So, I read this article off of Let's Run today and it got me thinking. What's the best way to go about this? Should we even test gender? And, if someone fails a test, how would you decide if this even gives them an advantage?
I read about Santhi Soundarajan, an Indian 800m runner who failed a gender test at the Asia games in 2006. It's unclear what even happened but a few things are clear to me.
1) Failing a gender test REALLY messes up people's lives
2) gender is a very complex thing; it's not just a boy/girl thing; there's a spectrum of physical presentations and abnormal chromosomal conditions. Females can be XXY and still have normal phenotypes (such as Ewa Klobukowska, the Polish sprinter, who after failing a gender test went on to marry and give birth).
3) male intersex conditions (Klinefelter's, 46, XX, etc) exist but no one tests for or cares about those.
4) gender tests are humiliating and socially insensitive, particularly for athletes from conservative backgrounds such as those from many non-Western countries.
5) how an athlete "looks" will get them singled out for testing (it's totally arbitrary).
So, should we just not do gender tests? Should we make ALL athletes undergo gender tests? If someone "fails" a test, how do you determine if they even have an advantage over the other female athletes? What about if they have previously diagnosed conditions? And, how do you keep the matters private? (They do just as bad a job with confidentiality as with drug testing!) Can you protect the athlete from cultural backlashes and stigmatism in their home country?
No comments:
Post a Comment