"Unfair Genetic Advantage"

[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.)

[Mr. Bloom]

Without the masculine appearance, it doesn't make sense to investigate that possibility.

+1 Precisely - it's nothing more than that.

[KnottedYet]

Am I the only woman on this thread who ran competitive track, broke records by large margins, and got mistaken for a boy?

Is it understandable that I would see the unfairness in Semenya's situation?

[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?

[KnottedYet]

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?

That's where the link to info about Janet Furman Bowman I posted earlier comes in.

[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.