World Athletics (also referred to as the IAAF) - the international governing body for athletics - has long struggled to draw a line between men and women. But while doing so, they couldn’t realize when they overstepped it.
The process through which World Athletics determines whether or not an athlete is a female or a male is through testosterone-testing since they believe that women with more testosterone have an unfair advantage over other women. Women of testosterone (a hormone produced in both males and females) more than 5 liters are deemed, ‘not female’ and the only way they can continue to participate in international athletic competitions as they were doing so earlier, is by reducing their levels of testosterone.
The World Medical Association and the United Nations Human Rights Council disapprove of this method since they believe that one’s performance in sports is not just defined by how much testosterone one's body produces. Factors like equipment, training, nutrition all affect the level of the athlete’s performance. It is thus unclear how testosterone can be singled out as the only factor affecting sports participation.
This practice, called inhumane far too many times, has many problems, some of which I have tried to cover in this article.
#1: The Discrimination
Hmm, how can a practice that affects only women and disproportionately, women of color be discriminatory? Let’s see how!
The fact that no comparable testing exists for men.
Sports should be a way of letting free of your emotions, a safe space for both athletes and the audience. Just the nature of sex-testing, which is a practice that exists only for women, and thus, regulates women's participation in the sport, is inherently discriminatory.
The fact that they try to determine who is a woman or not.
Why is this wrong? Because it confuses sex (biology) with gender (the way you identify yourself in society). They also fail to recognize the existence of people who are inter-sex. Intersex is a term used for people born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of “female” or “male.”
Throughout the sporting world, there have been no determinations of a gender other than that of self-identification. Caster Semenya, a famed sportswoman from South Africa, was uncontroversially female. From birth, she had identified as female. She continued to identify as a female throughout her sporting career. For the IAAF to then deem her ‘not female’ because of the levels of testosterone in her body, was unjust. What message does this send to females with more testosterone? They are no longer women.
The fact that only a female athlete identified as ‘suspicious’ needs to be tested.
And that is when, my dear readers, the problem gets worse. When they passed out this clause, the IAAF sent a message, one that was heard loud and clear across the world. When they announced that only athletes who were determined to be suspicious - *cough* women who don't fit somebody’s stereotype of what a woman should look like *cough* - are the ones that are subject to testing. So, in layman's terms, you look more masculine - time to get tested! And the problematic thing about this (not that the other part isn’t problematic, EVERYTHING IS PROBLEMATIC HERE) is that women of color don’t fit the stereotypes of what a woman should be like for white men. This is exactly why the number of women of color being called for testing IS TOO MUCH FOR IT NOT BE BASED ON RACIAL PROFILING. India’s Dutee Chand, South Africa’s Caster Semenya - all famous women of color that have been called for testing.
#2 - It violates the dignity and privacy of female athletes.
The way the IAAF works is that it passes judgment on women’s femininity, sex, and gender identity. For it to deem certain women as ‘suspicious’, it calls for placing women’s levels of testosterone, and at large, their body for signs of masculinity, under scrutiny.
Athletes like Dutee Chand were forced to undergo invasive physical examinations without her informed consent. Also, the fact that the testing used for this is highly invasive, undignifying, and makes many women athletes too uncomfortable. This includes examining the size of a woman's clitoris and pubic hair patterns. Also, the fact that the knowledge revealed from these tests isn’t kept confidential. If a famed woman athlete is banned from taking part in the next Olympics, what are the chances that this DOES not cause public outrage? Or at least, demands reasons as to why?
#3: It coerces women to go and take medical procedures that they do not require.
The fact that if an athlete fails the testosterone-test, the only way for her to compete is if she medically reduces the level of testosterone her body produces. This can take place in two ways - the female athlete can either take hormone-lowering agents or have surgery to reduce her testosterone levels. This is not a proper choice being given to athletes since, had they not failed this test, none of these athletes would have gone through such medical procedures. The fact that it's their career hanging in their balance, the only source of their livelihood, and immense public pressure to see their famed athlete participate again - gives way to athletes being coerced into medical decisions that they do not require.
But also the fact that this goes against medical ethics. It is in no way ethical to force athletes who do not require drugs to take them. But also, there are immense medical side-effects to this. All ways of reducing testosterone involve some of the other risks. This may include things like blood clots or undergoing life-threatening surgeries.
#4 Social and mental impacts
Athletes forced to undergo sex testing also had to face huge amounts of social stigma. Rumors spread like wildfire regarding them being banned from participating in sports events. There were cases where they were verbally abused, bullied, and trolled on social media platforms. People questioned their gender and sexual orientation publicly. While this could prove to be a matter of discomfort for many, it could become a matter of life-and-death for athletes in not-so-tolerant countries. In Annet Negesa’s case, she had to flee from her home country to avoid persecution on the basis of her having a variation in her sex characteristics.
All of this - the rumors, the questions they faced from the public and their coaches, the testing, the scrutiny, all also had severe psychological impacts. Athletes felt shame, some went into depression and even attempted suicide at these claims. Some also stopped playing their beloved sports - even if that meant losing money to support themselves and their family.
There is also a lack of redressal. These athletes had entered the competition, trained, and competed fairly under the rules, and for them to lose their livelihood, for something that is out of their control, and then, to not even be given any redressal is so much worse.
At the end of the day, the harm that sex testing causes is way too much. Regulating fair play is well within the jurisdictions of the IAAF, but committing human-rights violations? Definitely not! It is now the duty of governments and sports bodies to rescind such regulations, and for the public to lobby and pressure the government into doing so.