By Cristina Cabrera-Ayers (they/them)

Content warnings: racism; medical abuse; unnecessary surgical interventions; racist systemic abuse; coercion into medical interventions

Term definitions:

IAAF/ International Association of Athletics Foundation = a governing body within international sports that can make rulings on who is allowed to compete in a number of elite athletic competitions, for example, the Olympics.

Nanomole = a chemical unit of measurement, dealing with microscopic amounts of substances such as hormones.

Testosterone = popularly known as the ‘male’ sex hormone, often in contrast to estrogen as the ‘female’ sex hormone, although both hormones exist in every human body. Testosterone is responsible for a number of functions in the body; repair, protein growth, converting body fat to muscle, affecting the capacity of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

The Olympics, 2016.

Elite athleticism has got a problem with sexual abuse. Specifically, of younger women by men in positions of authority. This authority has historically been exploited to coerce women and girl athletes into sexual situations. Over the last decade or so, this issue has finally begun to receive the deserved media attention, and remove some predators from their positions of power within the community. However, the other kind of sexual abuse, the type that this article will discuss, has been in the media for just about as long, generated almost as much furor, and yet we have seen no changes implemented to prevent further harm of the same type, nor reparations made to the survivors of these abuses. The type of abuse I refer to is called ‘sex verification’; an invasive, unscientific collection of practices that target women of colour competing at elite athletic levels. It has not yet been redressed, nor even slowed its pace, because it is a practice supported by the International Association of Athletics Foundation, who are often pointed to as the highest global authority in elite sports.

At the time of writing this, the Olympics are a day away from finishing. The 800m women’s track event has come and gone, seeing a 19-year-old Black American take home the gold medal. Her name is Athing Mu and she set a record in the process of her win, making her the 11th fastest woman in recorded history.

But for the moment, let’s talk about what happened in the same event at Rio’s 2016 Olympics.

Caster Semenya of South Africa took home the gold; Margaret Wambui of Kenya, the silver; Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi, the bronze. The winner’s podium was composed entirely of Black African women, and that should have been a moment of celebration. But the attention quickly refocused onto another issue, raised by the 6th place finisher of the event, and pursued by the IAAF until it saw all three of the medalists disqualified.

The 6th place finisher was named Lynsey Sharp – Scottish, a law graduate, an Olympic legacy with a silver-medalist for a father. Sharp expressed that she was upset with the results, and later referred to herself as the “second white” in the race. A strange and archaic choice in language for a Scot, to be sure. Even more strange and archaic was what resulted from Sharp’s complaint. All three medalists were found to have conditions which disqualified them from womanhood and gave them unfair advantages in the event.

What is sex verification?

Sex verification was introduced to the Olympics during the 1950s, and was mandatory up until the late 1990s. It was intended to address (unfounded) fears that women’s events would be infiltrated by male athletes who, naturally, would have an unfair advantage via testosterone, the male sex hormone. This test has only ever been applied to women’s events: men have never had to comply with the ‘testosterone ceiling’ that the IAAF have placed on certain events. Specifically, this test was applied to the 800m race, where Caster Semenya performed so well. A rule placed in 2019 prevents Semenya from entering without undergoing medical treatments to bring her natural testosterone into ‘acceptable’ levels, which she has refused to submit to. Semenya described being made horribly sick by the medication in the past.

Other athletes who have submitted to ‘corrective’ treatments also describe debilitating nausea and an inability to recover. Ugandan track athlete Annet Negesa was barred from competing in the 2012 Olympics without a ‘corrective surgery’. She was examined by a team of exclusively white male doctors, attended by only one female nurse, and never received any documentation, nor descriptions, of what had happened during her surgery until her discharge papers. Negesa awoke with scars on her abdomen from the removal of ‘internal testes’, suffering from painful joints, headaches and lower energy as a result. She was not able to begin any recuperative treatments without further communication from the IAAF. In the aftermath, Negesa was unable to recover her strength, had her university scholarship cancelled in 2013, and was dropped by her international manager by 2016.

Verification tests have been described, variously, as unscientific, arbitrary, humiliating and sexually invasive. Some involve only giving blood and urine samples from which testosterone levels can be tested. Others involve actual gonadal examination, wherein the doctors examine the labia, clitoris size, patterns of pubic hair growth, and breast shape. In one 2012 case, four athletes from developing countries were made to undergo cosmetic surgeries to ‘feminise’ some ambiguous genitals. It must be recognised that these were coerced interventions – each athlete’s ability to compete was contingent upon getting these unnecessary surgeries.

Criticism from the medical and sport community alike have pointed out that the IAAF target women of colour almost exclusively, focusing upon event groups such as track, where women of colour, historically Black women, perform well. Similarly, only women of colour have ever been tested and penalised as a result of these tests.

The science of sex verification testing; or lack thereof

The standard by which women of colour are judged to be sufficiently feminine is, implicitly, indicative of white femininity and womanhood. This is evident in the almost-exclusive targeting of women of colour, as well as the predominantly white make-up of IAAF staff. Their targets often represent developing nations, which may be less empowered to appeal an IAAF ruling, or protect an athlete from medical intervention.

At the moment, the IAAF has identified testosterone as problematic.

Women with naturally high levels of testosterone supposedly benefit from greater oxygen-carrying capacity in their red blood cells, more muscle, and less body fat. Semenya and others like her must fall under the ‘natural ceiling’ of below 5-nanomoles (nm) per litre of blood, otherwise medical intervention is needed. While testosterone can be used as a performance enhancer and has shown some small improvements in female athletes, the result is not necessarily comparable to the effect of naturally high testosterone. There is no evidence that natural levels of testosterone have any bearing upon an elite athletes’ performance.

Studies have tended to prove the opposite, in fact, with one finding that 25% of elite male athletes have natural levels beneath 5nm/pl. The IAAF itself has set the acceptable ‘male’ amount from 7.7-29.4 nm/pl, which is an incredibly broad range when dealing with microscopic amounts. There is certainly credence to the idea that the testosterone ceiling is arbitrary and unscientific. Certainly, high testosterone levels do not in any way relate to ‘feminising’ surgeries of athletes’ external gonads. The removal of internal testes is also redundant, given that they are invasive surgeries, proven to compromise overall health. Even if they do elevate natural testosterone, there is no proven link between natural testosterone levels and athletic performance.

Varying testosterone levels in male athletes have never been a concern of the IAAF’s in establishing the ‘fairness’ of competition. Historically, male athletes with a natural advantage, like the one IAAF purports Semenya’s T level is, have been allowed to compete to great success. Michael Phelps’ muscle produces half the lactic acid of that of an average person; a proven, natural advantage. Phelps has never been penalised with medical intervention, however, and dominated his event.

There have been suggestions of creating a third ‘intersexed’ category, which is problematic for many reasons. Firstly, a number of intersex conditions are only evident after medical intervention, so this would give the IAAF, and other racist influences, justification to test more athletes – perhaps to even reinstitute mandatory testing. Secondly, creating an intersexed category for the purpose of allowing banned athletes to compete would be a stop-gap solution. The problem is the IAAF has weaponised white femininity against Black women, violating Black bodies to bring them into line with the white idea of a ‘female’ body.

The Olympics, 2021

Lynsey Sharp and Caster Semenya weren’t here this year. Sharp is pregnant. Semenya aimed to compete in the women’s 5000m event, but did not make the Olympic standard time. Since the 2016 Olympics, each woman has competed in different events. Semenya remains in top form. Sharp places well, but not so well that she would have been considered a serious competitor, had she and Semenya competed again this year. Remember that Sharp is a law graduate? It may be of interest to know that her dissertation was entitled ‘Intersex athletes; the implications’ (Scotland Herald, 2012), published in 2009, the same year Semenya would begin to be targeted by IAAF for verification. Sharp was, of course, arguing for the exclusion of intersexed athletes.

There is a level of obsession in Sharp’s accusation, even entitlement. Sharp clearly feels that she is being denied a fair go. After considering the information in this article and the further reading of the bibliography, I am sure the audience will agree that Sharp has had her fair go already – several of them, and each time she has been beaten. An athlete with any degree of integrity would have accepted that by now.

But Sharp has persisted, no doubt informed by a lifetime of being catered to by a society that privileges the desires and feelings of white women over all others. I write this, as a white Latino, aware of the privileges I derive from living in another Western-Anglo country. If an eighteen-year-old white woman had run with Semenya’s speed, you can rest assured she wouldn’t be singled out for sex verification; she would be celebrated, invited to interview for all the major papers and channels, and held up as a role model to girls everywhere. As Sharp still is: her top search results on the web will show you that Sharp has been talking about Semenya this year, even though they would not compete.

A screenshot of the first page of results that come up under Lynsey Sharp’s name. She has been allowed to move past the controversy she spearheaded over Semenya’s intersex body, for the most part, receiving mostly positive press coverage that does not often mention the conflict, much less hold her accountable for her part in legitimising the use of sex verification against women of colour in elite competition. Semenya, on the other hand, has had her career somewhat de-railed and continues to struggle with the ruling Sharp’s complaints lead to.

Mu wasn’t the only Black woman to break a record this year. Of the two Namibian girls who ran the 400m, one broke the previous speed record. This may no longer matter, though, because she and her country-woman were later informed that IAAF considered them to have failed their sex verification and will be disqualifying them. In subsequent interviews, neither girl has indicated any desire to undertake medical intervention, noting that it has made others sick and lose their athletic careers.

This problem is not exclusive to the Olympics. The next time you watch an event, the Commonwealth Games for instance, watch for disqualifications.

Bibliography