When is Athleticism Fair and Unfair?
- OpinionatedGal
- May 6, 2019
- 3 min read
Recently the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) came out with a new rule stating that for various track events female athletes are not allowed to produce a certain amount of testosterone. This came about from an appeal against Caster Semenya after the Rio 2016 olympics because several female athletes felt she had an unfair advantage.
2 years later the court has ruled to ban Caster Semenya and women who produce high levels of testosterone. The main controversy surrounding this is, where is the line for natural born advantages and should athletes have these advantages barred? This controversy has shown me that the American educational system is failing. I am not trying to be rude but everyone who is for this ruling doesn't realize that a) testosterone is not a male hormone and b) you can have a Y chromosome and still be considered "female".
First I want to talk about the idea that testosterone is an inherently male hormone and vice versa. This is one major misconception which makes this conversation exhausting. Both men and women produce a variety of each hormone through out their lives. For example, many people don't know that women actually produce more testosterone when they're on their period or during menopause. This is pretty ironic to me because many people say women are the worst during this time of month when they are closest to being "biologically male" (what ever that means).
The same goes for men with estrogen. Men experience higher levels of testosterone from ages 17-40 but this can vary from different lifestyle choices and certain drugs can also change this. Like one interesting fact is that men who have beerguts produce more estrogen. The chemicals found in beer can cause estrogen to be over produced. This causes men to have more fat deposit in areas such as the belly and they can also develop breasts.
Our biology teachers also never told us that theres is a large variation in sex Karyotypes. So far, I believe there are about 16 different combinations of the sex chromosomes. The only way to be sure of what your chromosomes are is to have them tested in a lab. This is because your genitals actually do not determine your karyotypes. There have been cases of women who are genetically XY but were capable of having children, for example (the global and mail).
The different combinations is what allows such a wide range of variation in humans. It's also why women and men can have varying levels of fertility, muscle toe, hairiness, genitals etc. I am mentioning this because it is possible for someone to be "phenotypically" female and still have a Y chromosome. I am not sure how true this claim that Caster Semenya has one, but it is absolutely possible for her to check off all the biological components of a woman and her sex chromosomes tell a different story . This is why the intersex population is such a conundrum because they do not fall into our binaries.
Something else that struck me about this controversy is the idea that a biological advantage should either bar athletes or make them take medications that alter their conditions. This is unethical to me because hormone medications are well known for having extreme side effects that could endanger athletes.
Despite all the dangers, isn't athleticism all about being unique? Many people have been using Michael Phelps as a prime example of an elite athlete with a biological advantage. Phelps produces about half the amount of lactic acid an average human does. This obviously means he can train longer and put his body through more physical strain than you or me.
If you account for his abnormally large arm span and foot size then you have a human being that was designed to be a swimmer. So if we are going to use this argument of unfair advantages then shouldn't we force basketball players adhere to height requirements or make long distance runners from mountainous regions have less lung capacity? Where is the line? When is an advantage fair and unfair?
At the end of the day, the entirety of athleticism is based on those with advantageous biological traits. There is a reason we praise runners like Bolt or swimmers like Phelps. The only reason Semenya is a major issue is because she falls outside of the bounds of the boundaries we've created to make sense of the world (misogynior and racism are also apart of it, but that's a whole other conversation). I believe binaries are more harmful than they are good. Believing that the world is just black or white when its mostly the gray area in between doesn't help anyone and can cause us to fall behind. Caster Semenya's issue is a primary example. I hope through all this controversy we realize that binaries are not the answer to our issues.
sources:
Comments