF? Hardly. Keep your generalizations to yourself - they only embarrass you.
Too bad I make you uncomfortable, Sparkles. With a little therapy may be you can get over your bullshit self.
39
@37: Like I said earlier, people convince themselves of some strange bullshit when they're trying to get rid of the discomfort that ambiguity gives them.
40
@38: Well, if you're just going to be a self-righteous fuck...
Look, what I said is pretty obviously true of a lot of people. Witness the comments in this thread, or in any other thread about trans issues.
Look, what I said is pretty obviously true of a lot of people. Witness the comments in this thread, or in any other thread about trans issues.
41
@12:
It's hilarious that someone named "Lee" has a problem with "ambiguous gender features."
Do you spell "Lee" with a penis or vagina?
It's hilarious that someone named "Lee" has a problem with "ambiguous gender features."
Do you spell "Lee" with a penis or vagina?
42
Fela Kuti is so cool he had hundreds of wives .... before he died of AIDS
How many hundreds of people do you think have AIDS now just because of Fela????
Let's praise this irresponsible AIDS negro!
How many hundreds of people do you think have AIDS now just because of Fela????
Let's praise this irresponsible AIDS negro!
43
Shit! My ring fingers are as long as my index fingers if not a little bit longer. When should I expect my new genitals to sprout?
44
The fulfillment of every smug, faux-worldly Seattleite's dream: Correcting an actual African person on the correct spelling of Fela Kuti.
46
Lee @14: "The question for the athletic authorities has been about hormone levels, and this 'is she really a man?' nonsense is a newspaper-selling ploy."
The hormone level issue is not separate from the issue of her sex. Her male organs are causing her to have high levels of hormones which help athletic performance.
"the problem that this case is exposing is that athleticism is seen as a masculine attribute."
It is fact, not perception, that men are more athletic than women. Do you deny that this is fact, or do you assert that this fact is not enough to qualify athleticism as a masculine attribute?
"Women can be more athletic than other women, but once they are able to compete against men (the *real* athletes), they are suddenly suspected of being closet men?"
No. Semenya could leave my slow ass in the dust, but she could not compete against the top male runners. The issue is not that she can compete with men, but rather that women cannot compete with her. Because she has testes.
"That represents a problem with how athletes are classified. It's like saying, 'Well, Jesse Owens, you are clearly better than everyone else here. Therefore, you are immortal. You should not be allowed to compete in this mortal league. It's unfair.'
In order for this analogy (or "reductio ad absurdum," as you so pretentiously call it) to apply, 1) Jesse Owens would have actually had to have traits scientifically proven to be associated with being immortal (as opposed to simply being a very fast runner); and
2) There would have to have been a separate division in which immortals competed
_____________________________________________________
Lee @26: "So, you want to define male and female by hormone levels? Where do you draw the line?"
What makes Semenya's case interesting is that she blurs the line. It's fine for you to disagree with those who would exclude Semenya from competing against women, but you would bolster this position by articulating where, if anywhere, you would draw the line. Do you propose unisex competition? If not, ambiguous people like Semenya will occasionally end up in athletic purgatory between the male and female divisions, unless they can compete with the top men, which Semenya cannot.
"Moreover, if hormone levels constitute an unfair dis/advantage, shouldn't we have a separate league for each possible combination of athletically-relevant hormone levels?"
That's actually a really interesting question in the abstract. Sort of like having a basketball league comprised only of short people who can't jump. Alas, unlike dividing competition by sex, dividing it by hormone level is totally impractical. Besides, no one is saying that it is unfair for women with high testosterone to compete against other women; they are saying it is unfair when the "woman" has high testosterone because she has testes. I'm not a biologist or a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a coincidence that testes and testosterone are words which sound alike.
"the problem here is that the officials decided to question someone's gender on the basis of her looking mannish."
Again, do you propose unisex competition? If not, when a person who looks like a dude is crushing women in athletic competition, I'd say that is pretty legit grounds for investigation by the governing body. Otherwise, a guy who is slower than the top guys but faster than the top women (and there are plenty of guys in this category) could just compete against women. Would you defend such guys? Would you get offended if the basis of investigating them was that they looked like guys and they were dominating women's track?
"And the deciding factor, apparently, is a hormone level that most of the world has never had tested."
Nope. The deciding factor is the presence of testes which produce testosterone.
_________________________________________________________________
More...
The hormone level issue is not separate from the issue of her sex. Her male organs are causing her to have high levels of hormones which help athletic performance.
"the problem that this case is exposing is that athleticism is seen as a masculine attribute."
It is fact, not perception, that men are more athletic than women. Do you deny that this is fact, or do you assert that this fact is not enough to qualify athleticism as a masculine attribute?
"Women can be more athletic than other women, but once they are able to compete against men (the *real* athletes), they are suddenly suspected of being closet men?"
No. Semenya could leave my slow ass in the dust, but she could not compete against the top male runners. The issue is not that she can compete with men, but rather that women cannot compete with her. Because she has testes.
"That represents a problem with how athletes are classified. It's like saying, 'Well, Jesse Owens, you are clearly better than everyone else here. Therefore, you are immortal. You should not be allowed to compete in this mortal league. It's unfair.'
In order for this analogy (or "reductio ad absurdum," as you so pretentiously call it) to apply, 1) Jesse Owens would have actually had to have traits scientifically proven to be associated with being immortal (as opposed to simply being a very fast runner); and
2) There would have to have been a separate division in which immortals competed
_____________________________________________________
Lee @26: "So, you want to define male and female by hormone levels? Where do you draw the line?"
What makes Semenya's case interesting is that she blurs the line. It's fine for you to disagree with those who would exclude Semenya from competing against women, but you would bolster this position by articulating where, if anywhere, you would draw the line. Do you propose unisex competition? If not, ambiguous people like Semenya will occasionally end up in athletic purgatory between the male and female divisions, unless they can compete with the top men, which Semenya cannot.
"Moreover, if hormone levels constitute an unfair dis/advantage, shouldn't we have a separate league for each possible combination of athletically-relevant hormone levels?"
That's actually a really interesting question in the abstract. Sort of like having a basketball league comprised only of short people who can't jump. Alas, unlike dividing competition by sex, dividing it by hormone level is totally impractical. Besides, no one is saying that it is unfair for women with high testosterone to compete against other women; they are saying it is unfair when the "woman" has high testosterone because she has testes. I'm not a biologist or a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a coincidence that testes and testosterone are words which sound alike.
"the problem here is that the officials decided to question someone's gender on the basis of her looking mannish."
Again, do you propose unisex competition? If not, when a person who looks like a dude is crushing women in athletic competition, I'd say that is pretty legit grounds for investigation by the governing body. Otherwise, a guy who is slower than the top guys but faster than the top women (and there are plenty of guys in this category) could just compete against women. Would you defend such guys? Would you get offended if the basis of investigating them was that they looked like guys and they were dominating women's track?
"And the deciding factor, apparently, is a hormone level that most of the world has never had tested."
Nope. The deciding factor is the presence of testes which produce testosterone.
_________________________________________________________________
47
@46: First of all, thanks for the genuinely thoughtful replies to my comments. After being asked whether "Lee is spelled with a vagina or a penis," I definitely appreciate that.
Anyway, no I do not think it's realistic to say that athleticism is an inherantly masculine quality. Yes, men hold most of the athletic records, but this is because we tend to be bigger, stronger and faster. That means that men tend to make better athletes, but athleticism is still a rare enough quality in humans that this tendency doesn't make a lot of difference.
As for the presence of testes: if that can be the criterion for competition in a specific league, I would think that's fair and equitable. But it's not. The "gender testing" that female athletes are currently subject to is far more arbitrary than that. It looks at hormone levels apart from any other factors.
The main gist of my comments was to dispute the one-or-the-other mentality that a lot of people have. Leagues based on height, weight, skill and other factors already exist in many other sports. To me, that seems like a much more equitable route than basing alleged skill on secondary factors.
Anyway, no I do not think it's realistic to say that athleticism is an inherantly masculine quality. Yes, men hold most of the athletic records, but this is because we tend to be bigger, stronger and faster. That means that men tend to make better athletes, but athleticism is still a rare enough quality in humans that this tendency doesn't make a lot of difference.
As for the presence of testes: if that can be the criterion for competition in a specific league, I would think that's fair and equitable. But it's not. The "gender testing" that female athletes are currently subject to is far more arbitrary than that. It looks at hormone levels apart from any other factors.
The main gist of my comments was to dispute the one-or-the-other mentality that a lot of people have. Leagues based on height, weight, skill and other factors already exist in many other sports. To me, that seems like a much more equitable route than basing alleged skill on secondary factors.
48
Re: #47
I'll try to clear up two potential misunderstandings before people complain:
1) The current gender testing regime looks at a number of factors in a rather undefined way. More important than what they look at, to me, is why they conduct the test in the first place. Based on past incidents, it would seem that the appearance of the athlete is the main factor.
2) Yes, the current sports leagues with divisions based on height/weight/skill are subdivisions of men's and women's leagues.
Anyway, I don't have answers. The impetus behind all of my comments has been the fact that not only do I not have answers, but I don't buy the easy answers which a lot of people seem to want to content themselves with.
I'll try to clear up two potential misunderstandings before people complain:
1) The current gender testing regime looks at a number of factors in a rather undefined way. More important than what they look at, to me, is why they conduct the test in the first place. Based on past incidents, it would seem that the appearance of the athlete is the main factor.
2) Yes, the current sports leagues with divisions based on height/weight/skill are subdivisions of men's and women's leagues.
Anyway, I don't have answers. The impetus behind all of my comments has been the fact that not only do I not have answers, but I don't buy the easy answers which a lot of people seem to want to content themselves with.
49
OK, Lee, I think we agree that sex is not an either-or thing. In light of around 1% of people being born with some combo of sex traits, it's hard to dispute this.
I think we also agree that the fastest and strongest people in the world are men.
What you have not really addressed is:
1) Are you OK with having athletic competition (at least at the higher levels) segregated by sex in order for women to be able to realistically compete?
2) If your answer to #1 is yes, do you think athletes who blur the lines between male and female should be allowed to compete against women? Keep in mind that Semenya has about 3 times the amount of testosterone than most women. Also, I am unaware of any person being barred from competing against women based on high hormone levels alone. I'm pretty sure there has to be the presence of some other male trait(s).
3) If your question to #2 is no, can you please elaborate on why you are so offended that appearing manly would be cause for sex testing of an athlete competing against women? The appearance of the individual is not, as you put it, "why they conduct the test;" it is the cause to conduct the test. The "why" is so that women athletes competing in a womens' division don't get beat by people who have male traits.
Saying "I don't have answers" is a bit of a cop-out. At least try here. If you try but still can't come up with any answers, this may show you that the people you are criticizing aren't so bad; they're just navigating through a tricky situation.
I think we also agree that the fastest and strongest people in the world are men.
What you have not really addressed is:
1) Are you OK with having athletic competition (at least at the higher levels) segregated by sex in order for women to be able to realistically compete?
2) If your answer to #1 is yes, do you think athletes who blur the lines between male and female should be allowed to compete against women? Keep in mind that Semenya has about 3 times the amount of testosterone than most women. Also, I am unaware of any person being barred from competing against women based on high hormone levels alone. I'm pretty sure there has to be the presence of some other male trait(s).
3) If your question to #2 is no, can you please elaborate on why you are so offended that appearing manly would be cause for sex testing of an athlete competing against women? The appearance of the individual is not, as you put it, "why they conduct the test;" it is the cause to conduct the test. The "why" is so that women athletes competing in a womens' division don't get beat by people who have male traits.
Saying "I don't have answers" is a bit of a cop-out. At least try here. If you try but still can't come up with any answers, this may show you that the people you are criticizing aren't so bad; they're just navigating through a tricky situation.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (49) RSS