The Caster Semenya debate

I had the opportunity to attend a debate yesterday at the Tea House Theatre, near Vauxhall station in South East London. The debate motion was “This House believes the Caster Semenya ruling is unfair”. 

The running order was

6.30 pm - 6.45 pm: Introduction to the debate
6.45 pm - 7.45 pm: Public debate and audience Q&A
7.45 pm - 8.00 pm: Break
8.00 pm - 8.45 pm: Showcase debate
8.30 pm - 9.00 pm: Post-debate drinks

As it was my first time attending, I managed to find the place easily, and the surroundings were excellent. It is a nice pub at the end of the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens in the centre of London. It was not far from Vauxhall Underground Tube Station. Amateurs and students from the debating club led the public debate. The issue was well thought out, and in the end, I sided with the notion that the ruling was unfair. It seemed they had specifically targeted Ms Caster Semenya. But later, when the professional debaters dissected the issue and the unfairness of the ruling to the other female athletes who had been put at what seems an unfair disadvantage for being female, the offer of alternative options available, and the science involved in testing, I changed to now believing that the ruling was fair and proportionate.

From the debate, I put this together.

Ms Caster Semenya came from a very poor family and grew up in the village of Fairlie, deep in South Africa's northern Limpopo province. She was raised as a girl and, for all intents and purposes, considered herself a girl. She had always wanted to become an athlete and was active in sports from a young age. She may be suffering from what is defined as 'hyperandrogenism', which is a genetic condition. There are different variants of the disease, and in the case of Ms Semenya, if she were suffering from the alleged condition, she would be genetically male, i.e., each cell in her body would have the XY chromosomes. So far, she has not had a genetic test; therefore, there is no way to confirm or deny this. She does have external female genitalia. Hence, both labia, a large clitoris and a blind vagina which ends in a pouch – if she were suffering from the above conditions. There is no uterus (womb), fallopian tubes or ovaries inside her. But inside her abdomen would be testes, and these are producing a high level of testosterone in the place the ovaries should be (I suspect that they will have to remove them at a later age and place her on hormone replacement therapy because there is a high possibility that they will become cancerous; this factor is very important to note as it concerns her long-term well-being). I personally believe that we have had intersex athletes taking part in female athletics from time immemorial, and there were no tests then. There is a racial element to it, as she is Black.

The rules set up by the IAAF were based on testosterone levels; they avoided the main issue of defining what constitutes a female. Their ruling was specifically for athletes with differences in sexual development (DSD) and the specific metres that Ms Semenya is competing in. If Ms Semenya were to take part, she would have to take replacement therapy. The Court of Arbitration for Sport reviewed her case and upheld the decision. Hence, it seems the IAAF targeted her specifically, and I saw that as unfair to her.

The effect of testosterone on the human body cannot be understated. It produces bigger hearts, lungs, muscles and bones and also ensures better stamina. Because they have better stamina and recovery, they can train for longer and more regularly. This puts such individuals at an advantage, although the estimated advantage of intersex people is just 3% according to the stats on average athletes. But in elite athletes at the top of their game, milliseconds can be the difference between losing and winning. And even if the person is placed on hormone replacement therapy, the bigger lungs, hearts, muscles, and limbs will still put the person at a serious advantage. This alone puts all females at a disadvantage, as they will have a lower threshold for endurance and stamina. Based on this, I saw the ruling as fair. But just measuring the testosterone opens another can of worms. For example, the issue of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), where testosterone, whatever the level, has none or little effect on the cells due to the fact that the receptors are not responding to testosterone and may even be raised because of a negative feedback loop.
 

Listening, I believe that it had become highly politicised and had become mixed up in female rights and complicated by racial undertones. There were elements of #MeToo, as well. The IAAF avoided the issue of sexuality entirely but based it on current testosterone levels. Which I see as a mistake. Usain Bolt, if he desired, could now undergo a sex change, start on hormone replacement therapy and begin smashing the female records.

Athletes have done it before. In the case of Ms Caster Semenya, she can compete in female sports if she lowers her testosterone level. Otherwise, she would compete as a male athlete; this is a compromise, and it seems the IAAF "chickened out". If William Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon gold winner, had become Caitlyn, with the height of her frame, maybe the IAAF would have been forced to deal with it then. Kristen Worley is a transgender athlete and is a Canadian Olympic female cyclist who won medals as a female.

One thing I know is the IAAF has opened a can of worms, and they will have to face the definitions of male and female gender in sports eventually.