Cultural Studies http://csc.sagepub.

com/ Methodologies <=> Critical

Girl, Interrupted: Interpreting Semenya's Body, Gender Verification Testing, and Public Discourse
April Vannini and Barbara Fornssler Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies 2011 11: 243 DOI: 10.1177/1532708611409536 The online version of this article can be found at: http://csc.sagepub.com/content/11/3/243

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://csc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://csc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://csc.sagepub.com/content/11/3/243.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 23, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

409536
and FornsslerCultural Studies Critical Methodologies 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

CSC11310.1177/1532708611409536Vannini

Girl, Interrupted: Interpreting Semenyas Body, Gender Verification Testing, and Public Discourse
April Vannini1 and Barbara Fornssler1

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) 243257 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1532708611409536 http://csc.sagepub.com

Abstract This article addresses the social implications of gender verification testing in sport. The authors ask how sexgender is contained in mediated public discourses that questioned Caster Semenyas identity following her success in the womens 800 m at the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) World Championship. The authors use critical discourse analysis to examine the perception of the case surrounding Semenya along with perceptions of her sex and gender identity. The authors argue that the manner by which Semenyas body is discursively constructed via news board discussants, scientific and medical communities, and athletic governance policies renders her flesh abject and promotes the interpretation of her body as being disordered, all in the service of maintaining the rhetoric of fair play and equal opportunity for female athletes. The authors claim that such tests reproduce existing hegemonic gender ideologies via the categories they reinforce and through the mechanism of testing itself, as this leads to sexgender verification. Keywords gender verification, sex test, athletics, IAAF, Caster Semenya, intersex

Prescript on Voice: Multiplicity and Becoming Author

As the authors of this article, we have struggled with the recognition of the difficulties involved in the discursive reframing of Caster Semenyas body and self, as can occur within academic discourse. Of particular concern to us are questions such as the following: What is the position of authorship and the style of voice in which we should write this article? What is the prescribed voice we should allude to? What is the necessary prescription that will ensure a healthy diagnosis or a check mark on our bill of health that certifies we are in fact authors of a postpoststructuralist flair who reject any form of dualistic and categorical thinking? We hope to make explicit in the prescript of this article the centrality of the authors voice toward the construction of the article and proclaim a diagnosis of multiplicity. As stated by Kymlinen (2003), Derrida suggested that the subject should be submitted to the laws of a context (p. 241). As such, we, the authors, are subject to the laws of this articles context and a location understood as that which constitutes the subject position of author. Much like Semenya is subjected (or made subject) to the laws within the domain of sport, we are also made subject in the construction and development of thought brought into text for the sake of communication. As Kymlinen (2003) further states,

In deconstructive thinking, meanings, experiences, and interpretations are not understood to happen merely in the present, there is no possibility for locating and pointing at the subject. That is because there is no one signifying subject who would be the origin of meaning and whose signifying would be separate from intertextual relations and changing contexts. (pp. 241-242) If as authors of this article claimed to write from a White feminist position, queer, transgendered, masculine, and so forth, we would be practicing a politics of identity through the positioning of our voice. Such a framing, whether we regard a position as neutral or queer still holds fast to dualistic thinking that we seek to challenge via the case study of discourses that construct Semenyas sexgender identity. If we claim neutrality, we then need to ask, neutral to what; to the binary location? What we hope to do in this article is to make explicit the seriousness of ridding us from a dualistic

European Graduate School, Saas Fee, Media and Communication Division, Alter Kehr 20CH-3953 Leuk-Stadt Switzerland Corresponding Author: April Vannini, PO Box 237, 515 South Rd., Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada V0R 1X0 Email: aprilvannini@yahoo.ca

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

244 thinking altogether. Thus the writing of this article is guided by the words of Judith Butler (1990) when she writes: This kind of critique brings into question the foundationalist frame in which feminism as an identity politics has been articulated. The internal paradox of this foundationalism is that it presumes, fixes, and constrains the very subjects that it hopes to represent and liberate. The task here is not to celebrate each and every new possibility qua possibility, but to redescribe those possibilities that already exist, but which exist within cultural domains designated as culturally unintelligible and impossible. If identities were no longer fixed as the premises of a political syllogism, and politics no longer understood as a set of practices derived from the alleged interests that belong to a set of ready-made subjects, a new configuration of politics would surely emerge from the ruins of the old. Cultural configurations of sex and gender might then proliferate or, rather, their present proliferation might then become articulable within the discourses that establish intelligible cultural life, confounding the very binarism of sex, and exposing its fundamental unnaturalness. (p. 203, emphasis in original) The cultural configuration that generates undecidability is a key component of this writing and is an essential ingredient then for the terms by which we engage as authors. To do otherwise is to enact an explicit claim toward an either/ or position. We neither subscribe to an objective or subjective voice, rather our aspiration is that of multiplicity. A multiplicity embraces an undecidability because of the choice of many. If there are a multiplicity of voices, then we do not decide on one but a multiple. In fact, the multiple can include both subjective and objective positions. However, the multiple is not a static entity; it embraces a fluctuating flow of emergence that changes and transforms as we think, discuss, and rethink our own writing and thoughts. To draw from Brian Massumi (2002) writing of change in emergent relation It is only by leaving history to reenter the immanence of the field of potential that change can occur. Even in a codified and regulated sport, there is an opening for this. It is called style (p. 77). We stylishly claim a multitive voice of authorship as this holds the potential for change. This approach contrasts itself with the generally accepted practice of making explicit the authors subjectivity. However, making the author subject is not the same as an investigation into author biasthe author made subject merely prompts further assumption from readers regarding the politics of an already-existent identity category. In short, the voice of authorship used following the introduction to this article should destabilize and put into question precisely the subjectivity, location, and

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) ascriptions of the authors, particularly when said authors are addressing discourse-as-construction of a sexgender verification schema. Here is our diagnosis: We write not from a position of subjectivity or objectivity. Our voice is a multiplicitya becoming-multiple.

Introduction
We know nothing about a body until we know what it can do, in other words, what its affects are, how they can or cannot enter into composition with other affects, with the affects of another body, either to destroy that body or to be destroyed by it, either to exchange actions and passions with it or to join with it in composing a more powerful body. Deleuze & Guattari, 2004 (p. 257) Embodied sport practice and related discourses have become a central focus for students of the social construction of the gendered body. Within this field, an issue of growing interest concerns the ethical implications of gender verification testing and its ensuing traumas. Public indignation toward gender verification testing has been waxing and waning over time. Recently, a highly publicized event has flared up public and media attention anew. On August 19, 2009, the 12th International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) World Championship in Athletics held in Berlin, Germany, was the stage for an extraordinary but controversial win in the womens 800 m competition. Nineteen year-old Caster Semenya of South Africa won that event in a time of 15545, beating the nearest competitor by a whopping 245. This 245 victory margin soon turned into a media event that brutally interrupted Semenyas sexual and gender identity,1 along with her sporting career. As allegations that she was a male continued to build, Semenya had to undergo the agonizing scrutiny and panoptical gaze of the media, while subsequently being subject to the IAAF de facto gender verification test. In the ensuing media-fueled swirl of rumors and allegations, Semenya was pronounced to be a hermaphrodite, although no official results have ever been released by the IAAF and such allegations have not been verified after her 11-month suspension and her return to competition in July 2010.2 In this article, we examine these discourses surrounding the questioning of Caster Semenyas sex-gender3 and provide a sample of the general publics reaction to these events. We draw on a textual analysis of both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the Vancouver Sun Internet-based public discussion forums; we focus on how the IAAF gender-verification test fosters a discursive practice leading to essentialist sexgender determination.

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler Through our analysis we reveal how essentialist binary categories such as male/female are reaffirmed and reframed when these categories become institutionalized into the governing doctrine of sports. Furthermore, our case study demonstrates how the deterministic discourse of sexgender essentialism is practiced through the organized sports notion of fair play and equal opportunity. Our analysis focuses in particular on three controversial interrogatives arising through the news media coverage and the ensuing public response: 1. Is Semenya a man or a woman and how are such categories determined? 2. Should Semenya compete in the womens category? 3. Should gender categories be maintained in sport to maintain fair competition? We begin with a brief historical context.

245 Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 3; see also Beamish & Ritchie, 2005; Wiederkehr, 2009). And consequently, as FaustoSterling (2003) writes, Olympic officials rushed to certify the femininity of the women they let through the door, because the very act of competing seemed to imply that they could not be women (p. 3). Sex verification continued to be based on visual inspection for the better part of the 20th century. For instance, during the 1966 Budapest European Track and Field Championships, 243 female athletes marched before examiners who visually inspected female competitors after allegations that some female athletes were male (Cole, 2000a; Ljungqvist et al., 2006; McDonagh & Pappano, 2008). Soon after, the IAAF continued testing at the Commonwealth Games in Jamaica. The IAAF then extended the test procedures to include an examination that would measure the pelvic structure of the athletes (Cole, 2000a). But it wasnt until 1967 at the European Cup of Track and Field when chromosomal testing was introduced that any athlete was officially verified as not being female (Cole, 2000a). The visual inspection sex test was replaced with the modern incarnation of the test that Cavanagh and Sykes (2006) reference, that of laboratory testing. The introduction of the buccal smear test was seen, at the time, as less invasive of personal privacy (Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005) as it avoided naked parades and incorporated a more scientific approach that examined athletes chromosome. This more modern sex test for women athletes coincided with sharp improvements in womens athletic performance markers, improvements whose credibility was often marred by Cold Warrelated antagonisms and mutual suspicion between the Soviet bloc and Western nations which fueled fears that men in disguise would try competing against women (Cavanagh & Sykes, 2006; Cole, 1995; Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005; Ritchie, 2003; Wiederkehr, 2009). According to Genel and Ljungqvist (2005) buccal smear testing was called into question in 1986 by Albert De La Chapelle, a geneticist who claimed, buccal smears were technically unreliable and detected athletes with genetic disorders, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome and gonadal dysgenesis, who were undeniably female (p. s41). In other words, the presence of particular chromosomes or genetics alone did not make a woman. Following De la Chapelle and other advocates, the IAAF changed the mandatory laboratory-based gender verification to a comprehensive medical assessment of all athletes (Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005). However, due to their costly nature, these comprehensive assessments were deemed unnecessary as contemporary athletic clothing and the need to provide a urine sample for doping control under direct supervision made male impostors easy to identify (Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005, p. s41). The IAAF abandoned mandatory testing in 1991. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) continued with chromosome testing (although in slightly different

Situating Semenya: A Short History of Sex Verification Testing in Sport

The first incidence of what could be considered sex testing in sport can be traced back to the eighth century BCE. During early Olympic festivals women were not permitted to watch or participate because of their alleged pollutant qualities (Cavanagh & Sykes, 2006). In an interesting case study of a notorious rule breaking, Wackwitz (2003) describes the pardoning of Kallipateira (or Pherenike) for transgressing the no women rule and her pardoning by the Hellanodicae. The pardoning, however, resulted in tighter enforcement of the rule. From that moment forward, all participating athletes had to compete nude as a way of confirming their sex claim. Wackwitz (2003) equates this protocol as the first recorded instance of sex testing in the Olympic Games (p. 553). Once females were allowed to participate in the Modern Olympics, sex verification shifted from scrutinizing men to scrutinizing women. As women became more actively involved in competitive sports during the 1920s, and in greater numbers following World War II (Ljungqvist et al., 2006), to prevent men disguised as women from participating in womens athletic events, a visual inspection by a panel of gynecologists was performed prior to an event (Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005; Ljungqvist et al., 2006). When this panel deemed an athlete to be female, the athlete would be granted admittance into the competition. Although verification of sexgender did not become an official procedure in the Olympic Games until Mexico City 1968, the sexgender of female athletes was monitored by ensuring that women athletes maintained a sense of feminine beauty and sexual appeal. For example, it was feared by the Modern Olympic founder Pierre de Coubertin that women sports were all against the law of nature (cited from

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

246 form) until a 1999 policy change agreed on by the Executive Board of the IOCs Athletes Commission made the Summer 2000 Sydney Games the first without mandatory testing since 1968. However, this change in policy still did not constitute the end of the sex test. Athletes wishing to compete in international competitions may still be put to the test at the discretion of the governing body. Since 2000: [T]he organizing committee has had the responsibility of ensuring the presence of a team of specialists in various arease.g., endocrinology, genetics, gynecology, psychologyat the Games, ready to verify the gender of an athlete at the request of the International Olympic Committees Medical Commission. International federations are expected to make similar arrangements at their own world championships. (Genel & Ljungqvist, 2005, p. s41) Furthermore, the IAAF Policy on Gender Verification (2006) states that there will be no compulsory, standard, or regular gender verification during IAAF-sanctioned championships, but the policy also leaves room for testing to take place when such testing is deemed to be necessary. The document from the IAAF that is guided by the IOC consensus document released in October 2003 (known as the Stockholm Consensus) states that a search has continued for an acceptable and equitable solution to be able to address the occasional anomalies that do surface either as a chance observation during the ubiquitous antidoping controls these days or through a challenge by a competitor (IAAF, 2006). The IAAF (2006) document further details that sex shall not be determined solely based on laboratory results and that an athlete may be asked to appear before a panel of medical experts comprised by a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist, and an expert on gender/transgender issues. The evaluation of the athlete by this panel of experts then results in sex determination. The verification of sex via testing reveals a complexity of biological factors, measurement qualification mechanisms, and interpretation politics. As the sex test has become more complex, by taking into account genetic and hormonal factors along with gonadal features, so too has the basis for the determination of sex. In fact, it is fair to say that the biological processes resulting in sexual differentiation are still not fully understood in their complexities. This is particularly true for those interpreting the meaning of sexual differentiation without a background in biology, chemistry, or medicine. But even those holding such backgrounds face the difficulty of interpreting data and asking questions through an ideological model that often reflects immersion in the larger sociopolitical discourses that characterize and construct sexgender identity (Lorber, 1993; see also Caplan &

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) Caplan 1999). These larger sociopolitical discourses are evident in the confident pronouncements of news forum discussants, who often seem eager to maintain the sexgender order by separating individuals into two clearly bounded categories, male or female.

Verifying the True Sporting Female Abjection! She is Not Normal, Maybe Dis-ordered!
The inquiry from the IAAF and the news media about whether Caster Semenya is a female competitor has created the opportunity to reflect on what it means to fit into the normative sex category of female and the gender category of the feminine. As theorized by Butler (1993) the sexed body creates the normative conditions through which a body is prescribed as being female or male. According to Butler (1993), the category of ones anatomical sex is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs (p. 1). The sexed body becomes regulated and differentiated into binary oppositions of male and female through the performance of signifying practices which define feminine and masculine bodily qualities. The anatomy of the female and male body then is situated in an essentialist dichotomy that defines what is normal. In turn, normality ideals result in a discursive practice that vilifies abnormal bodies. The IAAFs questioning of the sexgender of Semenya and the ensuing media spectacle have abjectified Semenyas body. Abjectification is a process whereby nonconforming bodies are first portrayed as a threat, then as a disgraced opprobrium. As Kristeva states in Powers of Horror (1983), It is not a lack of cleanliness or health that causes abjection but what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite (p. 4). Many news forum discussions clearly articulate the threat that Semenyas categorization, as woman, constitutes. For example, the following discussant points out how in the absencejustified by practical reasonsof a third sex-based category in sports, Semenya should be excluded from competition due to her menace to the fairness of the competition: I am happy that Caster Semenya feels good about herself and is proud and accepting of the way that god made her, however, it is certainly not fair to the biologically defined females that she competes with, since she has 3 times the normal level of testosterone. The only fair solutions, which will never happen, are to have either no gender specific competitions with males and females competing against each other; or a strictly hermaphrodite category.

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler Rather than Semenyas presence of body challenging or informing the binary categories of sexgender structures in sport (or in the larger society)showing these representational categories as essentialist and reductivethis discussant uses the rhetoric of fairness to justify the existence of these a priori categories. Notably, reification of these categories occurs specifically where the discussant attempts a mitigation of what would otherwise be Semenyas disappearance from available sporting categories (which could be deemed unfair) via the introduction of mixed-sex competition or a third category (strictly hermaphroditic). Introducing a third category further supports the idea that there actually are pure male and female bodies in sport while also implying that hemaphroditism can be cast into a similarly pure category that would constitute the desired sameness underlying sex segregation in sport. This is a common misunderstanding of what medically constitutes disorders of sexual development (DSD). Mixedsex competition is a solution to the need for biological measures of sex to ensure a fair solution but as the discussant acknowledges in not so many words, this would be a complex undertaking for the culture of sport that is unlikely to occur without new measures to construct fairness in competition. Semenyas ambiguous body can be understood to represent a threat to the traditional sporting order and social order by collapsing the binary opposition of man and woman, male and female. Such a threat brings forth the need for verification, or what could be understood as a reconciliation, that works by abrogating all forms of equivocation via sex testing. Unlike the discussant cited above, competitive sportgoverning bodies do not hesitate to govern unruly bodies out of existence because of the clear categories they depend on to ensure consistent rule enforcement. Semenyas bodys abjectification then becomes easily conflated with the rhetoric of fairness. Fairness itself, however, is not paramount. What matters, it seems, is fairness for most, rather than all. As one discussant argues, it is impossible to be fair to every single person in the universe. In this sense, the only logical conclusion is to exclude minorities and recognize them as meaningless deviations of the norm: From the beginning of time there has been a clear and distinct separation in gender between the sexes. 99.999999999999999999999% of people fall into the male or female category. When we are talking about World-sanctioned sporting events involving world titles, Olympic glory, and the level playing fields set out by the regulators and countries all around the world, it is absurd to think that the 99.999999999999999999999% of normal, easily classified gendered humans MUST make any special considerations for the 00.000000000000000000001%

247 that occur with oddities of human genetics. This is political correctness gone mad, plain and simple. Balls for boys, ovaries for girls. Period. This comment articulates precisely the normative construction of the categories male and female, including the argument qualifier of a clearly quantifiable biology that sex gender is popularly understood to work within. For this discussant thinking about sexgender without a clear binary is understood as a political correctness gone mad, rather than a symptom that could prompt the revisitation of a codified thinking designed for bodies that do not exist. What is then moved from existence in this bell-curve of fairness and pushed into a nonspace is the actual material body of Caster Semenya. Her flesh, through the rhetoric of fairness is made abject. As Beamish and Ritchie (2005) point out sport symbolically conveys the notion that the natural, and by association, the social or cultural constitutions of men and women are determined by their bodies respective biological, physiological and anatomical structures (p. 786). Indeed it is Semenyas bodily structures that have been the crux of the problem for the IAAF, the news media, and for the public. It is believed that Semenyas bodily features are obtrusively nonconformist to what has been historically defined as distinctively female. It is these characteristics which are promptly employed as semiotic resources for her abjectification. Following Kristeva (1982), Creed (1993) states, The place of the abject is the place where the subject collapses, the place where I am not. The abject threatens life; it must be radically excluded from the place of the living subject, propelled away from the body and deposited on the other side of an imaginary border which separates the self from that which threatens the self. (p. 9) Semenyas body becomes the place where unequivocal meaning collapses where a threat is uttered and where a reparatory exclusion must occur by way of testing. Testing is summoned as the guarantor of, and recourse toward, fairness whereas verification (the agreed on meaning of data collected through testing mechanisms) replaces the disordered body within the dichotomously ordered system. Cheating accusations and claims of Semenya being a hermaphrodite or intersexed individual have placed Semenyas body in a nonspace or a mythological space.4 Although there is no certainty that Semenya is intersex, or has any other demonstrated medical condition, she is quickly pushed toward a liminal space, a space of being neither/nor. Drawing from the work of Butler (1993), Hird (2000) states, In our current discursive field, to exist at all means being a woman or a man, or, in Butlerian terms, sex is the norm by which the one becomes viable at all

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

248 (1993, p. 2) (p. 349). As the following excerpt shows clearly, albeit through sarcasm, those individuals who dwell in such liminal gendered spaces ought toaccording to many postsbe brought back in line with normative boundaries: Gender is genetically inherent. It is NOT a social construct. Only feminist left wing nutbars believe that it is. Almost all humans are one gender or the other. Only a rare few deviate from this norm. They are unique and not like anything else on earth. I say we find them and let them compete with each other. They have no place competing with single gendered persons. Because Semenya drifts away from the normative, toward the imaginary border, she needs to be regulated. The accusations and the testing are the first step to ejecting Semenya out of the competition, for the sake of maintaining the binary borders of sporting institutions. We can see how this discursive practice of building and maintaining gender boundaries unfolds through the act of questioning and testing, but we can also witness how normative assertions of the body are reaffirmed by members of the general public commenting on the numerous news stories on this issue. As Cole (2000b) states, in the sporting realm, images of immortal and or evil bodies are not atypical but are routinely conjured up through a proliferation of categories and images related to the aberrant, abject, anomalous, corrupt, criminal, cyborg, grotesque, hybrid, monstrous, queer, subversive, unruly and violent (p. 445). Semenyas body then emphasizes this fear of the impure. As her body is understood as existing outside the binary categories available, she can then be cast away from the legitimating function of the dichotomous system into the identity of sporting other. It is no surprise then that so many discussants state she should be removed from sports, or at least treated so that her sex-gender problem be fixed or managed to maintain a stable gender identity (Hird, 2003). This is how the abject body becomes a genderdisordered body. If flesh is returned from the abject, then the body must be reordered.

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) Turner, & Woods (2002) describe the process of normal sexual differentiation and conclude that there is a potential for multiple variations in this process, termed disorders, which originate in the process of chromosomal, gonadal, or phenotypic sex development. Disorders of chromosomal sex happen when the structure or number of chromosomes is abnormalsuch as true hermaphrodistism, Klinefelter syndrome, or Turner syndrome. Disorders of gonadal sex occur when chromosomal sex is normal but differentiation of the gonads is abnormal, generating incongruence between gonadal sex and chromosomal sex. Disorders of phenotypic sex are those cases wherein chromosomal and gonadal sex correspond but in whom development of the urogenital tract is inappropriate for the chromosomal and/or gonadal sex (Dickinson et al., 2002, p. 1540). Further to the regulation and ordering of strict gender categories and the rhetoric of a measure for fairness, Qinjie, Fangfang, Yuanzheng, and Quinsheng (2009) have proposed a classification system that would better allow medical practitioners to discern and understand the nature of dis-orders occurring in the process of sexual differentiation. The authors argue that their classification will allow for an accurate, more humanitarian decision for athletes with DSD . . . In this way, we can try to identify women with medical conditions that, at least theoretically, might give them a competitive advantage over normal women (Qinjie et al., 2009, p. 121). For these medical researchers and practitioners, the testing and verification of sex is not problematic, rather the available medical categories are what limit the accuracy of attained results. This is why the term verification should not be taken lightly, and why it is an issue independent of the testing itself. The test for sex then can be understood as being used not only in the service of keeping disguised men out of womens competitions, but also now as recourse for determining what constitutes a normal woman and also a normal man, all the while maintaining the rhetoric of fairness that those not deemed to have an advantage can still compete. The article further underlies the point that discrepancies in classification exist not only under the limitations of sporting categories but also in the ever-expansive categorization of medical discourse. In light of how nuanced and changeable the definitions of sex are, and with recognition that these categories are assigned based on a myriad of processes of physical development that may each themselves have a myriad of effects, the verification of an athletes sex becomes less about matching genetic, phenotypic, or gonadal traits and much more about how the current medical and biological discourse responds to those happenings that do not neatly align and correspond to the predominant categories of classification. Put bluntly, when an individual is understood as being disordered in terms of sexual development, the individual will be assigned into one of the dominant sexgender schemas (Daly, 2007;Dreger & Herndon, 2009; Feder, 2009). Once the

Marching-Orders: SexGender (de)regulation and Dis-orders of Sexual Development Discourse

The gender-disordered body has its origins in sexual development discourse. DSD may originate either in a chromosomal, gonadal, or phenotypic variation. As may be evident in the language, for these processes to be considered dis-ordered there must be a process considered by the medical and scientific community to be orderly. Sexual development that conforms to the order agreed on by the scientific and medical communities are considered normal development. For example, Dickinson, Genel, Robinowitz,

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler individual has enough qualities of either sex verified by the medical community, they will have attained verification of sex as resultant from the test. Generally, sex testing, sex verification, gender testing, and gender verification are used interchangeably in the literature. This is problematic for researchers trying to discern what is actually being evaluated. More importantly, the interchangeability of these four terms suggests that there is no consensus with regard to these linguistics categories any more than there is consensus regarding the biological underpinnings of what constitutes sex. Along with researchers and scholars, both journalists and the general public also regularly miss the subtleties of these important differences. Both also similarly misuse references to DSD. A more appropriate expression, common in feminist literature, rights-advocacy circles,5 and gender studies, is the term intersex. Intersex is described by Dreger and Herndon (2009) as referring to variations in congenital sex anatomy that are considered atypical for females or males. The definition of intersex is thus context specific . . . so the definition of intersex depends on the state of scientific knowledge as well as general cultural beliefs about sex (p. 200). A term preferred on media discussion boards is instead hermaphrodite. The term hermaphrodite is no longer considered acceptable by intersex advocates, due to the history of the term and connotation suggesting that sex ambiguity must be resolved into the stable categories of male or female, not both, not neither, not a third (Dreger & Herndon, 2009, p. 1009), which is indeed what most discussants try to do.

249 her physical shapemostly muscles and bonesis typical of the male body figure. For example this viewer insists that identifying sexgender is a very simple procedure based on visual verification of the athletes figure and muscle form: You dont even need to drop its pants. Take a look at the photo gallery. Definitely a male pelvis (small width, straighter from top to bottom, not flared like females). The torso is muscled exactly like a male tapering in but not showing the more hour glass curve of the female trunk (look at the other female runners). The upper body is definitely masculine with larger deltoid and biceps muscles and wider shoulders. Masculine looking face even with a few days growth on the lip. The leg muscles are also masculine looking, especially the shape and size of the quadriceps. I dont see anything that says female here. Semenyas body is outcast from the female sex category because her bodily shape and muscle distribution defies the disciplinary regime of a feminized body, similarly to women bodybuilders whose bodies challenge what is considered natural for womens bodies (St. Martin & Gavey, 1996). Placing Semenya in either the female or male category is not only a visual judgment based on her secondary sex characteristics. Many discussants base their pseudoscientific analysis on their knowledge of chromosome identification meanings. As Cavanagh & Sykes (2006) write Sex-testing was designed to make the non-visible axiom of binary gender visible to the scientific eye and to sporting authorities (p. 81). Discussants are not alone in doing this. Once the IOC and IAAF came to the conclusion that visual verification was not sufficiently conclusive evidence for sex categorization, officials began to test the genetic make-up of athletes to determine whether the female athlete was either XX or XY, this was assessed using the Barr body test. As Hausmann (1995) points out, such scientific technologies place a value on chromosomes as irrefutable signifiers of sex. Indeed many discussants condemn other writers for judging Semenyas sex on visual secondary characteristics alone and instead argue that judgment should be based on a chromosomal analysis. As one discussant states, His ambiguous genitalia are immaterial. Hes got an X, so hes of the male sex. This comment demonstrates that for many discussants, a chromosome test is understood to be a simple procedure that leaves no questions regarding sex identification. But, it also makes clear that X or Y matters little, it is the sex-meaning generated by the label that is important. As one commentator insists, A DNA test to confirm that the Y chromosome is present should erase any doubt of what Semenya is regardless of appearance or claims. Another commentator concludes that genitalia do not decide ones sex category and gives a conclusive statement that the DNA is what decides who is

The vary-if-ication of bodies via Caster Semenya

In reviewing posted comments we found that discussants verified Semenyas sexgender through several elements of anatomical discourses such as secondary sex characteristics (e.g., breasts/no breasts, bone structure, distribution of fat on the body); external genitalia (e.g., clitoris, labia, vaginal opening/penis and scrotum); internal genitalia (e.g., vagina, uterus); hormones (estrogens/androgens, testosterone); gonads (ovaries/testes); and chromosomes (XX/XY). As Harding (1996) points out, these anatomical and biological features are constituted as embodying the essence of sex (p. 99; see also Lorber, 1993). Measuring against a perceived norm could be understood as a test, from which sex verification via discussants can be enacted. Media producers and spectators are asked to verify sporting bodies via the aesthetic presentation of that body. A gendered aesthetic then, is by and large, the testing mechanism through which sexgender verification occurs in public discourse. A common form of discursive verification on discussion forums is a sex classification based on Semenyas secondary characteristics as gleaned from photographs of her body. Many discussants state that Semenya does not look female because

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

250 male and female. Others believe that the best way to determine sex is by chromosome tests, Do a chromosomal analysis and find out what the DNA tells you. And yes, there are anomalies that are not just straight forward such as YXX, or YYX, and XXX, and so on, but this is the most definitive method I would think. The fact that both male and female physical external organs are present is not definitive. This discussant bleeds of contradiction by stating that the most definitive method is a test that examines the athletes DNA but prefaces that there can be anomalies. But the question remains if there are anomalies how exact is this form of measurement that is supposed to allow an individual to fit in either/or category of male and female as the experience of Spains Olympian top hurdler Maria Patino demonstrates (Dickinson et al., 2002; Fausto-Sterling, 2000; McDonagh & Pappano, 2008; Wackwitz, 2003). As feminist and biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) states, the chromosome test was eventually eliminated because the bodys sex is much more complex and a test examining the genetic makeup is not a conclusive method to determine sex. The body is not an either/or phenomena (p. 3). One of the most common associations made with regard to the female body is the ability to reproduce. This is made possible through the female internal genitalia such as the vagina and uterus and the female gonads, ovaries. Newspapers report that Semenya has internal testes and lacks ovaries or a uterus. As one discussant comments: if Semenya had a hysterectomy, then she may be a female, otherwise if she was born without a uterus and ovaries she cannot be a woman. Another commentator believes that Semenya was misrepresenting herself as a woman and left other female athletes at a disadvantage: How are REAL women with REAL ovaries and NO testicles supposed to compete? This would be fine if such competitions were not based on sex and were coed, but that is not the case. And as such, any awards she/he obtained in her/his professional career MUST be returned. And as others have pointed out, because she/he has testicles and no ovaries, technically she/he is more male. And the next time she/he competes, it should be as a HE. And looking at the picture, she/he looks like a man to me.

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) of Irigarays criticism has been directed toward the development of Freudian psychoanalysis which is criticized as a phallocentrism that conceives binary oppositions such as penis/lack, oneness/otherness, and masculine/feminine (Inahara, 2009, p. 49). Semenyas appearance during athletic competition as presented by media reports however, does not lack those signifiers typically associated with the normalized male body. Discussants on news forums generally posit that women athletes lack the qualities of men athletes. As Semenya does not lack these same qualities, it follows then that she must be a man. In short, Semenya cannot be a woman because she is lacking-the-lack. Discussion posts typically situate Semenya in a position of superiority over the other competitors based on the allegation that she had three times the amount of testosterone typical of an average female. Discussants describe this as an unfair advantage and use it as evidence to argue that Semenya is in actuality a man. This logic also works as a tool to dismiss Semenyas claim to womanhood because of her alleged biological ability to produce more testosterone. In other words, many discussants argue that Semenya is not a woman because she is too good of an athlete and too strong of a competitor. These athletic talents are reframed as the result of increased testosterone levels rather than training and aptitude. This logic again emphasizes the construction of the female body as lacking, in this instance lacking testosterone. On one newspaper comment board a discussant opines how lack of testosterone determines the hormone normal female and thus, leaves Semenya at an advantage over her normal female competitors. If she wanted to spare herself this grief from the beginning, why wouldnt she simply admit the truth or possibility of not being a normal woman beforehand? She clearly had a major advantage over the other women, 2 testosterone testicles which the other women did not have. Strip her of her medals. What this comment demonstrates is how the normal female body is constructed as inferior to that of a male. Recognition of her superiorityin this case the excess of testosteroneautomatically results in her body being classified as male. The fact that Semenya is understood to have an unfair advantage leads to an obvious postulation: to compete as a normal female the athlete must lack within their anatomical and biochemical make-up. To put this in another way: to be a true woman one must be worse than a man. The very fact that testosterone, rather than another hormone such as estrogen, is recognized as an inherently positive quality mapped onto the bodies of men and associated with power and strengthin comparison to women, who lack testosteronesuggests that the biological construction of men is one that is always in excess, but an excess expressed as the standard for athletic measure.

Lacking the Lack:The Athletic Body Called Female

According to Irigaray (1985) the female body has been constructed under various conditions as a body that lacks. This is to say the female body is generated as contrast to the normative body, that of the male. This construction of lacking reinforces a negative definition of the feminine, since the feminine is only constituted as such in juxtaposition to positive discourses on the masculine (Inahara, 2009). Much

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler Often discussants are concerned with notions of gender equality and find that allowing Semenya to compete would disadvantage other women. This rhetoric of gender segregation from discussants relies on particular ideological constructions of equal opportunity and fair play for women. As Hargreaves (1994) notes in Victorian Britain the topic of how much physical activity a woman could endure was based on the myth of women being physically and intellectually weaker. Womens fight for equality in sport unfolded with the passage of Title IX of education Act Amendments in the United States (Dworkin & Messner, 2002; Messner, 2007) which led to the creation of separate male and female sport competition. The construction of gender differences is essential in solidifying an ideology of equal opportunity. By upholding the neatly constructed binaries already established by Western medicine and philosophy, sports legitimize the will to purity (Kroker & Kroker, 1993) existent within the liberal feminists agenda of equal opportunity. Modern liberal feminism has seldom been expressed as a self-conscious political theory, but more as a common sense application of preexisting values to womens situation (Bryson, 1992, p. 159). In sport, the idea of equal opportunity has been utilized toward the service of attaining victory. The logic is that women must compete against only women so they have a chance to win the competition. But sex division in sport would have to change if the equality of opportunity came instead through the option to competitively lose. As a result of the emphasis on equal opportunity to win and the will to purity the initiative to confirm the truth of Semenyas sexgender is seen as a rightful action taken by many discussants, as demonstrated by the following comment: Women compete separately from men so they can have a chance at succeeding . . . Now some hermaphrodite shows up, with testosterone through the roof and blows away the women. Allowing Semenya to compete in the womens category would be a threat to the future viability of womens sports. The defining line cannot be blurred to protect the rights of women. The will to purity becomes institutionalized by the use of sexgender categories as the guarantor of equal opportunity (to win). To allow a female competitor who has allegedly ambiguous characteristics and related advantages prevents pure natural women from competing at the same level. According to many discussants, a pure natural woman does not deviate from the constructed norm of what is considered biologically female. As one viewer comments: I feel for this athlete but if she really has the organs that produce greater speed, strength and muscle, as are found in men, then she should be correctly classified into the mens category. Otherwise it is unfair for every other woman. This comment is driven by the ideology that

251 sexgender boundaries must be maintained in sports because males have an unfair advantage over female athletes. As Connell (1990) points out, the combination of skill and force become the idealized features of masculine identity. According to Wackwitz (2003) sexgender divisions and maintenance of pure categories are both helpful and damaging for sportswomen, as the two-sex categories allow for people to compete against others who have suffered under regimes that tend to discourage athleticism among women (p. 555). The sexgender division in sports, however, only presents itself as an advantage on the surface: binary sexgender systems require that women maintain a lesser status than menboth in and out of competition. Thus, the very system which seeks to provide a space for women to compete is also the system that insists upon their competitive inferiority (Wackwitz, 2003, p. 556). Perhaps equal opportunity in sport could have meant literally the opportunity for all athletes to compete against all other athletes? Gender binaries are not sold wholesale on all discussants in our sample. Several comments are marked by what Hall (1980) would refer to as a negotiated reading of the hegemonic gender ideology. Negotiated readings are neither counter-hegemonic nor entirely vitiated by false consciousness. In this case, comments recognize the limitations of the binary gender system but at the same time agree on its practicality: I know that not everyone fits perfectly into the stereotypical binary model of male vs. female. But womens competitions have restricted eligibility; otherwise, theyd be competing against the men and (at least in track and field) pretty much always losing. Athletics doesnt want to punish people, but they do want their competitions that have restricted eligibility to women to be fair. Masculinity on a female body doesnt make me anxious; but if I were one of the best womens 800-metre runners in the world and someone comes out of nowhere and blows me away by more than 2 seconds, Id at least be curious. The IAAF has to draw a line somewhere. This discussant envisions no other qualifiers by which to measure appropriate competition groupings despite acknowledging the stereotypical male/female binary model. Analyzing print media coverage of U.S. womens Olympic gold medal-winning teams for how media descriptions of athletic performance contain dominant social beliefs about gender, Jones, Murrell, and Jackson (1999) state that female athletes are judged and evaluated using traditional beliefs about gender whether they are competing in a traditional gender-appropriate or in a nontraditional gender-inappropriate sport (p. 189). So regardless of the sport, whether track and field or gymnastics, the evaluation and judgment regarding Semenyas sex remains based on visual signifiers that are

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

252 interpreted using traditional beliefs about how sex characteristics should be understood and more broadly alludes to social beliefs about the sex-specific signifiers of the body, such as muscle mass. Even if masculinity on a female body does not disturb the discussant, this disclaimer suggests precisely the traditional frame through which Semenyas body is read and evaluated. This comment again rests on a foundation of maintaining fairness reminiscent of the paternalistic framing that surrounded womens early introduction to the sporting world. Many comments are concerned with other female runners lacking testosterone and therefore lacking the same competitive edge as Semenya. For this reason, many discussants feel that Semenya should not be able to compete against women who lack the ability to produce the same amount of testosterone and by default she should be forced out of the female category, as the following excerpt suggests: This isnt an issue of socially-constructed gender roles or whatever. This is about someone who has a male organ and produces an excess of testosterone. Of course, it isnt her fault. Of course, she probably didnt know this. Yes, she was raised as female and is accepted as such in her community. That doesnt change her biology however. I do not think this is a witch-hunt; it is just about having fairness when it comes to competition. If you were another female runner, how would you feel? You could never beat someone who had such an unfair biological advantage. It is just about this. The discussant fails to consider that every body in sport carries some advantage or disadvantage dependent on sporting context. Height for example would not be used to disqualify a competitor from high jump competitions because height is understood to be a normal or naturally occurring variation. Variations in sex-type however are not understood in the same manner. When that same characteristic of height is understood to be the result of sex-specific chemistry rather than a unique individual chemistry, the logic of the lacking athlete comes to the forefront and equal opportunity via segregation of competitors presents itself as the only option. Validation of sex then is more accurately a form of fashioning normative body groups in the service of fairness. Furthermore, discussants question the authenticity of Semenyas sexgender based on the level of reported testosterone that she produces compared to what the norm is said to be for women. The above comment exemplifies how the female athletic body is seen as a body that does not have the ability to produce and perform at the same level as the male. The female body is always at a disadvantage to the male and if an advantage is found in a competitor they should not have the right to participate in the female category, they are not female if they do not lack. In response to another comment

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) this individual also demonstrates how the subjectivity of the female sporting body is always constructed through the masculine sporting body. Whereas the masculine sporting body is wholly competitive, the feminine sporting body is at a disadvantage. The feminine sporting body becomes othered by becoming other than male, lacking that which is masculine. For instance, the following commentator reflects on how testosterone is a male advantage and therefore Semenya should race in the male category: If Semenya defines herself as a woman thats fine with me. In the case with transgendered people there may not be the ability to definitively categorize them as one or the other. But in the case of athletic competition if testosterone is the male advantage and you have an organ that produces it naturally then thats the category you should race in. Moreover, the comment implies that female competitors with normal levels of testosterone are unable to compete with a female that has a male-like advantage. Testosterone levels work as an indicator for gendered performance. Having excess testosterone allows for a more masculine performance, therefore justifying the higher performance quality of the male body. Following the logic of discussants, having a more masculine performance situates Semenyas sexgender (the ability to run faster than other female competitors) into the male category. As one discussant comments on the allegedly higher testosterone levels: Her performance was clearly not like any other woman. Did you see the last 150m?!? Semenya has a finishing kick that no other woman can match . . . it reminded me of Steve Prefontaine. Or as another discussant puts it, Testosterone is one of the most significant markers in the physiological basis of performance. That is one of the major factors why 16-year old boyswho will never make it to the world-class levelare as fast as the fastest women on the planet. As Butler states, the presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it (Butler, 1990, p. 6). So what is Semenyas bodily crime? She doesnt lack the lack. This double lacking automatically allows discussants to legitimize their claims that Semenya must be male. The female sporting body is formed through what it lacks in comparison to the excess, or normalization of excess, found of the male. It does not matter how feminine a competitor is; the biochemistry of the athlete determines what category one falls under. Coles (1995, 2000b) study of sex testing frames the sex test in the context of the Cold War. Cole shows how the bodies of Soviet athletes were made to appear deviant in mass media representations: the Soviet served as a phantasmatic space on which anxieties, speculations and fantasies were projected to imagine the American

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler body, the operation of power in America, and the bodies implication in democracy (2000b, p. 444). This logic underlies many comments regarding Semenya. Semenyas body is often compared to that of Soviet womens bodies that came under the radar for doping to gain an edge in competition. Like that of the Eastern bloc athletes, Semenyas body is read as a deviant body, one that does not fit the necessary standard. This also raises the issue of doping, as many of the Soviet athletes of the time were accused of utilizing performanceenhancing drugs. Doping is equated to cheating because it allows an athlete to push their body beyond its natural ability. Studies have found that antidoping campaigns often depict and reinforce the essentialist dogma of a two-sex model by depicting the effects of steroid usage as women being masculine and men feminine (Davis & Delano, 1992). As Lock (2003) states, female dopers are often portrayed negatively in sport because their visual appearance does not match with expectations of femininity. This appearance often leads to assumptions that the female athletes are lesbians because they have what are considered to be more masculine characteristics and lack feminine qualities.6 Male dopers, on the other hand, lose their sexual prowess as their penises shrink and become limp. Ritchie (2003) reports how womens sexuality and drug usage were often associated together as both challenged the natural order of sport and idealized fair playing field (p. 89; see also Cole, 2000c; Davis & Delano, 1992). This has inadvertently taken the gender test itself to a new level: a level which links ones gender and sex with cheating. More precisely, a high testosterone levelhowever naturalis unfair and equivalent to cheating by doping. For instance, one discussant is disturbed by another discussants comment that she should be allowed to keep her gold medal: [with regard to the previous comment that stated] None of them have the benefit of unusually high testosterone levels and if they tried to do that with a needle they would be disqualified (or banned) from competition. This is very true. If any of her competitors injected themselves with testosterone, even a miniscule amount in comparison to Semenyas 3 the normal level, they would have any awards they won stripped and would be banned from competition for several years. Whether being born with abnormal physiology or gaining it by choice (injecting drugs), an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage. As Cole (2000c) reported, sexgender and issues of doping are often associated with each other. Cole explains that after gender verification had officially been eliminated in 1999, IAAF policy still found refuge in drug testing by opting to visually inspect the genital area of the athlete in midst of taking a doping test. Genel and Ljungqvist (2005) also mention doping control along with form fitted athletic

253 clothing as factors that negate the need for specific sextesting. As it stands today, this still is the procedure observed when sexgender is questioned.

Concluding Thoughts: The Undecidability of Semenya

If woman is truth, she at least knows that there is no truth, that truth has no place here, and that no one has a place for truth. And she is a woman precisely because she herself does not believe in truth itself, because she does not believe in what she is, in what she is believed to be, in what she thus is not. Derrida, 1979 (p.53) As feminist scholars writing on gender verification testing have stated, early sex test is enacted to safeguard the sporting spaces of menas these spaces were understood at the time to be contaminated by the presence of women either as athletes or spectators (Wackwitz, 2003). The earliest test was about maintaining the integrity of male sporting spaces and protecting that space from the nonelite body, the nonathletic body, understood to be the female body. However, the modern incarnation of the sex-test focused not on genetic men, but on genetic women (Cavanagh & Sykes, 2006, p. 80). The modern sex test is not enacted to directly maintain the sporting spaces of men but rather to seemingly ensure a similar sporting space for women. Both forms of this test, regardless of focus or intention, highlight that it is the genetic female body that is the site of anxiety (Cavanagh & Sykes, 2006, p. 80). The sex test then has emerged as a response to and a mitigating factor for this anxiety. We would like to conclude this article not as with a summary reflection but with an opening into the philosophical work of Jacques Derrida. Derridas writing challenges the history of philosophys binary entities. Derridas deconstruction of binary oppositions creates a philosophical opening toward a multiplicity that moves well beyond dogmatic rhetoric. As Elizabeth Grosz (1994) has noted, His position defies ready-made categories and clear-cut characterizations. It is perhaps this apparent slipperiness, this refusal to state or stay within a singular definitive position, more than anything else, that may explain the suspicion his work seems to generate among feminists and political activists of various kinds (p. 116). Suspicion may arise but we feel that this slipperiness of deconstruction allows for an emergent opening from which we can critically engage the current situation of dualist thinking with regards to gender and sexuality in sport, and science and society at large. To date, no decision on whether Caster Semenyas mythologized body is a man or woman has been reached.7 It is this undecidedness of Semenyas sexgender status and the future

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

254 of her athletic career which prompts us to reflect on the multiplicity of sexual difference. A useful argument in this regard is made by Oliver (2009) who asks, how can we begin to think beyond the binary logic of manwoman or human animal such that we can acknowledge multiple differences on both sides of the dash? (p. 65). Like Oliver (2009), who follows a deconstructivist paradigm, we believe that it is Derridas concept of undecidability that will move us toward a possible opening of thinking and practicing sexual difference otherwise. The metaphysical question what is it? cant be known and as Oliver points out is always precarious and provisional. Following Derrida (1991), Oliver states: We cannot know for certain the correct answer to the question what is it?; rather we can always only speculate given the cultural tools available to us. Derridas work suggests that considering metaphysical questions ultimately undecidable has the practical effect of making us continually reevaluate what we know and how we act. So, although the realms of politics and even ethics may require that we make decisions based on what we believe or imagine things to be, we must be ready to revise not only those decisions but also what we believe and imagine. In this way, although undecidability is not synonymous with multiplicity, making it an operative principle gives rise to multiplicity beyond binary oppositions (pp.58-59). The undecidability of Semenyas sexgender status shuts the door to oppositional thinking in sport thereby opening a space for sexual difference. Difference is not an opposition of two (i.e., man/woman), but rather an infinite variation of manya multiplicity beyond a man/woman categorical classification. As Derrida writes in Spurs (1979), although there is no truth in itself of the sexual difference in itself, of either man or woman in itself, all of ontology nonetheless, with its inspection, appropriation, identification and verification of identity, has resulted in a concealing, even as it presupposes it, this undecidability (p. 103). The results of the gender verification test and the undecidable status of Semenyas sexgender identity reconfigures the sporting category of woman/female to an infinite ontological category of many women. We cannot know if sport will ever be free from an ontological metaphysics, but an undecided outcome does generate an opening for sport to push the boundaries away from rigid binary. Our focus in this article is directed toward the idea of testing for sex and following from this expands to the methods of verification, but only insofar as this verification works to substantiate the mechanism of testing itself. As Ronell (2005) writes The relation of testing to the question of place is essential. The test site, as protoreal, marks out a

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3) primary atopos, producing a place where the real awaits confirmation (p. 171). The case of Caster Semenya works to demonstrate how constructed naturalized sporting spaces, discursively constructed coping mechanisms utilized by spectators and governing bodies alike, maintain the dominant paradigm of binary gender categories. Semenyas body as test site produces a nonspace in sport wherein her body becomes abject flesh and the real of sexgender binary exclusivity awaits confirmation, or in the proper nomenclatureverification.

Postscript:The Eternal Return of Becoming Verified

Nietzsche meant nothing more than this by eternal return. Eternal return cannot mean the return of the Identical because it presupposes a world (that of the will to power) in which all previous identities have been abolished and dissolved. Returning is being, but only the being of becoming. The eternal return does not bring back the same, but returning constitutes the only Same of that which becomes. Deleuze, 1994 (p. 41) As announced on July 9, 2010, nearly a year following her now infamous performance in Berlin, Caster Semenya has finally been verified as female. As such, she is allowed to compete in the womens category once again. The IAAF also announced on the same day that they will not release the results of the gender verification testing in respect of the athletes right to confidentiality. Less than a week later, Semenya returned to the track to compete in Finland at the Lappeenranta Games, winning in a time of 20422. This win was followed by another win 4 days later in Finland at the Savo games, where she clocked 20241. This begs us to question whether Semenyas return to competition, with the official IAAF stamp of verification, lay to rest the speculations on her gender? Has the decision by the IAAF to not release the official results of the gender-verification test left the ground open for new allegations on whether Semenya is (or was) in fact a hermaphrodite or if she possesses some kind of biological advantage? And could it be the case that during Semenyas 11-month lay-off she has been receiving hormone therapy to treat her condition? What we do know for a fact is that following her first two comeback performances, speculation regarding her sex gender continued and even increased when Semenya won the August 22, 2010 Berlin meet in a time of 15990. Indeed, soon after her win in Berlin, Canadian Diane Cummins, who placed 8th in the Berlin race, was reported in the New York Times stating:

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler If we give an honest opinion, were either seen as bad sports or were not happy because were being beaten. But thats not the case. Jemma and I have been beaten tons of times by athletes who we feel are doing it in the realm of what is considered female. Unfortunately for Caster, shes grown up in an environment that is complicated not just for her but for human science. Basically, is she man, is she lady? What constitutes male, what constitutes female? Even if she is a female, shes on the very fringe of the normal athlete female biological composition from what I understand of hormone testing. So, from that perspective, most of us just feel that we are literally running against a man because what we know to be female is a certain testosterone level. And if that isnt the case, they need to change everything. Interestingly enough, after Semenya won her first three comeback races, she then badly lost her race in Rovereto, Italy at the Palio della Quercia meet where she finished ninth. Italys Elisa Cusma Piccione, the races winner, who had openly questioned Semenyas gendersex in Berlin, 2009, was asked by journalists to comment on her statement made the previous year that for me, she is a man. Piccione replied with yet another speculative remark: Maybe I used words that were a bit crude, but I wasnt the only one to use those words if you look at whats being said now. Maybe it was a bit excessive to have said that right away because you can never judge these things. But if she didnt compete for nearly a year, maybe there was something to that. Meet director Luigi DOnofrio was unsatisfied when Semenyas manager stated that her loss was due to fatigue because she was up coughing all night. For DOnofrio it was still incomprehensible to see Semenya running so slow and further stated he didnt think she lost the race on purpose. At the same time, other news outlets continued to speculate that Semenya has undergone hormonal treatment although no official report has ever been made by the IAAF or Semenya. A rather typical news commentary stated that: Semenya, an intersex, is understood to have agreed to receive hormone replacement therapy (including the feminising oestrogen) and an androgen blocker under the terms of an agreement between the world governing body, the IAAF, and Semenyas lawyers. The therapy has permitted her to return to competition against women. It appears the HRT is kicking in. Given all of the above, Semenya is still in a bind. Either she wins and is accused of possessing a biological advantage

255 or she loses and her loss is found to indicate she has undergone treatment because she was a man in the first place. Damned if she does, and damned if she doesnt. Her performance as an athlete remains verified but at the same moment, undecided. The undecidability of Semenyas speculum examination by IAAF officials and doctors still holds, as no information regarding the process of this determination has been made public. Semenya remains a specter to the IAAF imagination, news media, competitors, and spectators alike. The elusiveness of the decision has created an undecidedness, a phantasmatic encounter with sex-gender. As well, the larger questions raised by this occurrence and by the lengthy deliberation, still warrant further consideration and response. Given the recent events, we remain leery to follow the work of poststructuralist feminists who might cast Semenyas body as that of an abject, deviant, disordered, or in-between. If we were to make such claims then we would be postulating a foundational entity and thereby claiming that such a sexgender binary exists. We want to remove this foundational thinking altogether. Claiming an undecidability leaves open a potentiality: an unfillable void that cannot be decided upon. However, the condition of undecidability is still in place because of the potential of an either/or binary to exist. How is it possible for Semenyas body to be verified while remaining in a constant flux of undecidability? Continuing to follow the work of Massumi (2002) on style as quoted at the introduction to this article, Style is what makes the player (p. 77). When Semenya was asked why she lost and ran so slowly in Rovereto she exclaimed, nothing happened, its just the game. Indeed it is. Massumi (2002) continues: The star plays against the rules but not by breaking them. He plays around them, adding minute, unregulated contingencies to the charged mix. She adds free variations: free in the sense that they are modulatory actions unregulated or unsubsumed by the rules of the game. A stars style is always a provocation to the referee, who must scrutinize and judge barely tangible extras that amount to very little separately but, as disproportionately effective channelings of potential, add up to an advantage. If the provocation goes too far, new rules need to be invented to subsume the modulation devices. (p.77) What is then Semenyas style? Her long stride? The square posturing of her shoulders as she pushes her arms and hips forward? The way she moves past competitors in the final stretch of the race? How she strides off the track after a win? Her quirky smirk? Her gracious ability to congratulate all competitors whether she wins or loses? How does she move to provoke such reactions to the game? We hope that her bodys return from the abject into the gender reordered

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

256 schema will be understood as a stringently political process that is coupled with a violent interruption and inscription of identity through discourse. We further hope that her barely tangible style as an athlete continues to provoke officials, competitors, spectators, athletic regulation boards, and news media. As Massumi states, It is through stylistic, free variations that an already constituted sport evolves (2002 p. 78) and so then, should we. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 11(3)

Bryson, V. (1992). Feminist political theory: An introduction. New York, NY: Paragon House Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London, UK: Routledge. Caplan, P. J., & Caplan, J. B. (1999). Thinking critically about research on sex and gender (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Cavanagh, S. L., & Sykes, H. (2006). Transsexual bodies at the Olympics: The international Olympic committees policy on transsexual athletes at the 2004 Athens Summer Games. Body & Society, 12(3), 75-102. Cogan, J., & Erickson, J. (1999). Lesbians, levis, and lipstick: The meaning of beauty in our lives. New York, NY: Haworth. Cole, C.L. (1995). Imagined communities: Sexing the body, sport, and national identity in Cold War America. Paper presented at the Pacific Sociological Association meetings, San Francisco, CA. Cole, C. L. (2000a). One chromosome too many? In K. Schaffer and S. Smith (Eds.), The Olympics at the millennium: Power, politics, and the games (pp. 128-146). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cole, C. L. (2000b). Body studies in the sociology of sport: A review of the field. In J. Coakley & E. Dunning, Handbook of sports studies (pp. 439-460). London, UK: SAGE. Cole, C. L. (2000c). Testing for sex or drugs. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24, 331-333. Connell, R. (1990). An iron man: The body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity. In M. Messner & D. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 83-95). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Creed, B. (1993). Horror and the monstrous feminine: An imaginary abjection. London, UK: Routledge. Daly, M. F. (2007). Technologies of intersex. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 24(1), 83-101. Davis, L., & Delano, L. (1992). Fixing the boundaries of physical gender: Side effects of anti drug campaigns in athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9(1), 1-19. Deleuze. G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Derrida, J. (1979). Spur: Nietzsches styles (B. Harlow, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Derrida, J. (1991). Choreographies. In P. Kamuf (Ed.; R. Bevezdivin, Trans.), A Derrida reader (pp. 440-456). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Dickinson, B. D., Genel, M., Robinowitz, C. B., Turner, P. L., & Woods, G. L. (2002). Gender verification of female Olympic athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 34, 1539-1542. Dreger, A. D., & Herndon, A. M. (2009). Progress and politics in the intersex rights movement. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian & Gay Studies, 15, 199-224.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. We acknowledge that the construction of Caster Semenyas gendered body is also shaped by racialized discourses. However, given our space limits, we cannot fully address this subject. 2. We provide a more in-depth discussion on Caster Semenyas return in the postscript following the conclusion. 3. A note about terminology; following the generally accepted practice of feminist writings, this article uses the term sex to denote the biological underpinnings of the male or female designation, however problematic that may be (see HoodWilliams, 1996; Hird, 2000), whereas the term gender is used to denote the social category or role expectation often assumed to be in accordance with the biological sex. As this article seeks to address both terms and highlight the material inseparability of these terms with regard to social expectations and perceptions of Caster Semenyas embodiment, our use of sex-gender is meant to connote the contested terrain of the nomenclature and the paradigms that situate such thinking. 4. See Albert (2005) for interesting discussion regarding clinical medicines adoption of the term hermaphrodite based on Ovids Metapmorphoses, rather than androgyne as understood through Platos Symposium. 5. See for instance the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA). http://www.isna.org/ 6. Assumptions about sexual orientation based on gendered signifiers are not a new phenomenon and discussion of this vast topic is beyond the breadth of this article. However, for interesting discussion regarding beauty norms and aesthetics related to women who identify as lesbian or bisexual, see essays contained in Cogan & Erickson (1999). 7. A more lengthy discussion on Semenyas recent status follows in the postscript of this article.

References
Beamish, R., & Ritchie, I. (2005). The spectre of steroids: Nazi propaganda, Cold War anxiety, and patriarchal paternalism. International Journal of the History of Sport, 22, 777-795.

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012

Vannini and Fornssler

Dworkin, S. L., & Messner, M. A. (2002). Just do . . . what? Sport, bodies, gender. In S. Scraton & A. Flintoff (Eds.), Gender and sport: A reader (pp. 17-29). London, UK: Routledge. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books. Feder, E. K. (2009). Imperatives of normality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian & Gay Studies, 15, 225-247. Genel, M., & Ljungqvist, A. (2005). Essay: Gender verification of female athletes. Lancet, 366(1), s41. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79 (pp. 128-138). London, UK: Hutchinson. Harding, J. (1996). Sex and control: The hormonal body. Body and Society, 2(1), 99-111. Hargreaves, J. A. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of womens sports. London, UK: Routledge. Hausmann, B. L. (1995). Changing sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hird, M. J. (2000). Genders nature: Intersexuality, transsexualism and the sex/gender binary. Feminist Theory, 1, 347-364. Hird, M. J. (2003). Considerations for a psychoanalytic theory of gender identity and sexual desire: The case of intersex. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society, 28, 1067-1092. Hood-Williams, J. (1996). Goodbye to sex and gender. Sociological Review, 44(1), 1-16. IAAF Medical and Anti-Doping Commission. (2006). IAAF policy on gender verification. Monaco: International Association Athletics Federation. Retrieved from http://www.iaaf.org/mm/ document/imported/36983.pdf Inahara, M. (2009). This body which is not one: The body, femininity and disability. Body & Society, 15(1), 47-62. Irigaray, L. (1985). This sex which is not one (C. Porter & C. Burke, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jones, R., Murrell, A. J., & Jackson, J. (1999). Pretty versus powerful in the sports pages: Print media coverage of U.S. womens Olympic gold medal winning teams. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 23, 183-192. Kristeva, J. (1983). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. New York, NY: University of Columbia Press. Kroker. A., & Kroker, M. (1993). The last sex: Feminism and outlaw bodies. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kymlinen, P. (2003). Topologies of becoming: Deferred presences in writing. Space and Culture, 6, 235-248. Ljungqvist, A., Martnez-Patio, M. J., Martnez-Vidal, A., Zagalaz, L., Daz, P., & Mateos, C. (2006). The history and current policies on gender testing in elite athletes. International SportMed Journal, 7, 225-230.

257
Lock, R. (2003). The doping ban: The Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbophobia. International Review of Sociology of Sport, 38, 397-411. Lorber, J. (1993). Seeing is believing: Biology as ideology. Gender & Society, 7, 568-581. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. London, UK: Duke University Press. McDonagh, E, & Pappano, L. (2008). Playing with the boys: Why separate is not equal in Sports. New York: Oxford University Press. Messner, M. (2007). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. In M. Messner (Ed.), Out of play: Critical essays on gender and sport (pp.31-44). New York: University of New York Press. Oliver, K (2009). Sexual difference, animal difference: Derrida and difference worthy of its name. Hypatia, 24(2),54-76. Qinjie, T., Fangfang, H., Yuanzheng, Z., & Qinsheng, G. (2009). Gender verification in athletes with disorders of sex development. Gynecological Endocrinology, 25(2), 117-121. Ritchie, I. (2003). Sex tested, gender verified: Controlling female sexuality in the age of containment. Sport History Review, 34(1), 80-98. Ronell, A. (2005). The test drive. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. St. Martin, L., & Gravey, N. (1996). Womens bodybuilding: Feminist resistance and/or femininitys recuperation. Body & Society, 2(4), 45-57. Wackwitz, L.A. (2003). Verifying the myth: Olympic sex testing and the category woman. Womens Studies International Forum, 26, 553-560. Wiederkehr, S. (2009). We shall never know the exact number of men who have competed in the Olympics posing as women: Sport, gender verification and the Cold War. International Journal of the History of Sport, 26, 556-572.

Bios
April Vannini is a PhD candidate at the European Graduate School in the Division of Media and Communication and is a sessional instructor at Royal Roads University in the School of Communication and Culture. Her main interests include bodies and technology, politics of home, place/space and small island culture, political philosophy, and postphenomenology. April has publications in Qualitative Inquiry, and book chapters on technology and mobilities, and decolonizing research methods. Barbara Fornssler is a PhD candidate at the European Graduate School in the Division of Media and Communication. Her research interests include the body and technology, sporting bodies and spaces, communications paradigms, and philosophies of gender and womens studies. Her most recent publication Affective Cyborgs is available through ATROPOS press.

Downloaded from csc.sagepub.com by guest on October 2, 2012