Politicians, the public, family and friends have for days been expressing their unconditional support for ‘golden girl†Caster Semenya — and this would be fabulous if it were truly unconditional. But is it?
With a surprising disregard for Semenya’s nonconforming gender performance — after all, women in South Africa have been violated simply for wearing pants — the patriotic support she is receiving is based on clearly reinforcing her sex as female: ‘She is a womanâ€, ‘I bathed with her, I knowâ€, ‘She is beautifulâ€, ‘She is our first lady of sport†and so on.
Feminine masculinities and masculine femininities are not normally celebrated so overtly. On the contrary, women looking, dressing and moving like Semenya are often the targets of hate crimes, ‘curative†rape and homophobia.
Women who don’t buy into gender-stereotypical behaviour are often violently ‘reminded†of who they are supposed to be. It is Semenya’s nonconformity that the Young Communist League is conveniently forgetting when it calls her sex testing racist.
After all, Serena and Venus Williams have never been similarly tested — because they are Americans. But, unlike them, Semenya does not run across tennis courts in miniskirts and have a prominent cleavage.
In not acknowledging the Williams sisters’ gender conformity, this particular critique of racism silences the uncomfortable fact of Semenya’s transgender performance.
The constant reiteration that she is a woman, and support for her that assumes her treatment is unfair to a woman (rather than unfair to anyone, whatever their sex and gender identity), reinforces the same binary that is the cause of the problem: men have to be men and women have to be women.
Looks, clothes, gestures, hormones, hairstyle, physiognomy, movement, voice, chromosomes, psychology, attitudes –all these are seen to divide us, yet we’re supposedly equal.
Do we all know our chromosome status and testosterone levels (maybe some are in for a surprise)? What about those born with ambivalent genitals who are raised female, undergo surgery and become male? And what is it that makes a woman a woman? Is it the ability to give birth? If so, after menopause, am I a woman no longer? Why do we need to be sure about someone’s sex at all? Why do we need to have our biologically allocated sex in sync with our gender performance?
While we are celebrating Semenya’s achievement, why aren’t we doing so on the grounds that she — as all of us — could be found to be anything and everything?
And why are her supporters not stating clearly that she will be a South African celebrity whatever the outcome of her sex test? What will a result suggesting she is not ‘entirely female†represent for her supporters? Will they stand by her side and make sure she does not have to give back the medal?
Sex tests have strong ideological undertones. During the Cold War it was the Eastern Bloc that was suspected of ‘cheatingâ€; now Western newspapers report that it is particularly Third World countries that send men disguised as women to international sports competitions.
The point is not merely that athletes from the First World are not also subjected to sex tests. It is rather that, given the history of slavery and colonialism, the exposure of a black woman’s body has a very specific context.
In the sensationalism of Western media discussing the ‘Bantu as often being hermaphrodites†and in the echo here of Sarah Baartman being exhibited at fairs and her genitals being dissected after her death, we recognise a painful ‘herstoryâ€.
This is a history at the intersections of racism and sexism, buoyed up by science and public spectatorship, that is re-emerging right now in front of us. No person, black or white, should be subjected to the investigation Semenya has undergone.
A narrow understanding of the diversity within femininities and masculinities haunts both South Africa and the world.
For our country, this moment must make us measure our progress on the constitutional imperatives of freedom, equality and dignity for all.
And it is an opportunity to question how truly we are willing and able to engage and embrace difference.
Antje Schuhmann is a senior lecturer in Wits University’s politics department