Are you female enough for the Olympics?

Thai boxer Usanakorn Kokietgym (above, right) was subjected to a barrage of questions about her biological sex.

Thai boxer Usanakorn Kokietgym (above, right) was subjected to a barrage of questions about her biological sex.

An uncomfortable incident occurred over the weekend in the professional world of female championship boxing. After being defeated by Australian boxer Susan Ramadan in a world title fight, her opponent Usanakorn Kokietgym was subjected to a barrage of questions about her biological sex, with Ramadan’s trainer Barry Michael accusing the Thai bantamweight of “punching harder than most blokes [he knows]”.

The discomfort isn’t in regards to whether or not Usanakorn may have duped the professional boxing world; rather, it’s due to yet another athlete being forced to defend her femaleness because a) she has ‘unnaturally’ occurring levels of testosterone that lead to b) her performance being so good that it seems impossible she could be a woman.

It’s an accusation not unfamiliar to some female athletes. Three years ago, runner Caster Semenya was thrust into the international spotlight following her performance at the World Athletics Championships held in Berlin. Semenya unceremoniously blitzed her competition in the 800m by a full two seconds with a total time of 1:55.45. 

<i></i>

But instead of reveling in her win, Semenya was forced to endure the public humiliation of having her sex and gender used as fodder for international gossip. Fellow runners Elisa Cusma Piccione and Mariya Savinova dismissed the 18 year old South African, and claimed ‘his’ victory was unfair. (Cusma had placed sixth in the race – she’s yet to reveal what it was that disadvantaged her against the other four runners who placed ahead of her).

Advertisement

Her peers’ feelings towards her weren’t helped by the revelation – a mere moments before her gold medal winning 800m event – that the IAAF was requesting sex testing of Semenya following a marked improvement in times at the African Junior Championships. Perhaps if that information hadn’t been leaked, Semenya could have been spared some of the more vitriolic attacks on her gender that were to begin almost immediately following her victory, and would go on to demonstrate the particularly virulent strain of sexism, racism and transphobia found in the competitive field of sports.

As it was, it took three months for the IAAF and Semenya to reach an agreement that allowed the runner to retain her title and prize money, and a further six months before she was cleared to compete ‘as a woman’ again. Like Usanakorn, testing had revealed that Semenya’s body produced three times the level of naturally occurring testosterone typically found in a female. Although the results of her sex tests were never made public, The Daily Telegraph chose to publish unconfirmed reports that Semenya had undescended testes in place of a womb and uterus. She said herself of the tests, “I see it all as a joke, it doesn't upset me. God made me the way I am and I accept myself. I am who I am and I'm proud of myself.”

Caster Semenya ... subjected to sex test after her 800m win in 2009.

Caster Semenya ... subjected to sex test after her 800m win in 2009.

Sex and gender testing for women have always been features of the athletic community; indeed, up until the late 1960s, women were forced to parade naked in front of a panel of ‘experts’ to prove their femaleness (something we accept now as not only a blatant violation but also scientifically unsound). The practice was later eschewed for chromosomal testing and then abandoned altogether in the 90s due to its unreliability.

In light of this crude burden of proof it’s almost certain that history is full of athletes who, unbeknownst to them, fell somewhere in between the accepted binary of male and female biological sex. And now that we have the technology to determine that sex, we’ve become rigid about insisting the binary be upheld in competitive sport – sometimes with tragic consequences. In a foreshadowing of the furore surrounding Semenya’s 2009 win, Indian runner Santhi Soundarajan was stripped of a silver medal won at the 2006 Asian Games because a sex verification test indicated she ‘did not have the sexual characteristics of a woman’. The results devastated Soundarajan (who was almost certainly not aware that she was intersex); she was banned from competing and later survived a suicide attempt. She now runs a training college for runners in her province.

The IAAF have since instituted a policy that dictates women with naturally occurring testosterone deemed ‘too high’ will be required to either surgically or medically reduce their body’s production to a ‘normal’ level.

On the surface, it seems reasonable because the idea of an unfair advantage is anathema to sports. But the policy has been criticized by a panel of scientists, sports experts and bioethicists at the Stanford Centre for Biomedical Research, with the panel challenging the belief that higher testosterone levels naturally lead to a greater sporting advantage (for in amongst the flaming pitchforks being waved at Usanakorn and her increased levels of testosterone, it should be remembered that they didn’t help her beat Ramadan). In fact, the panel calls it ‘just one element in a complex neuroendocrine feedback system’. Columbia University Associate Professor Rebecca Jordan-Young and Stanford University senior research scholar Katrina Karkazia recently argued that women with no discernable tissue response to testosterone are actually overrepresented among elite athletes: “Testosterone is not the master molecule of athleticism…As counterintuitive as it might seem, there is no evidence that successful athletes have higher testosterone levels than less successful ones.”

Others have cited the policy as yet another way to police the gender of female athletes, the most physically robust of whom will sit outside of acceptable social ideas of conventional female gentility and attractiveness. Reports claim spectators abused Usanakorn throughout her fight against Ramadan, calling repeatedly for a ‘gender check’ and heckling her. Meanwhile, Semenya – who has reportedly undergone the steps required in order to compete at London 2012 – has already been praised in some media quarters for sporting a more ‘feminine’ look.

The circumstances of Usanakorn, Semenya and Soundarajan raise interesting questions about the role of sex and gender in sport. On the one hand, they bring to mind the notion of a level playing field that is often held up as being part and parcel of competitive sport. The reason we don’t (mostly) pit men and women against each other at the Olympics is because we routinely accept that men possess a strength that gives them an unfair advantage. But leaving aside for a moment categories such as diving, gymnastics, shooting, archery, synchronized swimming, fencing, equestrian, sailing and the list that literally goes on, on the other hand what we’re saying here is that we accept a basic premise in which men and women can’t compete together – because men are just better.

And look, this is arguably true when it comes to a sport like running. The best male runners will almost certainly be faster than the best female ones, and it would be folly to pit them against each other and expect it to be equal. In light of this, it’s perhaps not surprising that competitors and spectators are eager to remove any question of biological ambiguity in order to ensure a ‘fair fight’.

But that premise doesn’t take into account the various factors within those broad biological sex categories that might contribute to an athlete’s skill or ability. As Sam Murphy argues in a recent Guardian piece, “Sport is anything but a level playing field. No matter how much you want to be an athlete, you simply don't have a chance if you didn't choose the right parents. Right from the starting blocks, those athletes with the "best" genes – the right type of muscle fibres, the highest VO2 maxes, the longest limbs – are at an advantage. That's just the way it is.”

Without even considering how alienating and transphobic these policies (the IOC’s 2004 Stockholm Consensus decreed transgendered athletes could compete as their chosen gender, provided they were post-operative transsexuals – a status both expensive and difficult for female-born men to achieve), it also unfairly weights biological sex as a contributor to athletic success. The IAAF may have instituted what it believes to be fair policy in regards to testosterone – but what about economics? Would anyone seriously argue that athletes born into privilege need to train on a budget because some of their competition was raised in South African villages or Indian slums?

Perhaps the most glaring disparity in our obsessive need to qualify femaleness is how little it compares to our appreciation for the extreme athletic ability of men at the top of their game. Caster Semenya’s ability to run well is considered so unusual that she – and other women like her – are forced to prove their femaleness in order to compete. If they are too good, it is assumed that they must be operating on a level higher than that normally reserved for women. Worse, that supposed duplicity is touted as cheating, bringing not just the athlete’s sex into question but also their integrity.

But provided men pass testing for drug use, their athletic ability is never called into question. Instead, it’s praised as beautiful, extraordinary…God-like. And we allow them to bear this mantel, considering them to have earned it. I have yet to hear of a genetic test that establishes whether or not athletes like Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis or Asafa Powell are human and not in fact Olympian Gods descended from the Mount for a change of scenery.

In order to deserve their athletic success, women have to prove they’re not men. But men never need prove they’re not Gods – because when it comes to athletic prowess, we simply accept that they might be, and bask in the glory that lies therein.

14 comments

  • OK so I am all for people choosing their own path. If they are a woman trapped in a mans body or vice versa I support them pursuing their own path to happiness via a sexy change.

    However because their physical appearance changes, it does not mean the physical attributes do as well. The reason why we do not have men competing against women is due to the differences that are genetic, hormonal and chemical in nature. I also support gender testing at the games. If you are going to drug test to ensure a level playing field then gender testing should be undertaken to. It's the fair thing to do, because even though an athlete may look like a woman they still have the muscle mass & density of a man thanks to all that natural testosterone that the male body produces.

    Commenter
    Dale
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    July 17, 2012, 8:16AM
    • That certainly opens a can of worms. A few questions:

      1- Where do you draw the line in stating that a certain muscle mass and density on a woman is "that of a man"? What about women who may simple be at the extreme end of normal, natural variation and are extremely well muscled? Does that make them male?

      2- It has been clearly stated here that some women have higher natural levels of testosterone than their gender should suggest. (So it's not just the "male body" that produces all that "natural testosterone" at all). Are you seriously stating that these women should be discriminated against to the point where they cannot compete in professional sport? Would you similarly ban men with naturally higher levels of oestrogen? No, right, cause it's not been proven that oestrogen should advantage the men as athletes. But given that is the case for testosterone, why the double standard?

      3- So long as an athlete is drug-free and playing by the rules, what gives us the right to police their gender in this way?

      Commenter
      Red Pony
      Date and time
      July 17, 2012, 1:25PM
  • Wow, why are issues like this always turned around so . . . . this 'problem' is a lot more about 'humans' than it is about women;

    1. Humans are given to cheat.
    2. Humans like to be seen to be 'Olympian Gods'
    3. Humans who can't be so racing against similar humans, will cheat [take drugs, etc] to try to compete.
    4. Men who don't succeed that way may turn to other means - such as claiming they are women.

    Everything you described above is to stop men from cheating, not to reduce a woman athletes integrity, although that may have been what happened in these cases.

    The process by which the testing, etc was done, was painfully wrong, unfair and callous and needs some thought and consideration.

    If Caster had been found to be a man you would have no argument.

    Testing is required because it is human nature to want to be seen to be better. Humans will go to great lengths to be the 'alpha' male or female. Its evolution stupid.

    Commenter
    Olympian God
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    July 17, 2012, 9:02AM
    • "If Caster had been found to be a man you would have no argument."

      If she was found to have identified biologically and socially as male, and had intentionally attempted to cheat by passing herself off as a woman when she was not, I would have no argument.

      Rather, the tests revealed that she was of ambiguous gender on a biological level, but there was no argument that she had always been living as a woman, and had no knowledge of any intersex traits. That is nothing like cheating, and it was known from the outset. That is why, as you point out, the testing was callous and unfair.

      Commenter
      Red Pony
      Date and time
      July 17, 2012, 1:32PM
  • "In order to deserve their athletic success, women have to prove they’re not men. But men never need prove they’re not Gods – because when it comes to athletic prowess, we simply accept that they might be, and bask in the glory that lies therein."

    That would suggest that it has less to do with gender and more to do with testosterone and physicality. Men don't need to prove they're not Gods because the assumption is that they are 'better' at physical sports than women due to biology, they're competing at a higher and separate level against other men. Too much testosterone in a female athlete blurs the arbitrary dividing line between the genders.

    "But leaving aside for a moment categories such as diving, gymnastics, shooting, archery, synchronized swimming, fencing, equestrian, sailing and the list that literally goes on"

    As you've pointed out, both genders are on a more-or-less even playing field in those sports. It might be my total lack of interest in following any of those sports, but i'm not aware of any examples of top female athletes in any of them being required to prove their 'femaleness' in order to compete. That's because they don't rely on physicality as their primary qualification for competing.

    Looked at objectively, it's not about the gender of the athletes at all, it's about the physical abilities that being of a particular gender supposed to bestow. I think you'd find that it wouldn't be the male athletes that object to competing against women in any physicality-based competition. The objections that it would be 'unfair' to women would come from a totally different quarter.

    Indeed, just try and imagine the outcry if we eliminated gender-restricted categories in boxing.

    Commenter
    DM
    Date and time
    July 17, 2012, 9:32AM
    • Outstanding article, Clementine...truly...outstanding! Thank you so much for articulating this whole scenario so brilliantly.

      I have spent many years pondering over, and learning about, this and related subjects - such as the implications of this for our ridiculous marriage laws as well as for the enforced ticking of a specific gender box for virtually everything one does on this planet! I had to even specify my gender (only either male or female) to be able to comment on your article!!! I could not go on without ticking the 'right' box...

      I myself look completely female - yet from birth, I have never felt comfortable identifying that way. I have never had any testing done - nor do I think it is necessary - for what useful information will it give me? I know how I feel internally - and that is, neither male nor female! That's what's important to me.

      Gender identification is such a complex matter - far beyond the ever-increasing boundaries being created as a result of new examinations of genes, etc. The more medical scientists look, the more they realise how difficult it is to get specific 'answers'. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to check a gender box (not to mention all the other boxes we have to check)

      Commenter
      Whatsinawoman?
      Date and time
      July 17, 2012, 9:45AM
      • I pretty strongly feel that we should all just be considered people with different attributes, rather than them being male or female attributes. I don't feel male or female either, I just feel like me.

        Commenter
        Sally
        Date and time
        July 17, 2012, 10:45AM
    • @Olympian God

      "If Caster had been found to be a man you would have no argument."

      That is the entire point. The author HAS a valid argument BECAUSE Semenya was in the end cleared to compete "as a woman".

      Commenter
      Lucy
      Date and time
      July 17, 2012, 11:03AM
      • I should have said 'Gender identification/classification' not just 'Gender identification' :)

        Commenter
        What'sinawoman?
        Location
        Sydney
        Date and time
        July 17, 2012, 11:10AM
        • Great piece (as usual) Clementine.
          This is the very reason that we, as a society, should stop blindly worshiping athletes, and start looking toward intellectual prowess as a source for our role models.

          Commenter
          JayRot
          Location
          Melbourne
          Date and time
          July 17, 2012, 12:28PM

          More comments

          Comments are now closed