"Unfair Genetic Advantage"

[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.

[witeowl]

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.

OK, but you think it's a bad thing, while I just think it's a thing.

Her masculine appearance is a marker of what people are suspecting. Without the masculine appearance, it doesn't make sense to investigate that possibility.

If someone breaks into my car, cuts his or her hand on the glass, bleeds all over the interior, and steals my radio, and I run into a person who has a stereo just like my old one and a bandage on his hand, am I wrong to call the police?

(I know it's an imperfect analogy because one involves an intentionally dishonest act and the other does not, but you get my gist.)

[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

[witeowl]

That fictitious girl is based on a real event.

Interesting. I assumed that there was inspiration in reality (isn't there always?), but I didn't realize just how closely it hit. Still, the possibility of that fictitious future track star, assuming she did not decide to identify as male, leaves a lot to be considered, does it not?

[OakLeaf]

That fictitious girl is based on a real event...
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

drift: the book about Reimer's life is fascinating and heartbreaking.

[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.

[witeowl]

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.

Maybe she just had a personal preference. Why do we always read so much into these things? My (step)sister would lay out and tan her naturally dark skin. (She said that, without enough sun, her skin would look "pisswater yellow". Her skin always looked lovely to me, but I was just jealous because I have this easily-burned, nearly-never-tanned German skin.)

[Biciclista]

Maybe she just had a personal preference. Why do we always read so much into these things? My (step)sister would lay out and tan her naturally dark skin. (She said that, without enough sun, her skin would look "pisswater yellow". Her skin always looked lovely to me, but I was just jealous because I have this easily-burned, nearly-never-tanned German skin.)

In many cultures, including our own, there is a definite perception that white skin is better. This isn't about personal preferences, did you read the Autobiography of Malcolm X? He was the favored child because his skin was just a shade lighter than the rest of his siblings.

I'd love to have darker skin too, but I'm not blind to the advantages I've had for being caucasian in this crazy world we live.

[witeowl]

In many cultures, including our own, there is a definite perception that white skin is better. This isn't about personal preferences, did you read the Autobiography of Malcolm X? He was the favored child because his skin was just a shade lighter than the rest of his siblings.

I'd love to have darker skin too, but I'm not blind to the advantages I've had for being caucasian in this crazy world we live.

I understand completely that there is/was, for a very long time, a desire for people of color in the U.S. to look "whiter", preferably so that they could "pass". But, is this universally because of the perceived (and/or real) dominance of white people? I don't know that it always is. In parts of Africa, people separate themselves into classes based on appearance (in subtle ways that my U.S. eye can't see). White people, also, find particular differences preferable which have nothing to do with "looking whiter" (long legs, etc.).

Regarding advantages? No, I don't ignore those. But not everything comes down to appearance. I spent years blaming various flaws in my life to people treating me differently because I was so overweight. I've lost about sixty pounds so far and... guess what... people are treating me the same. We don't always see the world accurately, and often blame our problems on the wrong thing.

My neighbors across the street can easily complain that my anger at their loud music is because I "don't like Mexicans." I'd be surprised if they don't talk about me like I'm a racist gringa. But guess what? I get just as angry when the wife blasts her American pop music as when I do when the husband blasts his Mexican music. I'd simply like to enjoy peace and quiet within my own home, and it doesn't matter whether or not I like their music and I certainly could care less about their skin color or ethnicity. But they likely interpret my anger differently.

Malcolm X attributed his "favorite" status to his skin color? From his father, perhaps, but he claims that his mother was harsher on him because of his skin color. In any case, can we not agree that Malcolm X had a bit of a chip on his shoulder? Not that he was always wrong, mind you, but he certainly was one to see things in the worst light possible.

Nevertheless, I don't think that my sister is/was the only black woman in history who preferred her skin to be darker. I stand by my point that the motivation of the woman in shootingstar's anecdote may have just been an issue of personal preference.