Different Perspectives

By: Erin Coady

               Caster Semenya, an 18 year old female track and field star from Limpopo South Africa, dealt with different versions of media reports from her home country as well as in America.  Semenya’s “true” sex was what was in question following reports surfacing saying there was no way she was a legitimate female after she blew away her competition in the 800 meter IAAF 2009 World Championship.  I will be examining how media outlets from America portrayed Semenya during the gender-verification testing time as well as how South Africa treated her.  It is important to note that media outlets “are not objective accounts of events…” (Cooky et. al, 2013. p 36) but are businesses which pick and choose which information to focus on, which information to omit and which information to push onto its viewers. 

                  American media for the most part seemed to focus on Semenya as a matter of scientific intrigue.  At the time of the gender-verification testing, there were many media outlets who grabbed onto this story of a young South African girl with the muscular appearance, build and deep voice of a man who blew away her competition with relative ease.  Cooky et al., examined in their comparative analysis of the US and South African media coverage of Semenya how each depicted her in their respective media outlets.  In the Global North, according to Cooky et al. the gender verification testing was referenced as “an objective, scientific process that ensures a level-playing field and thus, ‘fairness’, in sport” (2013, p. 36)-which suggests that there are no racial, gender, or sex biases behind the tests.  Yet, according the Los Angeles Times “the concerns about whether she met standards to compete as a female athlete were prompted by still and television images of the teenager” (Cooky et al, 2013. p 41).  This suggests that due to her muscular build and appearance she was not viewed as the typical Caucasian beautiful women which therefore suggests in a colonial sense she is different or “other” because she does not fit the American norm for female appearance and build.  In terms of gender, Semenya is framed by the US media according to Cookey et al.’s study as ambiguous (16%), Hermaphrodite/Intersex (6%), not a real women (6%) and a girl/women/lady (50%) (2013, p. 42) which is a drastic difference from that of its South African counterparts which I will discuss later.  By choosing to frame Semenya as something other than a regular girl by using terms such as ambiguous and hermaphrodite, these US media outlets are deliberately deciding to put the idea of this 18 year old girl as not a ‘true’ women, into the minds of all their readers.  

                  Semenya’s home country of South Africa tends to have more of a supportive view of her in their media outlets.  The Sowetan claimed that “we all know that their crime is that an African girl outran everybody to clinch the women’s 800m final” (Cookey et al, 2013. p. 40) which suggests that the IAAF’s decision to test Semenya’s gender was racially motivated and there was clear discriminatory intentions.  It is hard to blame South Africa for holding onto past histories of them being objectified by America.  Cooky et al argues “South African media framed the gender verification as a lingering artifact of South Africa’s apartheid past and the racist history of Global North/Western culture’s scientific scrutiny of African women’s bodies.” Africans and Americans have a clear history of problems, most notably slavery, in which African people were treated as ‘other’ and subjected to many embarrassing, inhumane things which went against today’s human rights.  Even the slight whisper of the Semenya testing seemed to produce an uproar in most South African media outlets.  Many of South Africa’s media jumped on the Semenya bandwagon when she was thrust into the public eye in a less than flattering light and began to refer to her as “our first lady of sport” and “our golden girl” (Cooky et al, 2013. p 46).  In contrast to the American media outlets, South African media rejected the scientific approach to learning the truth of Semenya’s gender and instead took the local testimonies of her family, friends and acquaintances who knew her growing up and claim they need no proof as she is their girl.  Compared to the American stats, South Africa media framed Semenya as ambiguous (1%), hermaphrodite (3%) and girl, women or lady (95%).  Not all South African media outlets were as supportive however.  South African magazine Drum ran stories saying that Semenya was engaged to a fellow female track star (Drum, 2013) while other magazines such as You gave Semenya a feminine makeover (You reference).  By giving Semenya a makeover, You is suggesting she was not beautiful the way she was and that they were helping her by providing her with means to become more feminine and therefore more lady like. 

                  In conclusion, after reviewing studies done which examined South African media portrayals and American medial portrayals of Caster Semenya I discovered three main comparisons.  First, American media outlets at the time framed their inquiries about Semenya’s gender as scientific observations which would help to keep the fairness of the sport while South African media outlets focused on more local definitions of Semenya’s gender such as parents testimonies and claimed the American’s obsession with proving their golden girl is a boy is racially fueled.  Secondly, American media tended to describe Semenya with words such as hermaphadite, ambiguous and intersexual while South African media focused on calling their track star women, girl or lady.  Finally, what both countries had in common when discussing Semenya’s story was that they both failed to include many quotes or background information from Caster Semenya herself.  Both used the story of the 18 year old South African track star as a vehicle to discuss broader race and gender/sex binary issues. 

The History of Sex Testing

By: Donald Littlewood

     Women were not allowed to participate in the first Olympic Games of 1896 in Athens, Greece, however their participation was included in Paris in 1990. At this time, sport was considered a very masculine activity and all females competing in the Olympics were required to participate in what was known as a nude parade.[1] All female athletes were required to present themselves nude in front of a team of doctors who would then determine the sex of the athlete. There are few exemptions of the rule in history. A few athletes stated that it was against their religion to expose themselves in these nude parades.[2] In 1976, the only female to not participate in the nude parade was Princess Anne who was an equestrian in Montreal. The concept of a nude parade is clearly a highly invasive endeavour and was the cause of much humiliation and embarrassment for the athletes of the time.[3]

       In 1967, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released a newsletter stating that “[i]t has been scientifically proven that hermaphroditism does not exist”.[4] This statement rises a whole lot of very interesting points. It was known as early as 1961 that, biologically speaking, hermaphroditism is indeed possible.[5] This makes it seem as though the IOC was intentionally trying to be oblivious to the fact that there are more possibilities of genetic makeups than simply XX and XY. In today’s gender discussions, we know that there are many other factors that make up your gender identity than simply your chromosomes.

       In Mexico City in 1968, the IOC well as the International Athletics Association Federation (IAAF) implemented a mandatory sex testing procedure for all female athletes where new technologies were used verify their sex. This new technology was known as the Barr body chromosomal test in which the women’s chromosomal makeup was tested.[6] This method was standard and mandatory for a surprisingly long time – 1992, in Albertville, France. There are several limitations to this now phased out method of sex verification. According to this test, in order to be considered female, one must possess an XX chromosome pair.[7] However, in order to be biologically male, one requires the presence of a Y chromosome. This excludes athletes with different genetic disorders from competing in the Olympic Games. For example, individuals with Turner’s syndrome possess an XO chromosome, meaning that they are biologically female since they do not carry the Y chromosome. However, for the sake of the Barr test, and the Olympics, these individuals are not females either since they do not possess the desired XX chromosome.[8]

      The Soviet Union entered the Olympics in Helsinki in 1952. In the 1960’s it was the female athletes of the USSR that sparked the Barr testing method.[9] Four female athletes from the USSR and one from Romania set Olympic records in track and field yet none of them failed their gender verification tests. In the Cold War era, there was a constant battle between the Eastern bloc and the rest of the Western world and sex verification was seen as a way to maintain the much desired Western gender stereotypes.[10] In 1974, the IOC president Avery Brundage was quoted saying that he liked the process of sex verification as it made the women in the Olympics more attractive[11], making him come across as extremely chauvinistic.

       In 1992, at the Albertville Games, the process of sex verification moved from the Barr test to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which looks for the presence of the Y chromosome in the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene.[12] This allowed for females lacking the second X chromosome to participate in the Olympic Games. However, this process was stopped in 2000. In Sydney, sex verification was no longer required, however if an athlete was deemed suspicious they were required to present themselves to an endocrinologist, a geneticist, a gynecologist and a psychologist for further investigation.[13]

        Interestingly enough, the International Athletic Association Federation (IAAF) is the only other sport governing body to force sex verification upon its athletes, beginning with the 1966 European Track and Field Championships.[14] The sex testing in the IAAF originated due to similar reasons as in the Olympics; African American women and Soviet women were not conforming to the Western gender stereotype of female. They were thought to be too “mannish”.[15] All females competing in the athletics events at the 1966 Commonwealth Games in Kingston, Jamaica were also required to undergo sex verification. No other governing body forced this upon its athletes at this time.[16] As recently as 2009, sex verification has occurred in the IAAF, with the testing of Caster Semenya. Her testing process was long and drawn out, and while her testing was complete for the London 2012 Games, it was still a topic of major tabloid headlines leading up to, during and after the Games.

          In more recent research, scientists and researchers are using hormonal analysis to assess the sex of athletes. However, this is proving to be an unreliable method of sex verification due to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS).[17] In women with AIS, their androgen receptors do not recognize the elevated levels of testosterone in the body and therefore have extremely high levels of testosterone. These women present as males on hormone tests but do not reap any of the benefits of increased levels of testosterone such as increased musculature and strength. These female athletes are also unresponsive to anabolic androgenic steroids.[18] AIS was brought to the forefront of media in 1985 by Spanish hurdler Maria Jose Martinez-Patino who found out that she had AIS: “she was disqualified for an advantage she didn’t have.”[19] While this did not occur in the Olympics, the results of the test prevented her from ever competing again, including in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

[1] Cheryl Cooky & Shari L. Dworkin (2013): “Policing the Boundaries of Sex: A Critical Examination of Gender Verification and the Caster Semenya Controversy”, Journal of Sex Research, 50:2, 103-111.
[2] Jaime Schultz (2011): “Caster Semenya and the ‘Question of Too’: Sex Testing in Elite Women’s Sport and the Issue of Advantage”, Quest, 63:2, 228-243.
[3] Cooky & Dworkin, “Policing the Boundaries of Sex”, 104
[4] Stefan Wiederkehr (2009): “‘We Shall Never Know the Exact Number of Men who Have Competed in the Olympics Posing as Women’: Sport, Gender Verification and the Cold War”, The International Journal for the History of Sport, 26:4, 556-572.
[5] Ibid., 565
[6] Cooky & Dworkin, “Policing the Boundaries of Sex”, 104
[7] Schultz ‘Question of Too’, 232.
[8] Ibid., 231
[9] Wiederkehr, “Sport, Gender Verification and the Cold War”. 560
[10] Ibid., 562
[11] Ibid., 560
[12] Schulz, ‘Question of Too’, 232
[13] Cooky & Dworkin, Policing the Boundaries of Sex, 105
[14] Schultz, ‘Question of Too’, 229
[15] Ibid., 229
[16] Ibid., 230
[17] Ibid., 233
[18] Ibid., 233
[19] Ibid., 234

The Complexities of Sport, Gender, and Drug Testing

By: Katie Macisaac

        In the article, The Complexities of Sport, Gender, and Drug Testing, Weaving et. al. argues that the new International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)/ International Olympics Committee (IOC) sex verification policy remain flawed—complexity of fairness in sport, the social construction of sport, and not confronting the issue that remains in drug testing with sex verification examining. [1]

         The authors are disappointed on the lack of education and research on this uprising issue of gender-sex testing within sport. Weaving et al. state that Caster Semenya’s treatment at the Olympics was appalling. The authors suggest that Semenya’s treatment was not right and discriminative towards women athletes. Stating further that pervious authors have not researched enough in critiquing the new policy or trying to break through new ground to help sex verification testing to improve for athletes—especially female athletes whom continually have their femininity and sexual identity criticized and questions by professionals or non-professionals. [2]

           Weaving et. al. use Lock (2003) argument of the “heterosexual matrix” is the tacit ontological aggregation of sex, gender, heterosexual femininity…because the less feminine a woman is seemed, the less authentic she becomes.”[3] This statement will be Weaving et al. argument for discrimination when it comes to drug testing and sex-gender examinations in sport. The authors references a Canadian scholar, activist and Olympian Bruce Kidd, who does not believe in sex verification tests that go beyond asking an athlete to self-declare their sex. [4]

             Previously Weaving et al. stated that the new International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)/ International Olympics Committee (IOC) sex verification policy remain flawed due to the fact that the testing is based on the level of testosterone. [5] In addition, the authors suggest that it should not be the level of testosterone in the body that impact on the athletes performance but rather the access to coaching, technology, sport sciences and training opportunities as well as body composition and the access to proper nutrition, making a much bigger difference in creating a fair playing field than the level of a woman’s testosterone. [6] Sex testing within sport has to be done in a way that it does not offend or discriminate the rights and freedoms of athletes but it fair to all. Everyone’s body is different, for one to say that a athletes testosterone levels are not within the range it should be and then to look at appearances and states that they are not feminine which is the case with Semenya. It is not fair to test every individual woman athletes, however, it is equality troublesome to test specific women athletes whom appear masculine—this is an ethical issue that has to be dealt with by the IAAF and IOC. The authors suggest using a legal definition of sex, however how does one apply that to an athlete because then discrimination and inequality still presumes. However, what if each country had their own definition of sex, it certainly would broaden the scope, but it would not matter because this would really only pertain to women athletes. Biology has proven that men generally perform at higher levels then women. In addition, a man would never be subjected to a sex/gender testing because he has under performed. So this theory is problematic in the sense that only female athletes would be subjected to this definition. To complicate the sex/gender testing issue is drug abuse. It is a well known fact that in the Olympics there have been countless athletes which have been accused and found guilty of using performance enhancing drug to improve the level of their performance in a sport. However, one of the side effects to using performance enhancing drugs is an increase in testosterone. So by athletes consenting to drug test they are basically consenting to a sex/gender test because by urinating and giving a blood test allowing the examine the determination that an athlete is indeed a male or female. The article states that the World Anti-Doping Agency should have no role in the IAAF and IOC sex determination through anti-doping protocols. [7] 

            In conclusion, it is problematic to find a solution for the sex testing crisis that has hit female athletes countlessly throughout history. A recent example is Caster Semenya’s encounter and the publicity she gotten all because she did not look feminine. Weaving et al. bring up very legitimate concerns about equal treatment amongst all athletes especially women. In addition, determining a proper way of testing that keeps drug and sex testing separate and appropriate. 

[1] Weaving et al. 23.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Weaving et al. 24.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Weaving et al. 24.

Girl Interrupted

By: Katie Macisaac 

           Authors Vannini and Fornssler’s, Girl, Interrupted: Interpreting Semenya’s Body, Gender Verification Testing and Public Discourse, explore how sex-gender is contained in mediated public discourses that questioned caster Semenya’s identity at the International Association of Athletic Federation World Championship. They exam Semnya’s sex and gender identity by using discussions, scientific and medical methods, and athletic governance policies of her “disordered” body. Furthermore, where her competing with women is considered “fair-play” and “equal” for other female athletes, or whether they should consider a new class of competition.

            As stated throughout the article, Semenya has three times more testosterone than the average woman. In addition, testosterone is the hormone, which allows men to be physically more competitive and able than women. Furthermore, in drug testing it is the increase in testosterone which is detected to conclude whether athletes are indeed taking performance enhancing drugs. After Semenya won the 800m at the IAAF back in 2009, her time was almost near impossible 1’55”45 whopping the nearest competitor by 2”45.[1] It was the drug test that detected the increase in testosterone and she was accused of taking performance enhancing drugs but all drug test came clear. The next test would be sex and gender testing, this would conclude that she had the secondary sex anatomy of females but lacked the primary (uterus and ovaries).

            Methods of sex and gender verification are visually based inspections of athletes, because Semenya appears more masculine she is automatically judged for appearance rather than athletic ability, furthermore, her athletic ability is no longer an element to be amazed by but to be judged by. Due to Semenya’s special case, an introduction of a third category further supports “pure” male and female. However, Semenya declares herself to be a woman and has always thought of herself as one. When she entered the competition of course she entered as a female, she did not know of her increase testosterone level, she did not have any knowledge that this would give her an advantage in competition. In the media, people deemed Semenya a man due to her “body is outcast from the female sex category because her bodily shape and muscles distribution defies the disciplinary regime of a feminized body, similarly to women bodybuilders whose bodies challenge what is considered natural for women’s bodies.” [2] However, the argument that is being presentment is that

If Semenya defines herself as a woman that’s fine with me. In the case with transgendered people there may not be the ability to definitively categorize them as one or the other. But in the case of athletic competition if testosterone is the ‘male advantage’ and you have an organ that produces it naturally then that’s the category you should race in.[3]

In the blog the argument that is being fought is that even though Semenya does lack the sexual organs of being a woman, she considers herself a woman and always have.

---

[1] Fornssler & Vannini. 244.

[2] Fornssler & Vannini. 249.

[3] Ibid. 252.

All is Fair in Love and Sport?

 By: Meghan Hughes

          Sex verification testing at the Olympics was implemented to ensure that the playing field was “fair” and that men were not competing against women, as this would give them an unfair physical advantage (Fox, 1993). While creating a level playing field is important, I strongly believe that this issue is not as black and white as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made it out to be. If the reasoning behind this testing is to provide equal opportunity for success, simply labeling athletes as male and female is not the right approach.

            In 1968 sex verification texting moved from the invasive inspection of women’s genitalia to the Barr Body test looking for two X chromatin and those who fail this test are subject to further investigation (Fox, 1993). The IOC claimed that the “chromosome formula indicates quite definitely the sex of a person” (quoted in “Olympics Require Sex Test,” 1968, p. 48). While in years to come the sex test evolved even further to polymerase chain reaction technology, many experts still asserted that these tests were inconclusive, unjustified and negatively affecting the psyche of the athletes (Schultz, 2011). Despite these claims and the removal of mandatory sex testing of all female athletes, women are still being unfairly judged, tested and even banned for not being “woman enough”.

            Instead of questioning whether an individual can be classified as a woman, I think the real question should be whether or not this is creating any sort of advantage for the individual. Furthermore, how is this genetic defect any different than the wide range of genetic advantages currently enjoyed by many Olympians. It is rarely noted that almost all Olympic male sprinters and power athletes carry the 577R allele which provides a genetic advantage in power and sprint activities (Enriquez and Gullens, 2012). Eero Mäntyranta, an Olympic cross country skier had a mutation in the gene EPOR that caused him to produce extra red blood cells, boosting his oxygen-carrying capacity by 25–50% helping him to win numerous medals, and yet, taking his medals away for him for having an unfair advantage was never considered (de la Chapelle, Träskelin and Juvonen, 1993).

            Now consider the most recent sex verification scandal that occurred in 2009 involving South African runner Caster Semenya. Semenya won the gold medal in the 800 meter event at the Track and Field World Championships in Berlin. Within hours of this medal win she was forced to undergo sex verification due to her physical attributes that brought her sex into question. Never giving exact details on what requirements Semenya was required to meet to be classified as a woman, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) took almost a year to interpret the results and “determine Semenya’s sex” (Schultz, 2011). It is their motivation behind the testing that lies the real problem. Instead of looking to determine Semenya’s sex, the IAAF should be been looking to determine if Semenya had an unfair advantage over her competitors.

            Based purely on the race results, it is evident that Semenya is not blowing away her competition. While her winning time of 55:45 seconds was faster than the second place finisher by two seconds, it was nowhere near the world record previously set in 1983 (Schultz, 2011). So while Semenya may not exhibit the characteristics of a typical women, she is by no means out of their league or competing at the same level as elite men. That should have been the answer the IAAF was looking for in terms of her eligibility but instead, they allowed her to suffer through 11 months of media scrutiny, rumors and ineligibility until, in the end, they announced she was eligible to compete as a woman.  While the IAAF never released the results of the tests, there were numerous rumors suggesting Semenya was without ovaries or a uterus and had testosterone levels three times that of a normal woman (Munro, 2010). These rumors were never confirmed nor denied but the statement released by the IOC regarding transsexual athletes was brought into light. The IOC stated “athletes who identify themselves as female but have medical disorders that give them masculine characteristics should have their disorders diagnosed and treated” and that “those who are treated will be permitted to participate” (Schultz, 2011). This sparked speculation that Semenya was getting hormone therapy and that in fact, it was the reason she withdrew from a race in 2010 as the therapy had caused muscle weakness leading to injury (Munro, 2010).

            Regardless of whether the rumors are true or not, the bigger cause for concern is that the IOC, and other organizations, require athletes with abnormal sex characteristics to be “treated”.  Schultz (2011) states it well when she questions why is it that “genetic variations that affect autosomal chromosomes an advantageous endowment while those that affect sex chromosomes amount to a curse that can effectively drum one out of competitive sport?” In the case of polish sprinter Ewa Klobukowska who passed the visual inspection test in 1966 failed the chromosome test the following year, she had competed for years not knowing she had this chromosome defect and yet, still had all her medals striped and was banned from competition. A more tragic case involved Santhi Soundarajan who was subjected to sex verification after her second place win at the 2006 Asia Games where she proceeded to be striped of her medal and banned from future competitions following the test results. This destroyed her livelihood and she went on to attempt suicide because she was “mentally and physically broken” (Schultz, 2011). It begs to question whether or not these women were actually unfairly competing against women. Specifically in the case of Klobukowska, she had been competing against females unquestioned for years and once chromosome testing was implemented, she was deemed to be at an advantage. Clearly something needs to be done to change the standards of these sex verification tests.

            The world around us is constantly changing and in the 21^st century, the presence of transgendered individuals is becoming more prevalent. The IOC needs to really consider what sex verification is telling them and furthermore, how it is affecting the athletes being tested. The IOC works to create a level playing field for all competitors but in focusing on sex verification, they are ignoring other aspects of genetics that offer the same, if not more, of a physical advantage. The real question seems to be so what? So this woman has more characteristics of a man than the average woman, lucky her? Michael Phelps has a wingspan three inches longer than his height allowing him to extend outward farther and therefore reach the wall quicker. Michael Phelps has a genetic advantage that allows his muscles to produce 50 percent less lactic acid than the average person. Michael Phelps has a larger than average hand size allowing him to move more water with each stroke. For Michael Phelps, the general response is lucky him, why does this not transfer to females with chromosome differences?

Santhi Soundarajan

Caster Semenya

Ewa Klobukowska