Running away from diversity

This Semenya issue has continued to bug me. For so many reasons. It has raised lots of questions about how we view 'gender' and women and I need to list some of them here to make the issue clearer for me - comments appreciated!

First, on the nature of the testing. Newspaper and internet reports say that testing will include a geneticist, a gynae, and a psychologist. So again, if they are testing her 'sex', what does a psychologist have to say about that? Is a psychologist more able to point out a penis from a vagina?

Or are they genuinely trying to test her gender, in which case what is the geneticist doing there? And the gynae? Do some people have more feminine vagina's than others? Are some penises more masculine? Is there a chromosome that makes you able to cross your legs delicately rather than at a 90degree angle with your foot on your knee? There seems to be a disjuncture here. But maybe the psychologist is just for counselling because I'm sure after this process Semenya will need one.

As interesting as this conundrum is the fact that this testing will take months. So, it will take months to prove whether this incredible athlete is a man or a woman. At least this gives some substance to the idea that gender is something developed over time, a bodily existence, rather than something that is assigned at birth with the cutting of the umbilical cord.

Don't think I'm confused here, I know that when a child is born there are expectations. People buy blue or pink blankets, think of boy or girl names and imagine the future they'll have watching rugby with their son or going shopping with their daughters. But often these expectations are met with conflict. And this is for good reason. There is no checklist for gender. There is no template that we can cookie cut people into. And this is exactly why the whole process is flawed. Gender expresses itself in many ways.

The only possibly interesting thing about this test is that it requires an endochrinologist - a hormone tester. This throws a spanner in the works because of the varying levels of hormones that people have in their body. It also could pose a conflict if Semenya is found to have 'abnormal' levels of testosterone, but still be genetically and biologically female. So then what happens? Are we going to say, lucky her, she's got the man hormones. Or are we going to reconsider what makes a man a man? So if there are men with lower levels of testosterone than her, but with male genitals are they going to be seen as womanly? How will this affect our understanding of what it means to be a woman or a man? What is that understanding? Because the fact that they think that they can determine someone's gender, with a couple of tests, then i'd like to know how that allows for diversity?

The second issue I have is the issue of how she ran. If you read the article on the history of testing that's provided in my previous post, you'll see that there was some issue about the length of the strides that female athletes took to run. So its not only that she could be a man, its that she didn't run like a girl. And because running like a boy is seen as an advantage, they had to test her.

I want to start asking wild questions like, I don't know, if there was a male athlete who ran like a girl and won, what would happen? Would his gender be called into question? Would people lable him effeminate? Question his gender? But I don't think they would, perhaps they'd question his sexuality? But even so, he wouldn't be seen as 'wrong', because everyone, running like a girl is seen as a disadvantage.

If anyone has ever read Iris Marion Young, they'll come to understand that running like a girl is not genetic either. It is a process that is stimulated through repeated social contexts and restrictions on women. Young's example was throwing a ball, but its fairly applicable here. Women are encouraged to be dainty rather than bold, to take small steps rather than strides, to keep their arms close to their body rather than use their arms to pull them forward. These are not things that just happen. They are learned and taught. So shock and horror when one woman decides to ignore those encouragements and run her heart out. She must be a man!

And if it is faster, and better, and stronger to run in a particular way, and someone can develop their running style to gracefully master that type of run, then shouldn't we be praising them for their success and skill rather than de-gendering them, or engendering prejudice?

The fact that women were prevented from participating in sports like this for such a long time could be part of the explanation for their slower race times. But Caster Semenya has shown that practice makes perfect, and she has succeeded. So if her running style is seen as 'manly' its only because 'manly' running is the type of running that's been on our tvs and sports fields for time immemorial. Maybe we should rethink this whole stereotype and just label fast running...well, fast.

Well done Caster, and well done to all the South Africans who have responded with support rather than judgement! I just hope that we can now see this testing process as flawed and take the first few fast steps towards embracing diversity.

What's the agend(er)?

Read this article and comments on the Mail and Guardian website here

Caster Semenya, an 18 year old athlete from South Africa wins a race with such speed and skill that she becomes the target of 'gender probes'. Now for those of you who aren't already uncomfortable at the thought of any sort of probe, this one should make you run for the hills.* For people who are confused, here is a distinction that will serve you well for the rest of your life:

Sex: is what bits you have (biology), male/female
Gender: is the way that you live in your body. This performance is stereotyped into two terms masculine/feminine which are commonly used to describe the action of others.

Sex and Gender are not the same. Clear?

Now we should all be clear that a test for your gender does not and cannot require any sort of examination of anybody's genitalia. If you're looking at someone's bits, they could say one thing and the person's performance could say another. Or they could be the same.

If Caster Semenya's gender is under question, they shouldn't be looking anywhere near her sex organs, but should be observing her behaviour. Which is to run fast for 800m alongside several other women. I'm not sure how they escaped the same scrutiny for being unsuitable representatives of femininity - more importantly I wouldn't think that a sports organisation (which has the potential to create unity and pride in the diversity of representations of femininity) would be so confused that they relegated women to the passive category of small strides, long hair and shapeliness.

Kevin Macullum of IOL.co.za said that the issue was "Semenya's appearance, including obvious facial hair, and muscular build". The IAAF has apparently been alerted to the issue where they are conducting rigorous screening tests to assess the claim. I'd like to know what these test include. Possible (retrogressive, barbaric, just plain boring they're so backwards) examples that spring to mind are:

1. Can she walk in heels?
2. Does she knit a good scarf?
3. Does she feel maternal and caring towards the other participants?
(this list may be expanded to include any other qualities that suit those whose duty it is to assess someone using stereotypes, but I am now exhausted).

Can someone bring the IAAF and whoever else was involved in this heretical reduction of women to their senses?! A woman can succeed, and can remain a woman whilst having facial hair and muscles. She can rule the world, run a race fast, be competitive and be successful and none of these characteristics should result in anyone examining her body for signs that she is not a woman.

Shame on the IAAF. Shame on the media who have taken up this topic with such spectacular fervour and ignorance.

* A history of the testing process can be found here
Thanks to the person who contributed this link