Caster Semenya: The Case Against the IAAF

The CAS rejected Caster Semenya’s appeal against a new IAAF regulation requiring competitors in the 400 and 800 meters disciplines to take medication to regulate their testosterone levels if they are classified as having hyperandrogenism. The ruling found that the regulation was reasonable and fair to protect the integrity of competition. When news of CAS’ ruling originally broke I instantly disagreed with it, considering it to not properly understand the nature of discrimination. My view was that if a person was legally recognised as a woman then no professional organisation had a right to limit their right to participate in any activities as a woman. However, I then read some material about the biological and physiological nature of the XY condition and felt I needed to give the matter more thought. I needed to explore whether the condition was a natural physical one or actually altered their gender at a more subliminal level.

CAS’ decision to include testosterone levels as a criterion in the definition of a woman feels fundamentally flawed. Testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone in human beings whose levels the individual cannot naturally alter. Therefore it isn’t within the individual’s purview to choose what level occurs in them. This would make it naturally occurring and reasonably permissible, as long as there has been no manual ingestion or physical manipulation. The definition fails to make a distinction between what is normal and what is natural. While the condition that has resulted in the higher levels of testosterone is not the norm amongst women it is perfectly naturally occurring in the women with the condition. They therefore should not be penalised or stigmatised because of it. To not  allow them to participate professionally would be unfair and directly discriminatory. Being exceptional is not an unusual thing in sports. Be it height, coordination, reflexes, speed, physicality; the history of sport is defined by individuals with exceptional characteristics.

The CAS ruling stipulated that any discrimination involved in the IAAF decision was reasonable and necessary to ensure the integrity of the sport. That doesn’t actually compute. The standard for performance in athletics is on a continuum between qualifying cut off and world record. The participation of these athletes has not prevented anyone from qualifying for an event. To the best of my knowledge none of the women with the targeted condition has broken a world record or actually been close to doing so. It would therefore stand to reason that if he world record was set by women with ‘normal’ levels of testosterone then they would not have been disadvantaged by the participation of the athletes currently being targeted. So it would appear that these athletes are being penalised because the rest of the current field are not able to perform to a higher level. This in effect saying that because the current crop aren’t good enough to beat these athletes then it can’t be fair.

It appears from the actions taken by the IAAF that it considers testosterone levels to be the single or overwhelming factor responsible for the performance of the female athletes with the condition. It isn’t clear what evidence it has to that effect. Certainly, there are other women with that condition who are not excelling over those distances in athletics. In fact, for all we know there might be women out whose athleticism is hindered by the condition. The IAAF decision suggests any woman with the condition would automatically have an unfair advantage over those distances. We do not know that is true to any degree. The women who are doing well have trained, applied themselves and developed skills to enable them to excel. That presumably doesn’t just come with higher testosterone levels.

Doriane Coleman wrote an article declaring the CAS ruling a victory for female athletes. Her position was that these women were to all intents and purposes male and their participation would deny ‘females’ the chance to win in competition. Her implication that these athletes are unbeatable is clearly erroneous. They have been beaten and would be beaten anyone running close to a world record. And the suggestion that if other athletes are not winning then it devalues the competition is just nonsense. When Ed Moses was on his winning streak he was lauded for it. And I thought the spirit of sport was in the dignity of competing and giving it your all. It shouldn’t be just about winning.

The IAAF requiring athletes to take medication to lower their testosterone levels is not only unfair but also unreasonable. Does it know what impact this might have on their personal and sporting lives? Denying them the opportunity to participate professionally unless they take medication is not too dissimilar to an employer refusing a woman a job unless she agrees to take contraception to avoid getting pregnant during the period of employment.

The IAAF has a duty of care to all athletes and is responsible for the regulation of the sport. However, it should not risk the health and wellbeing of a minority group of athletes to appease the sensitivities of a larger majority. There is no way that these athletes are destroying the integrity of the sport and they should not be subject to unverified medical procedures to satisfy some people’s notion of normality. In so much as this ruling appears to target a select group and seeks to prevent them from participation then it is unfair and discriminatory. Sport should never be about curtailing natural ability.

Yo Johannesburg, Why So Sour?!

I have only been in Johannesburg for a little over a week; and it has already provoked some mixed feelings in me so far. I recognise that South Africa is a massive country covering a huge geographical area, and with a rich diversity indigenous and migrant ethnicities. However, the latent hostility I have observed coming off people in Joburg is nothing short of saddening.

It’s understandable that concerns about safety and security might make people cautious and wary. However, as a Black African visiting the city walking the streets feels like running a gauntlet. There just appears to be a distinct lack of consideration and care for others mixed in with the cautiousness that dogs people’s every step. People might instinctively sense a foreign presence and feel a degree of  suspicion. But a person going about his business innocuously shouldn’t come across as threatening.

A friend mentioned the fact that the wave of xenophobia spreading across South Africa makes for a less than pleasant atmosphere at times. There have been reports of incidents of immigrants from other African countries being threatened and attacked. Unfortunately it does not appear that these are just isolated instances of some brewing bitterness between nationalities. I am Nigerian and so may be considered an understandable target. However, it wouldn’t be apparent on seeing me walking down the street what nationality I am. I know I am Nigerian but the cold stares and shoulders I observe don’t really seem to make any distinction.

Another explanation might be that the South African psyche bruised and battered through the apartheid era hasn’t healed yet and still isn’t healing now. The decades since the dismantling of apartheid haven’t heralded a golden era social development. The combination of political spoils sharing and a reluctance to implement comprehensive social welfare reform has left parts of the population experiencing extremes of deprivation and social exclusion. The recent flooding in the KwaZulu-Natal Province has demonstrated that local government has been equally as ineffective as the national government in taking care of those people most in need.

South Africa has been plagued by the continuing spread of AIDS and HIV, poverty, violent crime, alcohol and substance misuse, and mental illness. While these are not typical of just South Africa the country’s approach to tackling these problems will be seen by some as abandoning the ideals of equality and social justice of all that were so dearly fought for during the apartheid era. There is definitely a need for a stronger push for social welfare and healthcare reform in the country. This should be supported by a national mental health strategy that not only starts to tackle the mental scars of the past and present, but also focuses on equipping the children and youth with the skills and resilience needed to ensure better emotional wellbeing as they go through life.

While social problems are not unique to South Africa there is a lot more the government could be doing to tackle them. The noncommittal approach to making life better for all only serves to entrench both the feelings and experience of inequality. Economic development without social security will only lead to social dysfunction and disorder. Something needs to be done to put a smile on the faces of South Africans. Let’s hope the politicians decide to make that a priority.