Campaigning for What, Exactly?

Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” has been attracting attention pretty much since it was established. Much of the criticism of the campaign has focused on the fact that, although it claims to be celebrating “all women,” it primarily features white, conventionally attractive women. Very few of the women could be truly considered fat, most of the women of colour are photoshopped several shades lighter, and I haven’t seen any campaigns featuring women with disabilities. So, really, a campaign which is allegedly about self esteem and empowerment for women is just reiterating that idea that “real” women must fit within very narrow physical parameters. And all of these criticisms are valid, and should be aired.

But there’s more to critique about Dove’s campaign which I don’t see getting nearly as much air time.

In addition to creating an artificial dichotomy of fake and real beauty, the campaign is also stressing the idea that beauty is something which needs to be valued, and that all women must strive to be beautiful, something which I personally find harmful and anti-feminist. I dislike the idea that people need to be told that they are beautiful in order to feel strong or powerful, and the campaign feeds into the general idea that women crave acceptance, and that being called beautiful is a form of acceptance. Given that many women cannot even find bodies to connect with in this advertising campaign, it seems highly questionable to say that Dove is making a statement for all women, or that the statement is positive.

Critics have pointed out the rampant use of image manipulation in the campaign. Image manipulation is par for the course these days, with the most egregious recent example being the mangling of Kelly Clarkson’s body on the cover of SELF, but I would hope that most people understand, these days, that even apparently natural looking images have been heavily manipulated. Not just sharpened and color corrected. Not just daintily gone over to remove pimples. Bodies are fundamentally altered, even in campaign’s like Dove’s, to remove anything which doesn’t fit in with the beauty norm. A fat woman may be included in the campaign, but she’s got to be the right kind of fat, and her image will be edited to remove unsightly lumps and bumps, freckles, and other natural features which women might look at and identify with. In other words, even the “Campaign for Real Beauty” presents unreal bodies which people can never attain to.

But what people seem to be forgetting in their desire to critique the campaign is the fact that it is an advertising campaign which is designed to sell products. Dove identified a niche and took advantage of it, and the goal of the campaign is to get people to buy Dove products. Aspire to real beauty? Dove’s got some soap to sell you. I personally believe that capitalism leads to structural inequality, which makes engaging in capitalism an antifeminist act, which means engaging in advertising campaigns in general antifeminist, but using supposedly feminist values to sell products is especially egregious. Buying into advertising campaigns like this one requires, in my view, a suspension of feminist values on many levels.

The Campaign for Real Beauty site is littered with advertising, including a confusing menu navigation system which is designed to push users into purely consumerist areas of the Dove site. It’s impossible to forget that Dove is trying to sell you something when you examine the site: whether it’s soap or a very limited and specific view of the female body, Dove is counting on you to buy it so that you will keep using Dove products and so that you will keep feeding the system which sustains companies like Dove.

Even if people don’t agree with my stance on capitalism, Dove’s parent company, Unilever, could bear closer inspection. Unilever has been involved in sexist marketing campaigns, perhaps most notably in campaigns for Axe body products, but that’s not where the heinousness stops. The company also tests on animals (an antifeminist act), uses child labour, and has been linked with extensive environmental exploitation and deforestation. Unilever is also antiunion. Any one of these issues is grounds for avoiding the purchase of Unilever products and products from Unilever subsidiaries like Dove. All of them combined makes for a heady stew of reasons to dislike Unilever and Dove, and to be outright offended by Dove’s disengenuous “Campaign for Real Beauty” campaign, which is clearly designed to distract people from criticisms of the parent company; it’s ok that we use egregiously sexist marketing, because we care about “real beauty!”

In other words, you don’t have to be feminist to rejection the Campaign for Real Beauty: you just need to have a conscience.

26 August, 2009 – 10:26 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, size, social justice |

Warm Elephants

Wait. No. What. Seriously? You know, I thought someone was joking the other day when they made a reference about birthers and the Presidential Penis, but apparently they weren’t. I’ll refer y’all to my blanket statement made whenever genitals come up (which seems to be a lot these days): other people’s genitals, not your business.

Astute readers may recall that I recently discussed why I hate the “devil’s advocate” and how it’s just a sneaky way to uphold the status quo. It turns out that other feminist-type-people also hate the devil’s advocate! Like Harriet Jacobs over at Fugitivus.

As the child of a single father, I rather liked this essay about the difficulties of raising a daughter alone.

Oh, lordy. It’s nice, every now and then, to be reminded that I live in a country in which people publicly state that “gays” should be executed.

Progress for vets with PTSD? Perhaps…

Something about this tale of cooking and driving warms the withered edges of my cold, black heart.

26 August, 2009 – 10:08 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Feed and Our Environmental Future

I recently finished reading Feed, a dystopian young adult novel which reads as a great indictment of modern society and the trends which society seems to be following. I’ve been reading an assortment of young adult literature lately (you can see a few examples in the current sidebar, I believe), because I like young adult books, and I think it’s interesting to see what kind of material is being covered in them. Oddly enough, I think that trendy and popular young adult literature is sometimes more insightful than trendy adult literature, and some very interesting themes are getting explored in YA novels like Speak, The Hunger Games, and The Book of Lost Things.

In Feed, our characters inhabit a future in which people have the option of loading their brains with a “feed,” which is essentially a personal computer in the mind. People can communicate directly with each other through their feeds, use their feeds to look up information, and they of course receive a barrage of information from advertisements to breaking news through their feeds. As the book unfolds, we learn that the contents of feeds and the news is tightly controlled: the companies which administer feeds sell user data to advertisers, for example, and it’s very difficult to get balanced news because news is deliberately blacked out or blocked.

Initially, we assume that everyone has a feed. However, we learn that there are actually a lot of class issues bound up in having feeds. Our main character learns that about a quarter of the population doesn’t have a feed because they can’t afford it, and a character who got a feed later in life discusses the experience of discrimination when he didn’t have one as a young man, and his eventual decision to get a feed implanted. The feed also, it turns out, becomes interconnected with the body’s systems, which means that when the feed malfunctions, it can be fatal.

This sets the stage for a character who is given a feed later than other people, who starts to experience malfunctions in her feed, and who eventually dies because the feed is so damaged. She also dies because when she appeals for customer support and asks for help, her request is turned down. Because she hasn’t bought enough, so the company doesn’t see fixing her as a productive investment.

The book brings up a lot of issues, like the fundamental disconnect which technology is creating, even as it seems to interconnect us more and more. In a scene where the feeds of several characters are temporarily disconnected due to a hacking, we also see the restlessness which people experience when they have been exposed to technology for their entire lives and that technology is taken away, even temporarily. Eventually, our characters start to enjoy themselves after several days of isolation, but when their feeds are turned back on, they eagerly leap back into their old lives, except for our main character, of course, who begins to question the role of the feed in his life.

One of the issues which danced at the edge of the story was environmental destruction. The Earth is literally paved solid with people, with communities actually being built in layers because there’s no more room on the surface. Nothing lives but what is planted, one of the characters points out, and the oceans are so sick and filled with pollution that people wear hazmat suits at the beach to protect themselves from the water. People wax nostalgic for wild animals, and humans have effectively colonized and destroyed the entire solar system; our characters travel to locations like the Moon and find them boring and dull, just like the Earth which an exploding human population has created. In a truly depressing scene, the main character and his love interest go to a “farm” where they encounter fields of veal which is being bioengineered, and they talk about this experience as though they are enjoying the real natural world, and life on a real farm.

We also get bits and pieces of news which suggest that Americans, in particular, are responsible for much of the destruction as a result of their lifestyles, and that corporations have come to dominate the world so thoroughly that there’s almost no real government. There are rumblings along the edges of the story which suggest that other world actors may be taking steps to deal with the out of control situation in the United States, even as we watch our characters struggle with the world theyare living in. It mirrors the ever-rising resource inequality worldwide, with the United States using a highly disproportionate share of global resources.

All in all, it makes for grim reading. The point of a dystopian novel is to paint a horrific image of the future as a cautionary tale. Feed definitely accomplishes that. And that’s why you should read it, if you haven’t already.

25 August, 2009 – 10:29 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in environmental issues, Everything, reviews, technology |

Silky Leopards

Well, what do you know, turnout of female voters in the Afghanistan election was low. Hrm, I wonder why that could have been?

Are we about to face a return to routine recommendation of circumcision?

Holy fucking shit. Seriously? (Thanks to RMJ at Deeply Problematic for pointing this out.)

Want to know what happens on a real live “death panel“?

Oh, you can be a girl and be an athlete, if you want. But you’d better damn well look like a girl while doing it.

And…in shocking news, the media continues to prop up rape culture.

What, exactly, is so bloody funny about prison rape? (Via Hoyden About Town.)

25 August, 2009 – 10:07 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Feminism and Joss Whedon: Great Feminist Moments in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I’ve spent a lot of time exploring some of the problematic content on Buffy the Vampire Slayer as part of this ongoing series, but I haven’t had much of an opportunity to talk about the unproblematic and awesome content on the show. In part, it’s because Buffy is generally recognized as a feminist show, so I haven’t felt the need to muster examples to support the argument that it is a feminist show, because I’ve been focusing on the aspects of the show which are not feminist or are more ambiguous.

But, here’s the thing, Buffy is a feminist show, and I think it’s time to talk about some of the feminist moments/episodes which make the show so enjoyable for me. This is a show in which a woman saves the world, repeatedly, after all, and that’s nothing to sneeze at. I should note that the following is by no means an exhaustive list, and that examples are not listed in any particular order, so if I left something out, it wasn’t intentional. I would love readers to add their own examples as well.

“Halloween” (season two) has a totally excellent feminist moment. Buffy has costumed herself as an 18th century noblewoman for Halloween, because she thinks that this will appeal to Angel. Of course, this being Buffy, there’s a fluke, and her costume is actually enchanted, turning her into a caricature of an 18th century noblewoman. She spends the episode fainting, freaking out, and being generally useless, until the enchantment is finally lifted and she starts kicking ass and taking names (in full costume).

This moment is feminist on a number of levels: it shows a very classic thing, with a woman contorting herself into something she is not to please a man, but it twists it on its head. As it turns out, Angel wasn’t all that into 18th century noblewomen even when he was alive, and he prefers Buffy as herself, making the scene at the end with Buffy uncoiffed and in her PJs all the more charming. You don’t need to pretend to be something you’re not to keep a man, is what this episode says to me, contrary to what the ladymags might have you believe.

Season six brings us another Halloween episode, “All the Way,” in which Dawn is starting to explore her sexuality and she goes on a double date with a friend. Dawn’s date, of course, turns out to be a vampire. Classic punishment for sexuality, or inevitable Buffy twist? Buffy swoops in for the rescue, but it’s actually Dawn who saves herself by playing helpless so that she can get into a position to stake the vampire, and this totally redeems the moment for me.

“Primeval” (season four) has an excellent feminist moment when Buffy fuses with her friends to become extremely powerful so that she can defeat Adam. What makes this feminist? The fact that Buffy understands that she needs her friends, that her friends have skills she can obtain through cooperation, and the fact that it is only by working together that a goal can be achieved. The solitary lone wolf is sometimes mistaken as the only form of feminism which is acceptable, but my brand of feminist is heavily entangled with being unafraid to ask for help and support, as Buffy does here and elsewhere in the series.

“Get It Done” (season seven) shows viewers the origin of the First Slayer, and is also strongly feminist. The First Slayer, it turns out, was not “given” her powers, but had them forced upon her by a group of men in a scene which is very similar to rape. Realizing the origins of her power, Buffy is disgusted, and this information causes her to reevaluate the Slayer lineage and to question the wisdom that there can be only one. As viewers learn in subsequent episodes, men were actually intimidated by the power of the Slayer, and they attempted to control it by creating the idea that there could be only one and establishing Watchers to assist, but really control, the Slayers. How is this feminist? Uhm, a graphic depiction of the classic oppression of women by men, followed by resistance to that oppression. Hell yeah. I won’t even get into a comparison between the Watcher’s Council and the systematic control of female sexuality. Oops, I just did.

Although I may get a reputation as a man-hater for this one, the scene in which Buffy cuts Caleb in half from the ground up is tremendously empowering. Caleb is convinced of his superiority because he is male, and Buffy strikes at the height of that belief by emasculating him. Does this mean that all men should be emasculated? Of course not, but it does mean that misogynistic assholes should be cut in half with giant supernatural scythes. Oh, I kid!

“Ted” (season two) provides us with another great example of a parallel to a real world disempowering situation to illustrate the ways in which women and girls are routinely stripped of their agency. When Buffy attempts to report that her mother’s boyfriend is abusive, everyone else refuses to believe her, arguing that he’s so friendly and nice that Buffy is obviously making it up out of jealousy or fear of change. This dismissal of claims of abuse on the part of children being abused by biological and step parents alike is routine, especially when those children are female. Ted may be a robot, but the situation in the episode is very human.

Buffy’s independence and lack of fear when it comes to doing the right thing, even if it’s difficult, is also a recurring feminist theme in the show. When she finally breaks free of the Watcher’s Council and asserts her independence, she does so because she does not approve of their methods. She thinks her work is important enough to continue, but doesn’t feel the need to remain in a system which is inherently flawed. She’s also not afraid to renegotiate terms with them when they approach her looking for assistance. Pretty damn feminist, if you ask me.

The financial woes she experiences in season six are also great feminist moments, illustrating the very real financial problems faced by women in general. She has trouble finding work or financial assistance, is trying to care for a child, and is eventually forced to work in fast food to pay her way. I hate the episodes in which she’s working in the Doublemeat Palace because they are so grim and depressing, but that’s what makes them so feminist: a reminder that even superheroes need to pay the bills, and that paying the bills isn’t easy when you haven’t had the opportunity to acquire employable skills.

24 August, 2009 – 10:29 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, Joss Whedon, social justice, Social Justice and Joss Whedon, television | Tagged |

Whining Hydrangeas

Who’d like some science to start off the week? How about delicious delicious science which points out that obesity is actually an entirely normal human variation?! (Nod to the Fat Nutritionist, who posted this link first.)

A Series of Questions is an amazing photoessay.

There’s a great series on female athletes unfolding over at The Angry Black Woman.

Speaking of female athletes, another excellent post on Womanist Musings, asking why it is that when Black female athletes perform at the top of their field, they are inevitably cut down.

How’d you like to read about the NHS from the perspective of an American who has actually experienced it?

Adventures of a Young Feminist has a post up about strong women on Buffy, which happens to dovetail very nicely with the post I’ll be putting up in a little bit.

“Check my what?” is an excellent resource on checking your privilege; I would highly recommend reading it, because it has some great information and additional resources. I have to say, it was somewhat amusing (and illustrative) that on the very same day I read it, someone politely and gently pointed out that I was being a privileged ass, and this resource allowed me to demonstrate the only rational response: say “I’m being a privileged ass,” apologize, express appreciation for the privilege check, sit down, and shut up.

24 August, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Dear City of San Francisco

I have a suggestion which I believe will radically reduce your chronic congestion problems! It’s a two parter, so you’re going to have to bear with me, but I think you will agree that it is a good one.

Here’s step one:

Publicize the fact that ample parking is available at BART in the East Bay and numerous ferry landings in the East/North Bay to visitors and commuters to your fair city. Go a step further and point out that people can park in said parking very cheaply (or free) all day long, take BART or the ferry into the City, and then take advantage of the pretty good public transit system (for commuters, a Fast Pass might be a good idea) to get around once they are in the City.

I think that many people are not aware of this fact, so they drive their cars into the City, battle with traffic and parking, and are generally bitter about it. Many of those people would be delighted to park and take public transit if they knew it was an option. Why, just the other day, I enjoyed the delight of parking in North Berkeley and taking a 20 minute BART ride into downtown San Francisco, reading a book and lounging, rather than running the gauntlet of the Bay Bridge and traffic and parking hell and general misery. And once in the City, I happily roamed around on BART/MUNI and had a quite enjoyable time, in part because I wasn’t stressed out about feeding a meter, or thinking about the horror that is the totally byzantine street “grid” in San Francisco, or wondering if I could find parking near any of the locations I visited. It was, in a word, awesome, but when I pointed out to friends that I do this pretty much every time I am in the City, they looked at me like I was utterly foolish.

There’s a bit of a public transit stigma, San Francisco, but you can help fight that. Show people that using public transit is safe, and really much more enjoyable than driving in the city. Actively encourage people to use public transit by bringing back MUNI transfers for people who ride the ferry or take BART under the Bay! Give people a reason to ditch their cars, thereby keeping the streets of the City clear!

Here’s step two:

Extend the hours for BART and the ferries. It’s really frustrating to be all pleased with yourself for abandoning your car all day, only to realize that you need to sprint to the BART station for the last train, which is ridiculously early, so that you are not stranded in San Francisco overnight by accident. And that’s why a lot of people who are aware of the park and ride trick don’t use it.

See, here’s the thing: every time y’all run the trains later, they are PACKED. They are packed with people from the East Bay who would prefer to BART but usually end up driving because they don’t want to be limited by the last train and they are packed with City residents who would prefer to BART than drive because they hate driving, but normally drive because they don’t want to head home at 10:30. If people widely understood that BART would run until two or three in the morning every night, or at least on Friday/Saturday nights, way more people would utilize the system. Which would reduce congestion, limit drunk driving, and probably attract precious tourist dollars.

So, publicize public transit (even make it hip, if you must), make public transit a more viable option. Got it?

23 August, 2009 – 10:47 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, San Francisco |

Stories From My Father: Drunk in the Castro

Any attempt to record stories my father has told me would be bereft without some tales from the Castro. My father lived in the Castro in the 1970s, back when it was much more ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse (as opposed to being overrun with white bourgeois hetero families, as it is now, with what sometimes seems like a smattering of token gay culture). He has a number of entertaining tales from this era, and I particularly love this one, because it captures the ways in which times have changed.

One night, my father attended a party at a friend’s, and there was a great deal of drinking and general merriment. People came and went over the course of the evening, food was eaten, and many libations were poured. Gay and straight neighbors alike joined in the festivities, and the party stretched on into the small areas of the morning. At one point, my father got out his saxophone to accompany an accomplished jazz singer who happened to be passing through town, and partygoers danced so vigorously that the bookshelves of a downstairs neighbor collapsed. Fortunately, the neighbor was at the party at the time, so no one was injured in the incident, except for a houseplant.

As the party wound down, various people bedded down on the floor, drifted home, or ended up in the homes of others. This was in the freewheeling pre-AIDS era in which casual hookups weren’t like a game of Russian roulette, and Castro residents were generally supportive of a range of sexual proclivities. My father decided to set forth to another party which was evidently still in full swing, according to the phone reports which had been delivered over the course of the evening, so he made his farewells, collected his coat, jammed someone’s shoes on to his feet, and stumbled downstairs to collect his car, one of a procession of beaters owned by my father through the 1960s and 1970s.

Initially, he attempted to unlock a car which wasn’t his, which was perhaps a forgivable mistake, since it was a similar shade and it was parked in vicinity of his car. As soon as my father realized the error, he staggered down the street to his own vehicle, successfully unlocked it, and prepared to venture onward to his destination.

Yet, for some reason, the car wouldn’t start. My father puzzled over the matter, even stepping out to look at the engine and pull at a few wires and hoses, but he couldn’t figure out what was wrong. Everything seemed to be in order, but the engine just wouldn’t turn over; not even so much as a click. My father leaned back in the seat to consider the challenge, leaving the door open in case he was struck with inspiration and needed to leap out to put a plan in action.

A passing beat cop poked his head in the curbside window to see what the problem was.

“My car won’t start,” my father complained.

The policeman nodded sympathetically as my father detailed all of the possibilities he’d explored. Once my father wound down, the cop tilted his head and said:

“Sir, perhaps it’s because you’re in the back seat.”

22 August, 2009 – 5:39 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, history, San Francisco | Tagged , , |

Mad Men It All Again

So, I finally got through season two of Mad Men, and, as promised, I’m writing about it. It took me longer than I thought, primarily because it’s not a show which you can gorge on: I made the mistake of watching four episodes in a row on Sunday and it depressed me so much that I was afraid I would never be happy again. Then I had to take a few days off just to recover, and I still haven’t gotten around to watching the episode commentaries (on seasons one or two). I think I’m going to have to ration those out, because I hear they’re very good.

Season two ends with the world crashing down on our characters, both within the microcosm of their own lives, and in society in general. I kind of forget how tumultuous the early 1960s were; because I am drawn to make parallels to my own time to make the ’60s accessible, the activity of the characters during the Cuban Missile Crisis reminded me a lot of how people behaved in the wake of the 11 September attacks. I loved that line “people are looking at each other in the streets,” because it’s something I noticed in 2001.

A lot happens in the second season, and there’s a lot to unpack; trust me, I will be writing a lot about Mad Men in the coming months, and not just because I have to wait to watch the third season, so I’ll be going over the first and second seasons again to distract myself from all the deliciousness I’m missing as the show airs.

One of the things about the show that I really like is that it’s slow, and none of the characters are very likable. These are two reasons a lot of people seem to dislike Mad Men, because television viewers like shows in which stuff happens, and with characters they can identify with. I think it’s rather bold of the creators to go in the opposite direction, because it nets them fans who pay attention to the small stuff. Each episode is actually packed with events, but they’re so small and subtle that you’ll miss them if you blink. And the unlikability of the characters actually makes them more accessible, to me, perhaps because I’m an unlikable person, so I empathize with them.

The women’s stories in this season got a lot more interesting and a lot more complex. Peggy, Joan, and Betty all had a lot going on. Joan’s story was probably the most interesting to me, because her character went through a lot. We open the season learning that she’s engaged, but we quickly learn that a. she wants more and b. her fiance is a dick.

When Joan briefly tastes opportunity helping out in the television department, I could feel her starting to unfold and explore the possibilities in her world a bit more, which made it all the more crushing when she was brought back down to Earth. The dynamic between her and Peggy is also really interesting to observe for the same reason; Peggy’s someone who has taken the initiative and gone for it, and keeps going for it, and she’s getting ahead while Joan is left in the dust.

It’s impossible to talk about Joan without discussing the rape which happens in the penultimate episode. I was surprised to learn that a lot of people think that scene is ambguous, because it definitely wasn’t to me. Her fiance is obviously furious at the fact that she works, and has friendships in the office, and has connections with people beyond him, and he marked his territory in a very brutal and disturbing way. That scene was definitely uncomfortable for me to watch, just like Don’s assault on Bobbie Barrett.

I was shocked to learn that people think the scene between Draper and Barrett was “hot.” It was a total violation, and it was vicious, and it was disgusting. It showed us Draper at his lowest. I am by no means opposed generally to any of the activity which happened in that scene on principle, but only when it’s consensual and boundaries are negotiated, which it most certainly wasn’t in this case. Barrett was a confident, sexual woman, and Draper used that against her. You could see the shock and humiliation on her face during the scene, and I thought it was brilliantly staged and incredibly powerful, even as it made me want to vomit.

I can definitely see why people view Mad Men as problematic. It depicts a lot of blatantly  misogynistic material, as well as racism. For people who can read beneath the surface, that’s what makes the show so appealing, because it’s definitely not promoting or condoning that behavior; it’s showing us, and allowing us to make our own judgments. But I can see how someone who is already racist or misogynistic would take away a very different feel from the show, like “hey, it’s a-ok to slam some woman up against a piece of furniture, pull her hair to force her into submission, and stick my hand in her vagina to get her to do what I want her to.”

I also think, as others have written elsewhere, that the show does a bad job of dealing with people of colour. Both women and people of colour are marginalized in the world of Mad Men, but we still get to see the stories and narratives of the women, which is one of the things which makes the show so interesting. The women are not faceless and dehumanized, they are complex characters who get rich narratives. Why the same couldn’t be done for people of colour, I don’t know (although RMJ has some good theories), and I hope that’s something which gets remedied in the third season.

This is definitely not a show for the faint of heart or for people who take things at surface value, and I find it deeply disturbing that men and women alike almost seem to worship the characters; I find them interesting and engaging, but for the most part, I also find them despicable, which is why I am drawn to the show. I definitely don’t want to be Don Draper, or be sexually assaulted by him; I’d be more likely to bash his testicles in with a copy of the OED if I ever actually met the man, but I’m enjoying the character study immensely.

22 August, 2009 – 10:15 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

Sex, Gender, and Caster Semenya

Have you heard about Caster Semenya? You might have, because she’s been in the news rather a lot lately. Ms. Semenya is an 18 year old South African, who happens to be a blazingly fast runner. She was introduced to the international athletics scene very recently, and in the last week, a controversy has been swirling around her: is Semenya actually of the male sex?

The controversy has arisen for two reasons:

1. She doesn’t “look” like most people think a woman should look. Ms. Semenya has superb muscle definition and a lean body.

2. She’s fast. Really, really fast. Obviously, if you’re fast, you must be a man.

Sports is sex segregated for a simple reason: there are biological differences between men and women which give men a distinct athletic advantage. Female athletes at their peak are far more fit than most men in the world, but they can’t always compete fairly against men in their peak. For this reason, events are primarily sex segregated. I think this is reasonable. Most people think this is reasonable. I also think, of course, that if you have a male sporting event in a competition, there needs to be an equivalent women’s event.

So, people think that Ms. Semenya’s sex is male, and that therefore she has an unfair edge on her competition. Ms. Semenya has been publicly humiliated to the point that she didn’t want to go to the podium to accept a gold medal for her superb performance. Her entry onto the international scene should have been triumphant and amazing, but instead: “No one has ever said I was not a girl, but here I am not. I am not a boy. Why did you bring me here? You should have left me in my village at home. (Source.)”

There are a lot of concurrent problems going on here. The first is the way that the situation has been handled. Public humiliation was not necessary.

The second is the concept of sex testing for athletes. Historically, there have been a few cases of nations entering male athletes in women’s sports. For this reason, sex verification started occurring for a lot of international events. Initially, it was of the crude “drop your pants for the jury” variety. Over time, as the understanding of human sexuality has expanded, “sex verification” has gotten much more complicated, with a battery of tests and a committee which includes endocrinologists, psychologists, and so forth.

In the course of sex testing, sporting bodies have in fact uncovered a few examples of female athletes who are biologically male and didn’t realize it. This is what people seem to think is happening in this case: no one (no one rational, anyway) is accusing Ms. Semenya of faking it, but rather, suggestions are being made that she has a biological condition which renders her biologically male, or which causes an increase in masculinizing hormones which could give her an unfair advantage when she competes with women.

This case has highlighted a lot of ignorance about sex and gender. Many people are not aware, for example, that sex is not as simple as “male or female,” and it is in fact extremely complex and nuanced. I’ve seen a lot of really, really, really ignorant and hateful things being said, both by average people and in the news media.

So I want to unpack some of those things.

First of all, news media: stop confusing sex and gender. Ms. Semenya is a woman. That is not going to change, that is not in question. She. Is. A. Woman. That is her gender. Her sex is what is being questioned here. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to “gender testing” or “gender verification” or “gender anything” when you are talking not about gender identity, but BIOLOGICAL SEX. Ms. Semenya doesn’t need gender verification; she already knows she’s a woman. So do her friends and family members. The question is: does Ms. Semenya have a genetic condition which renders her biologically male, or which has given her advantages not available to XX women?

The question isn’t even really “is Ms. Semenya a man?” It’s actually: Is Ms. Semenya female enough to compete in women’s sports? It may be that Ms. Semenya has some genetic abnormalities which could be medically treatable (such as with drugs to suppress hormone production), thereby allowing her to compete with women. It’s entirely possible that Ms. Semenya is your garden variety XX lady, and she’s just really good at what she does. It’s also possible that she will be deemed “not female enough to run with the women, not male enough to run with the men,” and that would be tragic, because it would mean depriving a talented young woman of the ability to do what she loves unless she wants to undergo radical medical treatment.

Second of all, for the general public, in re: transgendered athletes: Transgendered athletes are allowed to compete with their gender after two years of hormone treatment. That means that if someone is born biologically male but gendered female and chooses to undergo hormone treatment, she can compete with the women. Some sporting authorities demand verification of sexual reassignment surgery*. Others do not. I want to stress this, because this is important: other people’s genitals? Not your business. Some transgendered people choose to get SRS. Others do not. In either case? Not your business.

Also, in re: transgendered people: Please don’t call them “transgendereds.” Please, especially, do not say “a transgender.” “A transgender” does not compute. It is insanely offensive. Would you say “a gay”? “A Black”? “A Jew?”

Also, in re: intersexed people: Do not, ever, use the word “hermaphrodite,” unless someone specifically identifies as a hermaphrodite and uses that word self-referentially. If you use this word in my presence to refer to an intersexed person, I will harm you. It is completely unacceptable, dated, and heinously offensive.

Third of all: Don’t tell me what a woman looks like. Don’t tell a woman “looks like a man.” Don’t tell me that a woman deserves to be publicly humiliated because she doesn’t meet your personal standard of “what a man looks like.”

Hey. I get that these issues are complicated, and when you haven’t been thinking about them or studying them, you are bound to make some mistakes. But I am seeing a lot of transmisogyny, transphobia, straight up misogyny, and shocking ignorance here. And it’s really pissing me off.

*Edited to add: the IOC requires SRS, hormone therapy, and certification of full transition from a recognized legal authority for athletes who transition after puberty.This policy has been criticized by athletes who argue that not all transgendered people want/can afford SRS, and as a result they would be excluded from competition. I’m hoping that this will change as the IOC and other sporting organizations learn more about transgender issues; there’s no earthly reason to require SRS from transgender athletes. The Women’s Sports Foundation has an excellent article on transgender athletes which I would recommend people read if they want more information on this subject.

21 August, 2009 – 5:10 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, gender |