Scientific Bludgeoning
Using science to justify discrimination is not new. From the institution of blood quantum by the US government for Native Americans to a plethora of fields developed to show that non-white people are inferior to white people (phrenology screams to mind), it is well established. The appeal to scientific fact and the scientific method is meant to make the conclusions somehow free of criticism, that they are inherently unbiased, because science is fact not opinion.
The latest iteration of science being used as a weapon rather than as a means to greater understanding came out today with a court ruling. The highest court in international sports has ruled to place restrictions on female track athletes with what they consider elevated levels of testosterone in major international events. Focus on the case has been on Caster Semenya, a two-time Olympic champion, who naturally has more testosterone than most women.
The court ruled that the decision was discriminatory but NECESSARY to preserve the integrity of competition.
Pardon me for being a relativist, but anything that those in power point to as an absolute source of truth should be treated with incredible skepticism. I accept that there are certain things that exist in nature in a particular, measurable way. At least, measurable in ways that make it possible to form human knowledge from these observations. True understanding of nature as it is I think is beyond reach. And I do not accept is the interpretations and conclusions that people draw from measuring and studying these things in nature when applied to society in discriminatory fashion.
Considering this, it's possible to break down what is and what is not. What is: Caster Semenya has both estrogen and testosterone naturally produced in her body. What is: there are levels of each of these hormones that doctors and scientists have concluded are average or normal ranges in most bodies. What is: testosterone is primarily a male sex hormone but naturally occurs in all people. What is: testosterone is a hormone that is important to building muscle and other bodily functions. What is: many of these functions relate to athletic activity. What is not: levels of testosterone outside of these determined normal ranges for women inherently make a woman unfairly advantaged in particular athletic activities.
Who decided the hormone ranges accepted by the IAAF? Why is it agreed that higher testosterone creates an unfair advantage when it is part of someone's natural body chemistry?
More importantly, why does this only apply to women? And, most importantly, to a black woman who has been hounded about this issue for years because she is an exceptional athlete? That something must be off, something must be giving her an unfair edge. It couldn't have anything to do with her training and hard work. Similarly, Serena Williams has said that she gets drug tested more than any other woman in professional tennis.
Why must these professional women athletes have their hormones monitored and regulated to achieve fairness while men are left alone other than standard steroid screenings? If a man has naturally occurring testosterone higher than what is considered normal range for men, will he too have to take hormone suppressors? It seems unthinkable, because testosterone is the MALE sex hormone. It is more natural than Semenya's natural.
Even if we had enough evidence to accept the premise that elevated testosterone leads to competitive advantage, it is hard to accept the conclusion that it is an UNFAIR competitive advantage. Next will they say women who are above a certain height have an unfair advantage in certain events? This is equally natural as the amount of hormones a body produces on its own.
There should be no acceptance of a ruling permitting regulating bodies, particularly black women's bodies. It is yet another use of science to discriminate against marginalized groups. I hope the decision is appealed and defeated, and I hope the court looks back on it in shame.