The ‘gender’ question: Part 2

   Track champion Caster Semenya went home to South Africa on Tuesday, and her country cheered wildly. Officials and fans celebrated her victory last week in the 800 meters at the World Championships of Track and Field.
   They denounced track’s governing body, the IAAF, for requesting gender testing be done for Semenya because of physical characteristics, a deep voice and how dominantly she won the race despite being, at age 18, a neophyte at international competition.
  They referred to Semenya as “our little girl,” and accused the IAAF of racism in pursuing the questions about her gender. Across the world, various groups – from feminists to gay-rights advocates to women’s sports advocates to racial-issues advocates to people who may be all of the above _ have castigated the IAAF and anyone who suggests there could indeed be legitimate reasons for these tests.
    They say that Semenya is being discriminated against because she does not fit a “stereotype” of so-called feminine look and behavior. They say that this points out inherent sexism and homophobia in both the athletic world and the world at large. They say that Semenya has been cruelly and unnecessarily humiliated by the questions about her gender, and that it should not be an issue.
   I understand very, very well all these sentiments. Women should not have to meet any requirement of outward feminine appearance, dress, mannerisms, etc. to compete in sports or in any other endeavor. Women can be quite muscular, they can have different-sounding voices and they can perform in ways that can seem very dramatic improvements in their sport. None of this means they are “not women.”
  But … all of this anger directed toward the IAAF and the insistence by so many people that this is unfair and discriminatory seems to be ignoring the possibility that Semenya may have a medical condition that causes gender ambiguity, and that she might also be facing gender-identity conflict.
  In the understandable urge to “protect” a person who faces gender questions, well-meaning, sympathetic, open-minded and loving people might be making a mistake. They may be forcing that person into a “closet” that I think is even deeper and harder to talk openly about than that of homosexuality.
  Leonard Chuene, president of Athletics South Africa, said this in a story from the Associated Press: “I stand firm. Yes, indeed, she’s a girl. We are not going to allow Europeans to describe and define our children.”
  But I want to know this: Has Caster Semenya ever really had the chance to describe and define herself? Isn’t she the only one who has the right to “stand firm” on her gender? Could it be that she’s been convinced by all those around her –well-intentioned as they are – to “be” what they have decided she is?
  Semenya didn’t speak at a news conference in Johannesburg in which various officials denounced the questions about her gender as being anti-African, and borne out of racism and jealousy. Again, it’s understandable they are rightfully sensitive to prejudice and that want to shield her from hurt and embarrassment.
  But have they considered that maybe Semenya herself might want to explore these gender issues? That a teen-ager who grew up in what has been described as a remote, poverty-ridden area of her country might be unaware of the concept of transgenderism? That she may have questions that they – in their zeal to “protect” her – are not allowing her to ask, even in her own mind?
  I realize readers may say, “Whoa, hold on, there. You don’t know if she has any of these issues.” Of course I don’t know. But if she does have them, perhaps there is nothing in her previous experiences that would allow her to recognize them.
   She has been told her entire life by her family that she is a girl. Now she has national leaders – and others from all over the world – screaming angrily in her so-called defense, “She’s a girl! She’s a girl! She’s a girl!”
  How, in the wake of all that, could she explore the issue if she were inclined to?
   If we are to take her family’s insistence of her gender at face value – and I’ve seen no reason not to – then we can assume it’s because her external anatomy is (or at least appears to be) female. However, any number of medical conditions can contribute to gender ambiguity.
  And, as I said in my first post on this topic, the questions about Semenya are not just because of physical “appearance” but physical characteristics. If she is indeed dealing with a medical issue of gender ambiguity, it’s quite reasonable to wonder if she has internal gender conflict. And if she does, then health-care and counseling specialists may be very valuable in sorting that out in ways that are most comfortable for her.
   People who say she’s being “humiliated” to have to face these gender questions likely do NOT mean to suggest that it is humiliating to have uncertainty about your gender identity. But isn’t that still the message that’s being sent, even if unintentionally?
   Admittedly, some may reasonably argue that the “humiliation” is due to this being speculated about publicly. And, yes, that’s heartbreaking … but it’s also sometimes a cruel part of life.
   It takes real people’s experiences becoming publicly known to break down barriers, challenge/change perceptions and get discussions going. Certainly, Semenya didn’t choose to be a subject of such debate. But perhaps fate chose her.
   As a writer who focuses on women’s sports and is extremely sensitive to how women are portrayed/judged/categorized as athletes, I’ve found this controversy to be as unsettling and difficult to navigate as trying to walk on quicksand.
   I fully grasp the anger and dismay of those who don’t want Semenya exposed to the trauma that such a public discussion about her gender may cause. We all wish she didn’t have to go through this. But by the same token, she’s far from alone in facing this issue.
   Medical professionals can only tell us so much about why/how there is a gender spectrum in human beings. For much of human history, this was denied (or not even addressed) by most societies: You were male or female, and there was no “in between.”
   Even today, despite all the medical research, case studies and testimonies that show there are countless ways to define and experience gender and gender identity, it’s likely that millions of people would STILL deny that.
  And even among those who do understand and accept the gender spectrum, there may be discomfort about cases like Semenya’s. Why, they ask, do people have to “define” themselves as either gender in anything they do? Why can’t people just be “people?”
   It’s an interesting idea, a utopian one. And, in many aspects – depending on the society you live in – you can indeed say, “I’m not defining myself. I will be whatever I want to be,” and you can live in peace and prosperity like that.
   However, good luck finding any society in which you won’t be forced in at least some concrete way to “define” yourself as male or female. I’m not versed in what every society is like. But to the best of my knowledge, in the United States, all of your legal documentation – birth certificate, driver’s license, passport, etc. _ require you to say “M” or “F.”
  Furthermore, virtually everything about socialization and language (at least the English language) makes people define everyone they encounter as male or female.
   Consider this test: Let’s say you’re standing in a line, and you’re asked to describe a stranger near you. Does anyone do that without referencing gender? Not unless you don’t use any pronouns. But beyond that, how many people would even think about describing a stranger and not saying whether the person was male or female?
  Quite simply, we are taught from the earliest age that it is one of the primary ways of defining people. And in the realm of most athletic competitions, defining between “male” and “female” is, in fact, a necessity for women’s sports to thrive.
  I’ve seen suggestions that any of her fellow competitors who questioned Semenya must be jealous, racist, sexist, homophobic or all of the above. But I believe they, or anyone else, could question her without being any of those things.
  Elite-level athletic competition in this day and age is a business. The competitors do it for a living, and they want a fair playing field. Track and field has a particularly detailed history of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. And one of the ways such substances can be visually suspected in a woman is if she exhibits physical attributes that appear to be enhanced by excessive testosterone.
  Semenya’s physical attributes and the fact that she blew away a field of more experienced competitors were both things that were bound to raise questions. It’s simply the way it is in elite sports.
  All the anecdotal information I’ve seen reported about Semenya says she exhibited physical characteristics that those around her would commonly define as “male” for much of her life. Thus, her situation could indicate medical reasons and is not a PEDs issue. Then again, it must be said that the possibility exists that it could be both. (Although the IAAF has not referenced PEDs publicly.)
   If PEDS are in no way involved, then that presents us with a hugely difficult question that has a medically subjective answer: At what point is a person too much a “male” biologically to be classified athletically as a female? What is fair to that person? What is fair to that person’s competitors?
  And, in this specific case, what is fair to Caster Semenya, not just in her running career but also in the rest of her life?
  Her national association and the IAAF, anticipating these problems, should have had honest discussions about them before the World Championships. And she and her parents should have been thoroughly briefed about what could happen if she competed. This didn’t come from out of the blue last week when she won … the IAAF started the process of “investigating” her gender before the meet.
   But what’s done is done. What now for Semenya? I fear the possibility that perhaps what’s truly best for her might get lost in a hurricane of fear and uncertainty about gender issues, national pride, and an understandable but potentially misguided attempt to “protect” her.
  And I also fear that even if Semenya has no inner conflict about her gender or gender identity, the reaction to this story might discourage those who do have that conflict. It may make them believe, if they didn’t already, that this is a “shameful” thing to face.
  Instead of hearing suggestions of, “Look, this is a possibility, so let’s talk about it and examine it,” they are instead hearing that it’s “humiliating” and “insulting” to even discuss it.