Why the IAAF’s Testosterone level rule for female athletes is discrimination

Some sportspeople are famous because they are supreme athletes. Others secure their household-name status through controversies such as Oscar Pistorius or Tiger Woods. The South African runner, Caster Semenya, might be unique in that the furore surrounding her is not because of her outstanding athletic capability being celebrated, instead, it is being condemned.

The central question about Semenya, “is she a man or a woman?” is more complex than it might appear. Biological sex is not a binary, as much of society and the entire sporting system assume. Sex is dependent on six biological markers which interact to produce characteristics which we understand as male or female. Semenya has a condition called disorders of sexual development (DSD) which means that she has both female and male characteristics.

Women must take medication to supress the effects of testosterone or they cannot compete

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), in deciding how to separate male and female athletes, has reduced the complex science of biological sex to one characteristic: testosterone. If a female athlete’s testosterone exceeds ‘normal’ levels, then she is ‘too masculine’ and has an unfair advantage. In such cases, the IAAF has ruled that women must take medication to suppress the effects of testosterone or they cannot compete.

Semenya challenged this decision in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the appeals body for the sporting world, on the basis that is discriminatory and that hormone treatment has potentially harmful side-effects. CAS acknowledged her arguments and registered them in its ruling. It also pointed out that the science on which the IAAF’s policy is based is selective, if not incomplete, and that it will be difficult for DSD athletes to comply with the IAAF’s rules. Nonetheless, CAS ruled against Semenya and in favour of the IAAF’s policy.

If the IAAF was really concerned about fairness, wouldn’t they apply the testosterone rule to every athletics event?

The failure of her appeal in the CAS leaves Semenya with four options. Semenya could comply with the IAAF and take testosterone suppressants, thus medically altering the naturally occurring make-up of her body. Some scientists estimate that suppressants would make Semenya five to seven seconds slower on average over 800m, her main event. She could compete alongside men, a category of person she does not identify with and has never lived as; she could avoid international competition, competing only nationally; or she could switch to an event that does not fall under the regulations. Each option threatens to effectively end Semenya’s career.

There are several issues with the IAAF’s policy regarding testosterone levels, not least the notion they advance of ‘fairness’. It isn’t fair, they reason, for Semenya to compete against other women who cannot rival her because of their lower testosterone levels. But can sport be considered a level playing field, as it were, given the disparity in financial resources that nations are able to offer its athletes? Does Usain Bolt have an unfair advantage over his competitors because he has fast-twitch muscle fibres? Is Semenya’s naturally occurring advantage as unfair as the athletes who dope, who actively cheat, to improve their performance? If the IAAF was really concerned about fairness, wouldn’t they apply the testosterone rule to every athletics event? Currently, the rule applies only to the 400m, 400m hurdles, 800m, 1500m and the mile events.

Semenya’s success is treated as illegitimate, as something needing to be reined in

The IAAF’s policy is also troubling from a feminist perspective. A man with testosterone levels exceeding the ‘normal’ male range is not considered to have an unfair advantage over his competitors and is not required to take hormone treatment. His high testosterone merely makes him an outstanding athlete. On the other hand, Semenya’s success is treated as illegitimate, as something needing to be reined in. The implication of this suspicion is that Semenya’s success is not natural for a woman. Only female athletes have ever been required to undergo hormone treatment. Thus this issue is as much about the rights of women as it is about the rights of LGBTI people. At its heart, the IAAF’s policy is an attempt to control women’s too-successful bodies.   

The IAAF believes it has to draw the dividing line between male and female athletes somewhere, otherwise, sport would be dominated by men. Semenya is unfortunate that she falls foul of the marker, testosterone levels, that they have decided matters more than any other. But the IAAF’s handling of the issue has been crass. Semenya has always lived as a woman and never doubted her sex until the IAAF required she undergo a gender verification test. Unlike so many sportspeople, she has done nothing wrong.

To demand that Semenya either medically alter her body or end her career when she is in her prime is arbitrary and cruel

Semenya has not doped and she has not sought controversy. She has remained professional, dignified and committed to her sport, in the face of consistent attacks on her privacy and dignity in the decade since she first came to the IAAF’s attention. She is a legitimate and successful athlete who has become fodder for athletics’ wider crisis about how to categorise its participants. To demand that Semenya either medically alter her body or end her career when she is in her prime is arbitrary and cruel. Particularly given the other unfairnesses built into the sporting system. For any woman or girl with DSD watching this protracted debacle, meanwhile, the clear message being transmitted is that they do not belong in sports and if they do, they will certainly not be permitted to be successful.