"Unfair Genetic Advantage"

[Thorn]

Don't get me started--just because she doesn't conform to society's (and, let's face it, pretty much white society's) standard for female appearance, she's assumed to be a man. Sad. Sad.

Gender has gray zones. Despite what we'd like to believe, gender is a continuum. As one article I read stated...we'd like to believe that nature makes two nice buckets of people: male and female, but, you know, nature is a slob and it isn't the case.

I thought this essay put it nicely...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sp...semenya&st=cse

[OakLeaf]

I agree with nearly all of what's been said. The trouble is, it leads down a road most of us probably don't want to go down. If there isn't a bright line between male and female (which I agree there isn't), should there be separate competitive categories for men and women? And if not, where does that leave the talented women athletes - including Semenya - who simply didn't develop with the same amount of testosterone as those whom we consider "men"?

[alpinerabbit]

It's unfair for the individual - it's happened before and people had to give up their careers - but it's also unfair to the other women if an elevated testosterone level helped her develop to the level she's competing at.

Apparently the South African athletic association was aware of it (they already did a test this spring) and they even have an Ex-GDR coach who was involved in steroid doping back in the GDR days, and it is presumed that her testosterone levels were artificially reduced before competitions to evade tests.

By the way (this is really mean but what a coincidence) - her name is an anagram of Yes a secret man...

[KnottedYet]

Colby asked: "And what are transgendered people (especially MtF) really to do? Not compete at all? Is their inherent genetic "advantage" really an advantage after hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery? Any moreso than a statistically tall/athletic woman born a woman?"

That question was pretty neatly answered by the experience of Janet Furman Bowman.

Janet Furman Bowman was a pretty serious competitive runner (and kept excellent records) when she was a man, and continued running after she became a woman.

Her experience of the level of effort was the same, though her times dropped enormously. But, within the women's category she was in the same percentile as when she raced in the men's category.

No advantage to having been male for several decades. www.pfc.org.uk/files/A_Six_Minute_Difference.pdf

If Semenya isn't doping or cheating, if her body is naturally as powerful as it is during these races, then I just don't see how disqualifying her for the way God made her can at all be fair.

ETA: I liked some of the comments on slashdot. Two in particular. The idea that athletic competition is divided into "definitely female" and "everyone else." (making the division meaningless anyway) Also the idea that all competitive athletes have advantages over "normal" people, that's why they are competitive athletes; so why kick out a competitive athlete who naturally has an advantage over other competitive athletes? I bookmarked slashdot, lots of fun nerd stuff there!

[colby]

Colby asked: "And what are transgendered people (especially MtF) really to do? Not compete at all? Is their inherent genetic "advantage" really an advantage after hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery? Any moreso than a statistically tall/athletic woman born a woman?"

That question was pretty neatly answered by the experience of Janet Furman Bowman.

Janet Furman Bowman was a pretty serious competitive runner (and kept excellent records) when she was a man, and continued running after she became a woman.

Her experience of the level of effort was the same, though her times dropped enormously. But, within the women's category she was in the same percentile as when she raced in the men's category.

I heard about this after I posted. Very interesting, and good for the case to allow transgendered individuals to continue to compete, which I know has come up before in other sports.

There was also a video and some commentary on another blog I read, Sociological Images. The video is from MSNBC.

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/0...-semenyas-sex/

He doesn't really add anything to the conversation, except to try to allude that there shouldn't be male/female categories either. So what does that boil it down to, testing for testosterone levels? So you compete in a category with similar levels of "genetic advantage" to your own? That seems extreme. We sure are overcomplicating things for something that's supposed to be fun.

And in those pictures, she sure looks like a woman to me. A lot of the track and field athletes are tall, fit, muscular, and don't have strong feminine features. That body type is kind of what got them there in the first place, isn't it??

[KnottedYet]

And in those pictures, she sure looks like a woman to me. A lot of the track and field athletes are tall, fit, muscular, and don't have strong feminine features. That body type is kind of what got them there in the first place, isn't it??

All the pictures I've seen of her, she looks like a woman to me, too. Perhaps people who've never competed in track or who are unfamiliar with the body competitive runners develop could be confused. Especially if they are also not used to seeing women with short hair. (remember the hysteria when Winona Ryder and Natalie Portman had buzz cuts? short hair is non-standard at the moment...)

[Mr. Bloom]

(and, let's face it, pretty much white society's) standard for female appearance

Sorry for the hijack...but don't make race an issue in this That's really off topic, and while it may be a part of your life's experience, it would be unfair to generalize it into this situation.

[KnottedYet]

We women have a pretty good idea of the standards our appearance are compared against.

Take a look at the phenomena of "Good Hair" and all the effort put into it. Chris Rock is even making a movie about it, based on his daughter's distress over her hair.

Straight, long, smooth hair is a natural occurance for only a small portion of the female population... but it is a standard held up to be met.

Hair is just one example, and I only use it for illustrative purposes.

I think Thorn has a very good point.

If Semenya's appearance met different standards, would her performance be so profoundly questioned? (is anyone old enough to remember Zola Budd?)

[witeowl]

Straight, long, smooth hair is a natural occurance for only a small portion of the female population... but it is a standard held up to be met.

Funny, but I remember paying a lot of money to have my hair permed into "spirals" a couple of decades ago.

Fashion and styles change. What is considered beautiful changes.

For a while, pale skin (as in never saw daylight) was considered attractive (because the elite upper class had the luxury of not having to go out and make a living), then people began tanning to be pretty (because the elite upper class had the luxury of spending hours by the poolside).

It used to be that overweight women were the ideal (again, haves vs. have-nots), and then we were down to stick thin. I think right now we're somewhere in the middle (but closer to Twiggy than Rubenesque).

On another forum, I asked whether Olympian Tara Kirk should try to cover or hide her strong arms and shoulders. (She was very actively trying to do this very thing on an episode of What Not to Wear.) I thought she should show them off. I was fascinated to see that, even on a board full of bodybuilders, many people were hesitant to agree with me. (Which means, really, they secretly disagreed, right?)

But, more on point, I don't think people were looking at Semenya and saying, "She's unattractive, so she shouldn't be allowed to compete." They were amazed at her incredible improvement, trying to explain how she could shatter women's records, and her physicality appeared to link into a possible explanation. I don't think that they were unreasonable. If she had a different physical appearance, they would likely have looked harder at other explanations, sure, but you put all clues together when trying to figure out a puzzle don't you?

Putting right and wrong aside, there was another article that told that Semenya would often be redirected to the men's restroom by people who didn't know her. This is by people who hadn't seen her outstanding athletic prowess. They see her body and they see her light layer of hair on her face, and they make assumptions. Judge those people if you must, but I don't think they were being hostile. Ignorant, perhaps, but not malicious.

[KnottedYet]

Zola Budd was very cute. She was tearing up records at the same age Semenya is now, and with the same crazy margins. No-one questioned her performance. (they questioned her eligibility based on politics and nationality)

If "What not to Wear" got their hands on Semenya before all this happened, would the results have been different?

ETA: it's already been proved she isn't doping. My question is, why the continued witch hunt? If her natural body makes her as powerful a runner as Budd was at that age, what is motivating this "search"? The motivation seems to be based on her appearance. When strangers directing her to men's restrooms and a school principal who thought she was a boy for years are used as evidence in the media that she shouldn't be allowed to race... hmmm.

Heck, I have been mistaken for male over and over again since I was 14 years old. Just 2 weeks ago while wearing a skirt and camisole top I was mistaken. Again. Completely based on appearance. When I was in track, I broke a race record by 31 seconds. Should that record be taken away because I look/looked too much like a boy? Because I might have more naturally occurring androgens?

[witeowl]

The motivation seems to be based on her appearance. When strangers directing her to men's restrooms and a school principal who thought she was a boy for years are used as evidence in the media that she shouldn't be allowed to race... hmmm.

I don't think her appearance is motivation so much as it's a logical direction to look. Budd didn't have the muscularity, the chin, the facial hair, or, let's face it, the masculine chest. People aren't looking at her genetics because she's "unattractive", they're looking at her genetics because it's a logical place to look.

There is a reason that men and women compete separately in most sports. Men simply have a natural advantage in most sports. It goes beyond testosterone, by the way. They have more blood volume, even at the same weight and height. Did you know that? I just learned that recently when donating blood and realizing that, if I were a man, I could do a double donation at my height/weight, but I'd have to be much taller to give a double donation as a woman. When asked, it really boiled down to blood volume. And we all know how beneficial those little red oxygen carriers are to the athlete, right?

I haven't seen anyone in the media or elsewhere say that she shouldn't compete. I also haven't seen anyone say that she should compete. It's an absolute quagmire.

Did anyone else see that episode of Mental, where a high school girl felt like she was two different people? It turned out that there was an accident during her infancy (I think it was during the circumcision) and the parents (with the help of a selfish psychiatrist) decided to raise their son as a daughter. Coincidentally enough, she was a high school track star. Had this fictitious girl pursued her career, should she have been allowed to compete in the Olympics? I don't know, but it's food for thought. At least, in considering that situation, it's purely hypothetical.

I'm inclined to say that a person should compete based on whatever genitalia he or she had at birth. Others would disagree with me. And even this seemingly clear-cut rule doesn't answer to all possible scenarios.

The only thing I know for sure is that I'm glad to be able to make hypothetical judgments from my computer keyboard rather than having to make any official call in this situation.

[KnottedYet]

I don't think her appearance is motivation so much as it's a logical direction to look. Budd didn't have the muscularity, the chin, the facial hair, or, let's face it, the masculine chest. People aren't looking at her genetics because she's "unattractive", they're looking at her genetics because it's a logical place to look.

Exactly my point. I'm so glad you agree with me.

If she looked cute by current standards, no one would have a "logical direction to look." They'd simply have to accept the fact that this human with female genitalia can kick *** on the track.

Just like Budd.

[KnottedYet]

Did anyone else see that episode of Mental, where a high school girl felt like she was two different people? It turned out that there was an accident during her infancy (I think it was during the circumcision) and the parents (with the help of a selfish psychiatrist) decided to raise their son as a daughter. Coincidentally enough, she was a high school track star. Had this fictitious girl pursued her career, should she have been allowed to compete in the Olympics? I don't know, but it's food for thought. At least, in considering that situation, it's purely hypothetical.

That fictitious girl is based on a real event. It was with identical twin boys, and a cauterization accident during circumcision. The doctors "made" one of the boys into a girl. "She" had problems and identity issues her whole life, which only made sense once she got the truth. She then transitioned to the man she's always felt she was. Time magazine had a large and well documented article about intersexed people a few years ago.

Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer. His story is in Chapter 4 of the book "Intersex" by Catherine Harper. Here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFMfrBWM7_A

[Thorn]

Sorry for the hijack...but don't make race an issue in this That's really off topic, and while it may be a part of your life's experience, it would be unfair to generalize it into this situation.

Warning: OT....

I was going to ignore you, Mr. Silver, but for some reason I feel compelled to respond. You, as a white male, no matter how empathetic you are, will ever be able to understand large segments of the population. I'm white, but if the black community feels that Semenya is being judged unfairly due to her race, it isn't my place to say "don't play the race card", it is my place to ask them why they feel so. It is my place to try to understand. With all people under all circumstances, we have to remember that scars run deep and what may seem to be benign to us, may be a trigger. Racism is a very painful scar.

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009...dominates.html

Back OT....
When a male dominates his sport (and doping has been disproved) we jump up and down and grant a god-like status. On the other hand, when a woman dominates her sport, she doesn't just have to fight accusations of doping, she has to "prove she's a woman". That is just wrong.

Semenya didn't "come out of no where". If you read the short bios that don't focus on her appearance, you discover that she's been running all her life and she's been playing on teams with boys. Recently, she has started with a coach and her performance jumped.

Now, any one of us female cyclists can attest that riding with the boys will make you stronger. And, many of us here, female and male, will attest to the amazing performance gain you can see initially under the tutelage of a good coach. So, should the world be that surprised at a jump in performance? I think not. But, then, I find this whole affair to be disturbing.

[shootingstar]

Warning: OT....

I was going to ignore you, Mr. Silver, but for some reason I feel compelled to respond. You, as a white male, no matter how empathetic you are, will ever be able to understand large segments of the population. I'm white, but if the black community feels that Semenya is being judged unfairly due to her race, it isn't my place to say "don't play the race card", it is my place to ask them why they feel so. It is my place to try to understand. With all people under all circumstances, we have to remember that scars run deep and what may seem to be benign to us, may be a trigger. Racism is a very painful scar.

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009...dominates.html

Back OT....
When a male dominates his sport (and doping has been disproved) we jump up and down and grant a god-like status. On the other hand, when a woman dominates her sport, she doesn't just have to fight accusations of doping, she has to "prove she's a woman". That is just wrong.

Semenya didn't "come out of no where". If you read the short bios that don't focus on her appearance, you discover that she's been running all her life and she's been playing on teams with boys. Recently, she has started with a coach and her performance jumped.

Now, any one of us female cyclists can attest that riding with the boys will make you stronger. And, many of us here, female and male, will attest to the amazing performance gain you can see initially under the tutelage of a good coach. So, should the world be that surprised at a jump in performance? I think not. But, then, I find this whole affair to be disturbing.

Important Mr. Silver to understand it is within living memory of non-white women who are older here, that it wasn't until around the late 1970's and onward, where we started to see alot more non-white female models in fashion publications here in North America. It's when marketers woke up and realized the demographics of their audience /potential customer base in North America. I keep on saying North America, because as a teenager I would see the fashion magazines from Hong Kong with their Chinese/Asian models and wonder why on earth people like them were not showing up in English language media.

There is a subtle standard certainly in the fashion world, acting/drama world and in popular women's spectator sports involving womanly grace (ie. figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming, ballet, dance etc.), that beauty/what is considered womanly is: long legs, tall, female-looking face preferably with "refined features of lips not too thick, etc., beautiful skin, breasts, narrow waist, a bum not too big, etc.

Thankfully the beauty /womanly desirable standard now is bit more "elastic" these days, but not a whole lot.

If you don't believe me...then here is a story:
Last year, one of engineers from Philippines she complained to me she was getting too dark from all the sun here at our construction site. She said didn't look nice on her. STILL, having paler/whiter skin is seen as better than something richer in hue.

This woman was university educated and over 35.