I can't help but to think of this controversial topic at least once a day since we've had the discussion in class. It's mainly because I'm not sure where I stand.
While I heavily participated on the Twitter-sphere and argued the idea that testing her gender was wrong, I still am not sure how I feel.
First, I support the idea that it's wrong to test someone's gender because they have excelled at something. She did well, big whoop. She didn't even come close to the records held by the men's division. I made the Twitter comment that we wouldn't test the last-place male for being a woman, because that's what this society did. If you are fast and the best, you must be a man. If you are last and not-so-good, you must be a woman. She's tall? So what. My sister-in-law is 6'1". She's muscular? Oh well, so are competing female body builders. She has strong bone structure? And? So does Missi Pyle (look her up, she's gorgeous, but has the "jaw of a man").
Second, I get the stereotype. Yes, her physical feature resemble that of a masculine person. In today's society, it's hard to pick-and-choose who get's by with what. With new technologies, new medicines, new drugs, it's difficult to assume everyone is being truthful. If the argument was that she was a taking performance enhancing drugs or she was using testosterone supplements, and that was it, I could buy it. With athletes being fined and stripped of titles left and right because they've found illegal drugs in their systems, yeah, it's okay to be suspicious of someone who is well-exceeding in a particular sports event.
Third, it makes me giggle inside that males have dominated society for thousands of years and have been in control, they speak up and say things like, "We're looking too far into this," when it comes to studying feminism. Or they say, "Hey, this just don't happen to female athletes, guys go through this, too," as if we're leaving them out of discrimination. Newsflash, this is a controversial topic because it did happen to a woman, who has been discriminated against since the beginning of gender-time. One tweet suggested that this isn't so bad because little boys get discriminated against in peewee sports because if they look too old then they get put into question. Here's the thing, when is the last time you heard of a guy in the media being tested for his gender because he did too well or not well-enough at something? When is the last time a little boy was showcased in the local newspaper because he looked too old to play t-ball? You don't. Why? Because most males aren't being questioned, that's why. Even if that little boy looks too old to play, once they confirm he's the right age, they then use his size to their advantage and in a positive way. Semenya won't take a positive experience away from this.
Fourth, I want to express my anger that when a certain magazine claimed Caster Semenya was now "wow-ed" because she's wearing make-up and jewelry. What exactly made her so "gorgeous" now? She's not "wow-ed" because she highly excelled in the Olympics? She's not "wow-ed" because she has an amazing talent and ability to run faster than most biological females? She's "wow-ed" because the magazine slapped paint on her face and called her a girl. And that's sad to me. Her looks have overcome her abilities.
So, where do I stand? I think it was wrong to test for her gender, but I get it. But it makes me more angry that there was the thought in someone's mind that a person's talents and abilities aren't credible because they don't "look" the part. I see too much of that already.
No comments:
Post a Comment