I was talking with a female friend recently about Caster Semenya, and trying to figure out why it seems that many women support Caster Semenya competing as a woman, every though it makes it nearly impossible for a biological female to win.
First, my perspective. I do not like Semenya in the women's races one bit. As a man, I prefer men's sports, and so I'm glad there's no men's equivalent to her. Sports is about finding the little edge, training that bit harder, and then you win, because you did everything right. Even the best have to run with the pack, have to time their kick, have to run 100 mpw, and so it makes it all the more exciting when you have an athlete so good that he breaks that mold (think Rudisha in London 2012 or Wanjiru 2008). Sports is about winning and preparing to win, and winning isn't meaningful if there's a single factor that swamps everything else. Especially in a case like Semenya's where the one factor she has in her favor (testosterone) is the exact thing that makes men faster than women.
I think that's a pretty standard perspective for why Semenya shouldn't be competing with the women. But my friend had a completely different viewpoint. Keep in mind, she is a runner, a good one, who trains hard, races hard, and wants to win. She's not oblivious to what Semenya means for the sport. But this is what she said (paraphrased):
The problem with the above line of thinking is that it treats women's sports like men's sports. The focus of men's sports is on competition, on winning, and on what it takes to get there. Women's sports also needs these things. But if the sum total of women's sports is "sports with boobs", then it will always be a worse version of men's sports.
In other words, women's sports should not be just about who gets to the finish line first. They are also about personality and story and connection and inspiration. Not that men's sports don't have these components, but fundamentally we don't care if our male champions are awkward or jerks or ugly. But for women's running to be its own thing, it needs to have this other dimension be as important as the running itself.
Examples:
Allie Kieffer is a great runner, but equally important is that she's challenging traditional body image stereotypes. It doesn't matter that she is pretty tiny herself, or that being lean in general really does win races. The point is that she's giving women confidence while running fast
Gwen Jorgensen is the GOAT triathlete, but more important is who she is now: she's someone who balances running with having a baby, someone who is willing to leave triathlon for the sport that makes her happy, and someone who's not afraid to set unlikely goals and do her best to achieve them
Alexi Pappas bugs the hell out of me, but she's a talented runner trying to bring running to a broader audience
A woman who finds success by unconventional means or comes from an unconventional background, even if she's far behind the leaders, is worth celebrating
I want to be really careful here. What this is not saying is that winning doesn't matter. It's very important. But equally important is the personalities and stories. Whereas for men I would say that the competition is #1 and everything else is #2.
Caster Semenya is intersex, and clearly has an advantage because of it (and likely a disadvantage against men). But she's not so far ahead that the other women can't try to beat her. So what she is is a black intersex woman who works hard, fights for her place in the race, and wins. She's a tough, inspirational woman. And so we need to think of running in this case not just as a competition, but as a part of our culture. And including Semenya is more inclusive, inspirational, and meaningful than excluding her, even if it makes the race itself less meaningful.
So that's what my friend thinks. I definitely agree that women's sports needs to be something different that just men's sports but worse. I think all that's already true, and it's hiding under the surface right now. Maybe men's/women's sports need to be more separated so that women's sports could have include someone like Semenya, whereas the equivalent wouldn't happen on the men's side. Take figure skating or gymnastics, for example. The drama comes from something entirely different that it does in running. Maybe if women's running moved in that direction, it would be good for the sport as a whole. I just don't want men's sports to get caught up in the same shift: I believe that the #1 goal of sports should always be to compete and determine who's best.
A unique perspective on Caster Semenya and women's sports
Report Thread
-
-
guy with a female friend wrote:
I was talking with a female friend recently about Caster Semenya, and trying to figure out why it seems that many women support Caster Semenya competing as a woman, every though it makes it nearly impossible for a biological female to win.
First, my perspective. I do not like Semenya in the women's races one bit. As a man, I prefer men's sports, and so I'm glad there's no men's equivalent to her. Sports is about finding the little edge, training that bit harder, and then you win, because you did everything right. Even the best have to run with the pack, have to time their kick, have to run 100 mpw, and so it makes it all the more exciting when you have an athlete so good that he breaks that mold (think Rudisha in London 2012 or Wanjiru 2008). Sports is about winning and preparing to win, and winning isn't meaningful if there's a single factor that swamps everything else. Especially in a case like Semenya's where the one factor she has in her favor (testosterone) is the exact thing that makes men faster than women.
I think that's a pretty standard perspective for why Semenya shouldn't be competing with the women. But my friend had a completely different viewpoint. Keep in mind, she is a runner, a good one, who trains hard, races hard, and wants to win. She's not oblivious to what Semenya means for the sport. But this is what she said (paraphrased):
The problem with the above line of thinking is that it treats women's sports like men's sports. The focus of men's sports is on competition, on winning, and on what it takes to get there. Women's sports also needs these things. But if the sum total of women's sports is "sports with boobs", then it will always be a worse version of men's sports.
In other words, women's sports should not be just about who gets to the finish line first. They are also about personality and story and connection and inspiration. Not that men's sports don't have these components, but fundamentally we don't care if our male champions are awkward or jerks or ugly. But for women's running to be its own thing, it needs to have this other dimension be as important as the running itself.
Examples:
Allie Kieffer is a great runner, but equally important is that she's challenging traditional body image stereotypes. It doesn't matter that she is pretty tiny herself, or that being lean in general really does win races. The point is that she's giving women confidence while running fast
Gwen Jorgensen is the GOAT triathlete, but more important is who she is now: she's someone who balances running with having a baby, someone who is willing to leave triathlon for the sport that makes her happy, and someone who's not afraid to set unlikely goals and do her best to achieve them
Alexi Pappas bugs the hell out of me, but she's a talented runner trying to bring running to a broader audience
A woman who finds success by unconventional means or comes from an unconventional background, even if she's far behind the leaders, is worth celebrating
I want to be really careful here. What this is not saying is that winning doesn't matter. It's very important. But equally important is the personalities and stories. Whereas for men I would say that the competition is #1 and everything else is #2.
Caster Semenya is intersex, and clearly has an advantage because of it (and likely a disadvantage against men). But she's not so far ahead that the other women can't try to beat her. So what she is is a black intersex woman who works hard, fights for her place in the race, and wins. She's a tough, inspirational woman. And so we need to think of running in this case not just as a competition, but as a part of our culture. And including Semenya is more inclusive, inspirational, and meaningful than excluding her, even if it makes the race itself less meaningful.
So that's what my friend thinks. I definitely agree that women's sports needs to be something different that just men's sports but worse. I think all that's already true, and it's hiding under the surface right now. Maybe men's/women's sports need to be more separated so that women's sports could have include someone like Semenya, whereas the equivalent wouldn't happen on the men's side. Take figure skating or gymnastics, for example. The drama comes from something entirely different that it does in running. Maybe if women's running moved in that direction, it would be good for the sport as a whole. I just don't want men's sports to get caught up in the same shift: I believe that the #1 goal of sports should always be to compete and determine who's best.
If it wasn't just about the winning for women then we wouldn't have a problem with doping in women's sports. Oh, wait...
If it wasn't just about the winning for Semenya she wouldn't have a problem reducing her testosterone levels to those of her other female competitors. Oh, wait ... -
Women's sports most definitely IS a worse version of men's sports but we all can still enjoy competition as long as it's fair.
-
No wrote:
Women's sports most definitely IS a worse version of men's sports but we all can still enjoy competition as long as it's fair.
By the same token, men's running is a worse version of horse-racing. I don't know why we bother to watch men race when animals do it so much faster. -
I would like to date her.
-
If Jarmila Kratochvilova (a white “woman” doped to the gills and man-like) showed up again, I’d say the same thing — Get Out!!!
It is not only a mockery to sport, it is a freak-show. Semenya is not a woman. Looks like a man, runs like a man, has testosterone like a man, talks like a man. I’m wondering, exactly why does “she” call “herself a female anyway? -
I disagree with your friend to some extent. I think there are many women's events that are more interesting to watch than men's. They're racing at the top level, but the slower speeds change the dynamics of the event.
Women's tennis has more rallying and fewer aces. Women's cycling has fewer team tactics and more peloton smashing (seriously more interesting than men's cycling IMO). Women's distance running has more diversity than the men and is less likely to be a tea party with a sprint finish.
So Caster Semenya ruins the women's 800m for me because I think she has an unfair advantage.
Your friend may be right that women value stories more on average than men do, but I don't think they're unimportant for either gender. -
This is insulting to women and your (or your friends) reasoning/logic is terrible.
-RunnerSam -
.jamin wrote:
I would like to date her.
As we thought. You're into testes. -
OK, for those of you who say "no, she shouldn't race as a woman":
1) Are you male or female (or other)?
2) Do you think male and female sports should be set up and marketed in the same way?
3) If "yes" for 2), how can female sports distinguish themselves from male sports so they aren't just in the shadow? -
Armstronglivs wrote:
If it wasn't just about the winning for women then we wouldn't have a problem with doping in women's sports. Oh, wait...
If it wasn't just about the winning for Semenya she wouldn't have a problem reducing her testosterone levels to those of her other female competitors. Oh, wait ...
Well no, that's the whole point: making her reduce her testosterone makes for a more even playing field, but she's got to make a pretty big change to her body to do it. Is that the cost of running at a professional level? Absolutely--but maybe there's a different way that sacrifices some fairness for easier inclusivity
No wrote:
Women's sports most definitely IS a worse version of men's sports but we all can still enjoy competition as long as it's fair.
Well, good for you...
Armstronglivs wrote:
No wrote:
Women's sports most definitely IS a worse version of men's sports but we all can still enjoy competition as long as it's fair.
By the same token, men's running is a worse version of horse-racing. I don't know why we bother to watch men race when animals do it so much faster.
Agree with the analogy. The reason we watch people race and not just horses is that we want the human element of tactics, training, relatability. Plus, they're different distances, different surfaces, and there's much more maneuvering in horse racing. The races have a very different character. But men's and women's races don't have as many differences. Would be interesting to see what would happen if they were more different.
dsafasfasdfasf wrote:
I disagree with your friend to some extent. I think there are many women's events that are more interesting to watch than men's. They're racing at the top level, but the slower speeds change the dynamics of the event.
Women's tennis has more rallying and fewer aces. Women's cycling has fewer team tactics and more peloton smashing (seriously more interesting than men's cycling IMO). Women's distance running has more diversity than the men and is less likely to be a tea party with a sprint finish.
So Caster Semenya ruins the women's 800m for me because I think she has an unfair advantage.
Your friend may be right that women value stories more on average than men do, but I don't think they're unimportant for either gender.
All true, for sure. I can't really argue with this as it's my opinion too. Yet I still find men's events more interesting, and they are much more popular. Why do you think that is the case given that women's sports can be more exciting in some cases? -
I would be very surprised if women are more prepared than men to sacrifice competitiveness for a "good story". As I said above, women athletes are just as much prepared to dope as male athletes; according to the anti-doping experts there is no difference between the genders in that respect. I wonder how much Kratochvilova, Flojo, Marion Jones, Rita Jiptoo, and so on, were interested in the "good story".
-
"In other words, women's sports should not be just about who gets to the finish line first. They are also about personality and story and connection and inspiration. Not that men's sports don't have these components, but fundamentally we don't care if our male champions are awkward or jerks or ugly. But for women's running to be its own thing, it needs to have this other dimension be as important as the running itself."
I think your friend's perspective is disempowering for women. The nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to a woman this year. It's as if your friend is saying that the nobel prize was awarded to a woman because of her personality/connection/inspiration, rather than her intellect and hard work, and that when a male scientist wins, it's cause he was the best and most competitive among all the others. Of course there is no distinct categorization of gender in this area of prize winning, as there are in men's and women's races, but women as competitors should always be held to the standard of winning competitions based on fairness and true merit before everything else. -
woman here wrote:
"In other words, women's sports should not be just about who gets to the finish line first. They are also about personality and story and connection and inspiration. Not that men's sports don't have these components, but fundamentally we don't care if our male champions are awkward or jerks or ugly. But for women's running to be its own thing, it needs to have this other dimension be as important as the running itself."
I think your friend's perspective is disempowering for women. The nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to a woman this year. It's as if your friend is saying that the nobel prize was awarded to a woman because of her personality/connection/inspiration, rather than her intellect and hard work, and that when a male scientist wins, it's cause he was the best and most competitive among all the others. Of course there is no distinct categorization of gender in this area of prize winning, as there are in men's and women's races, but women as competitors should always be held to the standard of winning competitions based on fairness and true merit before everything else.
Quite. "Fairness" and "true merit" don't come with gender. The whole point of equality, I would think. -
All true, for sure. I can't really argue with this as it's my opinion too. Yet I still find men's events more interesting, and they are much more popular. Why do you think that is the case given that women's sports can be more exciting in some cases?
Well it depends on the sport (and I listed the three that I watch), but there are a couple of answers:
1. All else being equal, I think it's mostly due to tribalism at the end of the day. Men are more likely to watch sports than women, and more likely to want to watch men because they identify with them better.
2. I think there is a stereotype of women being dainty and men being powerful, so women have to break stereotypes to be seen as valid competitors.
3. Chauvinism from several directions
4. Women's sports are often run by men
5. I don't think all women's sports are much less popular than men
-In tennis, viewership of male and female matches is pretty close, considering the times they show them and so on. Pay is pretty close too. 4 of the top 10 highest paid tennis players (in terms of endorsements) are women, which is somewhat surprising to me considering the women tend to be a lot less consistent/dominant than the men.
-In T&F, I'm not convinced men are so much more popular than women. I definitely believe the tactical events (especially the 1500) are equally exciting on the men's and women's side. I usually look forward to the women's 1500 more than the men's these days. I know for sure that more of my club members know who Shannon Rowbury is than Matt Centrowitz, and they have the same number of twitter followers but Matt has more instagram followers. A woman is currently probably the sport's highest paid athlete (Sydney McLaughlin) and women are generally paid as well as men, as far as I can tell. So yeah, I don't know how to think about whether women's distance running is much less popular than men.
-In cycling, honestly the women just keep getting screwed and I think it's the fault of the guys that run the sport (and possibly some myopia on the part of the sponsors). -
woman here wrote:
I think your friend's perspective is disempowering for women. The nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to a woman this year. It's as if your friend is saying that the nobel prize was awarded to a woman because of her personality/connection/inspiration, rather than her intellect and hard work, and that when a male scientist wins, it's cause he was the best and most competitive among all the others. Of course there is no distinct categorization of gender in this area of prize winning, as there are in men's and women's races, but women as competitors should always be held to the standard of winning competitions based on fairness and true merit before everything else.
Exactly. The OP's message is patronising bullsht. Maybe women's races should be held on a pink track, with supporters allowed to hug runners on the way round while gushing on ig about their inspiring stories. Bllcks. And women's running isn't a "worse version" of men's either, it's its own thing and just as good to watch, for the same reasons. Grit, talent, hard work, tactics - men's and women's races don't differ in those things. It's just humans running which is wonderful and doesn't need to be complicated with postmodern claptrap. -
duh2 wrote:
woman here wrote:
I think your friend's perspective is disempowering for women. The nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to a woman this year. It's as if your friend is saying that the nobel prize was awarded to a woman because of her personality/connection/inspiration, rather than her intellect and hard work, and that when a male scientist wins, it's cause he was the best and most competitive among all the others. Of course there is no distinct categorization of gender in this area of prize winning, as there are in men's and women's races, but women as competitors should always be held to the standard of winning competitions based on fairness and true merit before everything else.
Exactly. The OP's message is patronising bullsht. Maybe women's races should be held on a pink track, with supporters allowed to hug runners on the way round while gushing on ig about their inspiring stories. Bllcks. And women's running isn't a "worse version" of men's either, it's its own thing and just as good to watch, for the same reasons. Grit, talent, hard work, tactics - men's and women's races don't differ in those things. It's just humans running which is wonderful and doesn't need to be complicated with postmodern claptrap.
Yup -
Lotsa good points. I showed the thread to the friend, and we're both pretty convinced that at least more thought needs to go into this. Definitely not looking for pink tracks etc.
-
+1
I feel like this “argument” was transported from the 19th century. Maybe girls in school shouldn’t care who gets the best test score as much as who’s nice and overcame some hardship and exemplifies the cause du jour the best. Heck let’s throw away tests and grades for girls and they can tell stories.
Just because your friend is female doesn’t mean she has a compelling perspective FYI. She’s lucky other women with working brains have allowdd her to even have the access to sports at all. -
guy with a female friend wrote:
I want to be really careful here. What this is not saying is that winning doesn't matter. It's very important. But equally important is the personalities and stories. Whereas for men I would say that the competition is #1 and everything else is #2.
Well, if Semanya isn't winning that much, I doubt people will be aware of his stories.
Btw, ever heard of Yuki Kawauchi? He's quite a household's name in Japan and quite popular among the running community in general even before his Boston's success because he's the people's marathoner, so I am not sure for men everything else is #2.