After reading Simone
de Beauvoir’s piece, I realized that I had not formulated an opinion myself
about what exactly constituted a ‘woman.’ Was it appearance, biological
difference, how one simply identified themselves and acted, or was it something
more? I was interested to know what others thought a woman was. My thoughts
went to the South African runner, Caster Semenya, who was forced to undergo a
“gender verification” test after competing and placing in the women’s 800-meter
Olympic run in 2009. She was forced into this test simply because of the way
she looked. Her body type did not fit that of a “typical” woman, even an
athletic woman, and many of her competitors were upset that such a seemingly manly
woman should be able to compete in the same category as them. Her test results
showed that she had three times the normal level of testosterone than the
average woman (accredited to her internal testes), and was also missing both a
womb and ovaries. What was most notable about Semenya’s situation however, was
what happened after the race. She was asked to give an interview and be on the
cover of You magazine, a South
African publication. As you can see, she is wearing a flattering black dress and a ton of
jewelry. Her hair, now taken out of braids, is done beautifully and compliments the eye makeup, lipstick, and nail polish someone has put on her. (As a side
note, when you search her name, the first thing Google suggests is “Caster
Semenya makeover.”) When this was printed, it was make clear that there was to be no hint of masculinity in her cover photo, which made
her both more relatable and easier for people to accept. When she was seen as
a hermaphrodite, she made others question what exactly it meant to be a woman, by
default forcing men to question what it was to be a man. If this woman was
stronger, faster, and had more masculine features than many men in America, yet
she still identified as a woman, how did that modify the definition of a
‘woman’? Simply by being herself, she threw off the entire balance of feminine
v masculine and female v male. This proved to be unacceptable and controversial
though, and she was quickly corrected and made a definitive woman.
Knowing this and
everything else we’ve talked about in class, I’m still struggling to determine
what makes a woman a woman. In recent history, it has been exciting and popular
to talk about LGBT people and the rights they are being granted or denied, just
as it was popular to talk about black people and the rights they were granted
or denied 60 years ago. Great change came about for African Americans then, and
maybe big changes will come about for the LGBT community in the next decade.
Will gender be seen as more fluid? Will those who do not conform be able to live
the lives they want without fear of violence or ostracism? Are there other
elements that are preventing a gender/sex uprising that were not present during
the Civil rights movement of the 1960s?
To end on a happier and unrelated note, I thought this was hilarious and showed just how out of touch men are. These kinds of products are nowhere near the realm of men's thoughts, but I'm pretty sure most women would be able to put prices on men’s products without issue. Click HERE
Thanks for your post, Emiko! I just wanted to make one small point. "Hermaphrodite" is no longer an acceptable term to use, unless it is by someone reclaiming the word for themselves. The term "intersex" is now the acceptable term for people whose internal genitals, external genitals, hormones, and/or chromosomes don't fit into typical definitions of male or female.
ReplyDeleteI think your sentence, "Will those who do not conform be able to live the lives they want without fear of violence or ostracism?" really hits the nail on the head-not just for gender identification, but for sexuality, race, etc. Thank you for that. Also, thank you, Leah, for your comment. I didn't know what the PC term was!
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to bring up that people are not comfortable with intersex and gender-ambiguous performances. Yeah; why are we so uncomfortable with it that only when Caster was made over to be a woman are we satisfied? Is it because we think the male-female gender dichotomy is the norm and anything outside of that norm is just unacceptable and maybe even unhuman? Maybe we still have the bias towards the norm ingrained in our cognitive structure. When we find out what the norm is, anything outside the norm is inferior. Caster would not be relatable as a person who is gender ambiguous because she will be deemed inferior! People will not think of her as their equals but as some kind of freak. This reminds me of what we did with Alan Turning in the fifties. When Turing appeared to not fit into the male category in his gender performances, he was forced to receive chemical castration, which now we see as an attempt from the authorities to alter Alan’s biology to fit his gender performances; it was an attempt to exclude him from the male category, as if to protect the purity of its supremacy.
ReplyDeleteNow with Caster, the media cannot change her biology but could change her gender performance. Is this also a way of excluding Caster from the male category which does not allow for deviations?