Semenya’s gender crisis
‘If fairness remains the mantra of sport, then Semenya, who is reasonably not a normal woman, ought not be allowed to compete against normal women.’
THE NEW ruling by the world governing body of athletics, the IAAF, stipulating that as of November 1 this year, athletes with elevated levels of naturally produced testosterone must take hormonal contraception to reduce those levels in order to compete in the 400m, 400m hurdles, 800m and 1500m events has sparked a wide range of conflicting reactions. South African 800m Olympic champion Caster Semenya is the most prominent athlete to be affected by this new rule, with the outcry from many spheres, including from the South African government accusing the IAAF of exclusion, discrimination, and racism.
This is understandably a sensitive issue that requires meticulous delicacy in its handling, especially because it involves individuals born with natural, but distinct physical and physiological variations from the norm. Taking emotions and politics out of the analysis, which is easier said than done, it is indeed a very simple and straightforward scenario to interpret and understand.
Sport, including the sport of athletics, is generally divided into two fundamental categories of competition. There is male competition and female competition. Outside of a few experimental mixed relay events involving men and women, which still pits male versus male and female versus female within the mixed concept, organised sports competition is generally divided into categories by gender for the good reasons of parity and fair play because it is scientifically proven that men are generally physically stronger and faster beings than women. It then follows that women should compete against women and men against men.
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
The issue with Semenya and others with similar characteristics is that they were born with natural physiological variations that bring the specificity of their gender into question. Semenya is reported to have inverted testes, along with her naturally high level of testosterone. This renders Semenya a naturally physically stronger specimen than the typical female athlete. In athletics competition, she would enjoy a gender-ambiguity advantage, which, as long as sport continues to be categorised strictly by gender, must be deemed unfair.
The fact that she naturally grew and developed that way is irrelevant to the wider principle of fair play, on which the traditional values of sport are built. It is indeed unfortunate for Semenya and any other person who falls into this category and wishes to participate in genderdivided professional sport. However, if fairness remains the mantra of sport, then Semenya, who is reasonably not a normal woman, ought not be allowed to compete against normal women.
As per the new IAAF rules, Semenya and others have been offered a lifeline to continue competing with the option of reducing their testosterone levels. Surely the injustice could not be allowed to continue. Semenya has had a good run as an elite professional athlete. She could consider herself fortunate due to the novelty of the situation. However, until the world governing body decides on another category of athletes outside the traditional male and female, the likes of Semenya might very well be doomed. She may end up a dreamer like the rest of us who wished we were great athletes, world beaters, and champions, but for one reason or another, we were not born with the requisite talent or natural attributes. Having said all that, I want to make the bold prediction that Semenya, despite this clear and unfair advantage, will eventually be free be to compete if and when she appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Just a hunch.