In Jennifer M. Denbow’s book, Governed through Choice: Autonomy, Technology, and the Politics of Reproduction, she tackles the issue of reproductive choice and its paradoxical relationship with women’s autonomy and governmental interventions, specifically in the current day in the United States. She illuminates the contradiction between how women’s autonomy is defended by politicians and the steps that they take that serve to limit this autonomy, criticising this course of action and arguing against it. She explains that women in the United States are facing more and more severe scrutiny and restrictions on their reproductive rights and choices, citing the r
ecord breaking number of laws passed in recent years to restrict abortions.

Denbow splits her book into three main arguments that uncover some of these contradictions in the political discourse that surrounds choice and autonomy. The first is that autonomy in the realm of reproductive regulation is often understood as being “proper self-governance or self-management,” and how this perspective allows for the judgement of women’s reproductive choices and is used as justification for intervention when these choices are deemed improper or irrational. The “proper” choice is the one seen as more moral or appropriate given the woman’s situation, an idea and perspective that becomes overbearing and dominant. An example of this is the idea of a woman on welfare choosing to have another child or a woman with a good income choosing not to have any children andthe judgement that these women would face for this decision, as it would be seen as the irrational or less moral choice. There is also the added legal perspective in which the “proper choice” is pushed by law, such as women facing restrictions when trying to get an abortion. For instance, the Texas sonogram law requires women to undergo a sonogram at least twenty-four hours prior to having an abortion. This law, which proponents of argued increased women’s autonomy by allowing them to make a more informed choice, actually takes away autonomy by implying that the “proper choice” is not having an abortion and that going through with it is less moral or somehow deviant. This creates a situation in which, despite the pronounced respect for “choice”, only certain “choices” are considered “correct”. The second argument is that developments in reproductive technology, such as sterilization, sonograms, and better contraceptives, have changed how reproduction is perceived, and thus how it is governed. While these developments seem to increase women’s ability to manage their reproduction and therefore increase their ability to self-govern, these changes also increase the scrutiny of their decisions because there are now perceptions of choices that are “better” or “more rational”. In the third argument, Denbow explains that there are multiple understandings of autonomy. She outlines two main understandings of autonomy. There is the traditional understanding of autonomy critiqued by Denbow in the first argument that explains proper self-governance and autonomy to be synonymous. Lawmakers and politicians rhetorically elide the differences between self-governance and autonomy, which Denbow opposes. Instead, she seems to prefer the alternate understanding of autonomy in terms of being “critique and transformation,” based on the philosophies of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. This view of autonomy “promote[s] resistance to discriminatory and oppressive norms,” and challenges existing understandings of the female body (p. 5). It emphasizes the impact of choice and the interaction between the power to select and government.

To contextualize her writing, it is important to note Denbow’s background. Denbow is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. She specializes in public law, political theory, reproductive law and politics, feminist studies, and science and technology studies. She received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, where she also earned her Ph.D. studying jurisprudence and social policy, emphasizing women, gender, and sexuality.

Her background in law and political science is evident in her writing. While she does not detail her methods in a specific section, Denbow’s methods entail very statistically and politically centered arguments, relying heavily on both personal and legal case studies. She brings this topic of reproductive choice and control out of the domain of health studies and women’s studies and into the lens of political science, citing many statistics to bolster her arguments. In her opening paragraph, she contextualizes her argument by stating: “In 2011, states enacted a an unprecedented 92 provisions restricting abortions, which overwhelmingly surpassed the previous record of 34 in 2005” (Denbow, p. 1). She goes on to explain that state politicians appeal to women’s autonomy as a way to justify these restrictive measures, but yet are actually serving to control women’s reproduction. A specific example of this is the extensive ultrasound mandates that have been passed in a multitude of states, such as Texas’s Woman’s Right to Know Act. These laws increase scrutiny of women and of their bodies while under the guise of providing them with more information about abortion and enabling a more complete form of consent. Lawmakers promote these laws as a way of informing women and providing them with autonomy, while in actually are simply restricting their rights and interfere with decision making.

Another way Denbow approaches her argument and bolsters her explanation of autonomy is by invoking philosophers and theorists like Kant, Foucault, and Rousseau. She frequently frames her ideas with the concepts of others, especially for her discussion of autonomy. Denbow explains that many people, by holding onto a traditional understanding of what autonomy is, apply a sort of circuitous logic to reproductive rights. There is a historical understanding that autonomy is “proper self-governance,” and thus is reflective of one’s ability to make rational decisions (Denbow, p. 2). There is a perception of a better way to conduct oneself and in order to be seen as autonomous and to be capable of autonomy, one must conduct themselves in this manner. This then translates to judgments of women’s choices, such as a woman choosing to have children if she is on welfare being deemed as irrational. Other examples Denbow gives include choosing to have an abortion and choosing to be sterilized, especially if you are a young, middle-class woman, which are choices that are frequently seen as being foolish or rash. Denbow critiques the logic that “intervention in a woman’s decision making can actually promote autonomy,” as people who follow this logic see themselves as preventing a woman from making an “irrational” decision (Denbow, p. 3). She points out that the laws passed to “promote autonomy” with added interventions, such as the aforementioned sonogram laws, actually reduce autonomy. Denbow’s preferred idea of autonomy as critique and transformation was founded on the philosophies of Foucault and Butler, whereas the historical view of autonomy as proper self-governance stems from Rousseau and Kant. Denbow argues that Rousseau’s and Kant’s interpretations of autonomy were foundational to Western beliefs and politics. She summarizes both of their definitions of autonomy to be “adherence to self-given law,” and explains that this idea is essential to modern Western political thinking (p. 19). Kant interpreted autonomy as “analytically separating oneself from one’s desires and impulses in order to legislate rationally for oneself,” and thus focused more on the moral aspects of autonomy, which has been incorporated into the political realm in that only those who are deemed rational have both the capacity and right to autonomy (p. 2). Denbow points out that from a historical perspective, certain groups of people (i.e. women, slaves, people of color, etc.) were not granted full rights as they were seen to lack the ability to govern themselves. In contrast, Foucault and Butler approach autonomy from a poststructuralist perspective, arguing that “construction of the subject rather than undermining any possibility for agency, actually serves as the condition of possibility for it” (p. 19). The mere possibility that there are multiple courses of action we could take creates the conditions for power, but this power presumes a free subject. This provides the basis for Denbow’s argument that government’s role in reproductive law works with the ideas of surveillance and autonomy. Denbow also expands her examination of Foucault to include his idea of governmentality, applying it to how the option to abort (among other choices women must make in regards to reproduction) provides the possibility for governance and restrictions, and that this thus changes how women’s actions are scrutinized. In fact, Foucault provides the title for her book, writing that we “can be governed through choice,” (p. 4). Because of the mere presence of an option, it opens the opportunity for one choice to be seen as more valid than another depending on the situation, and thus leads to a “moral evaluation” of women, playing into Denbow’s idea of autonomy as critique and transformation.

In addition to the historical perspective Denbow provided for Kant’s and Rousseau’s understanding of autonomy, she also provides fairly extensive historical context to better understand the current political situation on reproductive choice. She particularly focuses on the history of sterilization and abortion and how these concepts and the opinions surrounding them have changed over time. Denbow points out that “historically and continuing into the present, women who are deemed unfit [for motherhood] are in danger of involuntary sterilization while those who are deemed fit face barriers to accessing sterilization,” applying Foucault’s idea of moral evaluation and the scrutiny of choice (p. 22). In both the instances of voluntary and involuntary sterilizations, experts are regulating women’s choices as there is a perception that these women cannot govern themselves. While this idea of a “superior choice” is most often applied to women who choose to get abortions, Denbow explains that women who voluntarily undergo sterilizations face this critique as well. In both the cases of informed consent laws for abortions and for sterilization, Denbow argues that these laws “increase surveillance, violate liberty, and treat women as less-than in denying them the ability to make decisions for themselves,” (p. 185). Women are not seen as having the autonomy to make this decision themselves, particularly when the decision involves her rejecting motherhood. This idea ties into her bigger idea that technology acts as a destabilizing force in the realm of reproduction, particularly this act of voluntary sterilization in that it disrupts the connection between womanhood and motherhood. Women are seen as being “irrational” for choosing to undergo voluntary sterilization, and thus their autonomy is reduced as they are not seen as making the proper choice. Denbow incorporates Donna Haraway’s ideas to argue that a sterilized body might be interpreted as a “cyborg figure in which organism and machine are united and intertwined,” partially due to the relatively recentness of voluntary sterilizations (p. 22). While this seems to be a bit of a stretch, as a woman’s body remains as a living, non-mechanical vessel despite being sterilized, there is value in illuminating this inherent connection between womanhood and motherhood and how sterilization and other reproductive technologies disrupt this idea of woman as intrinsically maternal. The cyborg figure calls into question the “natural” and points to “alternative understandings of humanity, technology, nature, reproduction, and gender,” (p. 189). It challenges the assumptions we make about women’s bodies and their relation to the world. Alternately, some reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilization and other technologies that Denbow refers to as “for natural reproduction”, actually serve to reinforce the female body as maternal as the non-reproductive female body is seen as deviant and dysfunctional.  These technologies, specifically IVF, may be scientifically unnatural ways of reproducing, but they still reinforce the centrality of woman as mother as they enable women to give birth and “fix” the “dysfunction” of not being able to bear children, and therefore work to sustain this association. Additionally, the reliability of birth control has changed how we perceive pregnancy in many ways. Pregnancy is now seen as much more of a choice and something that is intentional, which impacts the perception of women who are pregnant and the course of action they take from there.  Procreation is now seen as a voluntary act, a change in which technology has played a major role and now serves to create an idea of “responsible procreation”. Because procreation is now a choice, it is open to scrutiny.

Another method Denbow uses is referring to case studies to further her arguments. She uses a personal perspective to explain how sterilization is perceived in our modern society, giving the example of her friend who was voluntarily sterilized. This friend was seen as someone extremely fit for motherhood – a young, white, attorney – and thus her choice to not bear children and eliminate the possibility of ever bearing children troubled many people as it disrupted the assumption that all women are meant to be mothers, particularly those who are deemed “fit”. Denbow describes people’s confusion and astonishment at her choice, and their assertions that she would regret it. This friend also struggled to receive approval from doctors to undergo this procedure. However, Denbow also illuminates that women who are seen as “less fit”, such as minority women, particularly those who are incarcerated, do not face these same restrictions as their sterilization is not deemed irrational. In fact, these women are often involuntarily sterilized, something Denbow talked about somewhat briefly and could have expanded upon more. She does touch upon the intersectionality of race, class, and gender, and the impacts that that has upon these perceptions of women, and particularly how this affects minority women’s ability to be perceived as fit to be a mother.

In addition to these personal case studies, she also demonstrates her legal background with her use and analysis of a legal archive of case studies to bolster her arguments and explain the history of reproductive choice and how it is being governed now. For instance, she investigates the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the congressional Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was upheld. She explains that politicians argued that this ban protected women, but in reality fit with her framework of autonomy as proper self-governance as it encourages women to make the “proper choice” to not have a late term abortion without actually advancing women’s autonomy and freedom to choose. The law depicts women as victims, where abortion is seen “merely as a necessary escape hatch,” rather than a valid choice (p. 20). She uses a variety of different court cases and analysis of laws to provide background and further the development of this connection between governmentality and autonomy.

This book, while it has many strengths, is lacking in some areas. Denbow makes an attempt to make her work more diverse and representative, even going so far as to critique other authors, such as Lee Edelman’s work on reproductive futurism, for their under-exploration of issues such as race and class. While Denbow does discuss the added complexity that these factors impact reproductive norms, it could have been more in depth. She discusses these factors more in the extremes, targeting incarcerated women of color and poor women specifically. Her work would have benefitted from discussing more minority women and the reproductive expectations they face, focusing not just on incarcerated black women but also the average woman of color and people of other ethnicities, and the intersectionality of the factors of race and class. There is also little discussion of queer women and how their identity as queer impacts these issues. She tends to touch upon these issues without truly going in depth. In addition, by not detailing her methods, it is difficult to precisely determine how she garners her information. While one can extrapolate from her work what her primary methods entail, details such as whether she analyzed legal case studies herself or worked off of someone else’s analysis are left unclear.

Denbow is able to articulate how paradoxical the current situation regarding reproductive choice in the United States is in terms of governmentality and autonomy, detailing how politicians purport to increase women’s autonomy while in actuality add more restrictive measures. Her three-pronged argument was able to paint a complete picture of this struggle for autonomy and the ways in which it has been restricted, and how technology has impacted this. Her use of other philosophers and a wide variety of sources provides a diverse perspective as well as historical background to better contextualize her arguments. This book was certainly illuminating and informative on many aspects of reproductive choice that are not often considered. A particularly interesting concept was Donna Haraway’s “cyborg theory” as it this idea of sterilized women as “other” and somewhat mechanical was not something I had previously considered. I believe that everyone could gain new insights and perspectives from this book, but that it would be particularly illuminating for politicians to read, specifically those lobbying for more restrictions on women’s reproductive choice. Though it may not alter their opinions, there is a chance that being able to better understand how their fight for women’s “autonomy” is actually serving as restrictive. Understanding how the notion of autonomy is being manipulated may help people to understand how these laws depict as incapable of governing themselves and restrict their ability to choose.

The Huffington Post creates a timeline in this article of the progress women have made in society throughout the past hundred years.  The first notable event described begins 100 years ago when Margaret Sanger “opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn” in 1916 and the most recent event described is the Treasury Department announcing “Harriet Tubman’s portrait will be featured on the new $20 bill”.  The Huffington post ultimately notes how even though women’s rights have progressed, Hillary Clinton “still faces outrageous sexism by the media” and sexist criticism won’t halt even if she’s inaugurated. The Huffington Post ultimately describes women’s progress as linear, but I don’t believe the narrative is necessarily as progressive as they make it seem. I am reminded of Faludi’s “Blame It on Feminism” because it continually states how women receive much backlash despite gaining rights.  Dr. Jean Baker Miller stated how “a backlash may be an indication that women really have had an effect”—so hopefully we are getting closer, but progress still needs to be made.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/despite-a-century-of-wome_b_11970308.html

In today’s globalized market, fragrance companies have turned to what will travel best. In the face of intense competition gripping the senses of consumers, campaigns must go farther than simply market the fragrance itself. They must sell another yet more desirable product: sex. And it’s selling. The global fragrance industry now holds a $36 billion market share, with Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana, and Hugo Boss at the lead. One must ask, are these companies selling sex or scent?

Brand and product (range) typically serve as the only verbal components of fragrance ads and play a prominent role in the marketing strategy. Fragrance names and other verbal components are often connected with mood rather than with the description of some factual property or properties (Freitas 3). Thus, their associative meaning is largely dependent both on brand image and advertising strategy that forms a sort of symbolic synesthesia that connects visual, auditory, and olfactory images: the graphic forms of the inscribed name, the sound of the spoken name, and the fragrance. It is thus not surprising that names and images evoking glamor, eroticism, exoticism, and sexuality are recurrent. Also unsurprisingly, in their quest for eroticized marketing, fragrance producers make more than a few flagrant and presumptive statements about gender through the use of models and pictorial cues. These sensuous, pictorial cues divide women and men into four strictly heterosexual categories: the femme fatale, the Don Juan, the ‘natural man’, and the ‘natural woman’ (Voogt 5).

The femme fatale is presented as a seductive and mysterious woman whose charm ensnares her heterosexual lovers. Consider Gucci’s ENVY. Gucci’s femme fatale here looks on lustfully as a man sucks her finger. The consumer should envy her because she has obtained this man through her sexuality. She is in control. Yet the most notable detail of this advert is that the viewer relates this message only through the experience of the man. He is intoxicated. He is overcome with her allure. It is as if the woman can only display her power through the presence of the man, making a provocative statement regarding her sexuality and individuality (A Scent of Corruption 3). Though ENVY’s femme fatale rejects any posture of submission but rather empowered through her own means, this empowerment stems only from her sexualization and she holds the upper hand only in lust and love (Freitas 5).

The femme fatale finds her cultural counterpoint in the Don Juan of the industries’ hyper-sexualized advertising. He is presented as a hunter, rather a trapper. Yet he makes only a small investment in each prey, shooting a smile as an arrow (Freitas 4). This is perfectly visualized in Beckham’s intimately BECKHAM NIGHT. Beckham is pictured here as a man that associates with high society, holding the female model in his submission, yet lacking an explicitly sexual position, intimating independence and emotionally detachment. He is strong and empowered with his arm locked around her neck which seems to give her a sort of intoxicated pleasure, which once again sells women’s sexuality short as it highlights her need for a man to desire her and the ease at which she submits to him.

The second dominant construct in fragrance advertisement is that of the ‘natural woman’ and the ‘natural man.’ The ‘natural woman’ is portrayed as a flower-child or sportswoman, one that casts aside the artificiality of corporatism and society and uses light, fresh fragrances. She is featured in Marc Jacob’s DAISY, where the dark evening gown and club setting of the femme fatale are exchanged for lighter colors and outdoor flower fields with breezes and sunlight that envelop her (Freitas 7)The ‘natural woman’ finds her male equivalent in, of course, the ‘natural man.’ The ‘natural man’ will not be found in a bed of flowers. In Dolce & Gabanna SPORT, all feminine items are done away with. The young fragile girl is replaced by a chiseled male model, simply wearing a pair of shorts and displaying his impressive, muscular torso. The ‘natural man’ poses against the ancient stone of a Hellenistic stadium that compliments his skin tone and visually immerses his body in rock through strategic composition and color manipulation. Like the ‘natural woman,’ the evening light of the Don Juan is replaced with a bright noon sun. The ‘natural woman’ then is one who is young and innocent, in perfect harmony with nature, and who claims no power over man with the retraction of explicit sexuality.

The dichotomy for women is clear: either power through sex or innocence through nature. Femininity and masculinity exist in very rigid structures, where both genders are hyper-sexualized and lack fluidity. Women are emotional beings who desire the allure of men. Men are detached and fulfil the ‘tall, dark, and handsome’ cliché, with little room left for other else. Artists take constructs solidified by mass marketing and present them as a heterosexual paradigm of womanhood and manhood. These adverts elevate enticement, sex, and lust, rather than knowledge or health as desirable. They present paradigms to a highly impressionable, materialistic post-modern America, who seek to use their scents to meek this market’s one-dimensional definition of desirable.

A Scent of Corruption. 18 November 2007. https://lgergen.wordpress.com

Freitas, Elsa. “Gendered adverts: an analysis of female and male images in contemporary perfume ads.” Comunicação e Sociedade, vol. 21, 2012, pp. 95 – 107.  May 2011.

Voogt, Peter. Boys will be Boys. Gerrit Rietveld Academie. 2014.

Contemporary Media Analysis: The unfair disadvantage Caster Semenya must face to compete for Olympic Gold

 

 

Track and field is not a widely watched sport outside of the Olympics. However, current events in track and field are attracting a lot of attention. Possibly the hottest topic the past couple months has been the case of Caster Semenya. Semenya is fresh off of a dominant gold medal winning performance in the Olympic women’s 800m final, but unfortunately she has not gotten the positive press you would think. She is intersex, a “hermaphrodite”. A 2010 gender test determined that she has no womb or ovaries, and that she has internal testes. Critics have claimed Semenya holds an unfair advantage against her competitors, as she has testosterone (T) levels that are higher than the vast majority of women. The article that I have chosen to analyze is authored by Eric Adelson, who believes Semenya is getting a very unfair draw. In this paper, I will address why I agree with Adelson that Semenya actually has an unfair disadvantage compared to other world class women’s 800m runners, because of the negative reaction of the media and other critics.

One reason that Adelson believes Semenya is so scrutinized is that sexual differences are simply judged more harshly than other deviations. People like Lebron James and Usain Bolt who have other genetic advantages in the sport they play do not suffer any criticism whatsoever. There is no reason that they should. In the article, Myron Genel, a senior research scientist at Yale, makes an interesting point regarding more accepted genetic advantages. He says, “It’s never suggested that Michael Phelps should step aside for the shorter Ryan Lochte because of something he can’t control. Nor is it suggested that, say, Kevin Durant should remove himself from the Olympics because he’s too close to the basketball rim” (Adelson).

Adelson also describes the harsh language used by Semenya’s critics. Semenya has been called a “ticking time bomb” (Adelson), because of the controversy that would explode when she inevitably won the Olympic gold medal. It was an interesting time for Adelson to write the article, as the controversy regarding Semenya had again risen with the Olympic Games on the horizon. Additionally, Semenya is said to have a “disorder,” whereas other professional athletes with genetic advantages are not. It is widely believed that Michael Phelps is somewhere on the spectrum of Marfan Syndrome, which is also a rare disease. However, the media never says that he has an unfair advantage because of a “disorder” or that he should not be able to compete against swimmers who do not show any symptoms of Marfan Syndrome.

Even more interestingly, people who have taken performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) to gain an advantage over their competitors have not faced anywhere near as much controversy as Semenya. Jarmila Kratochvilova, a Czech woman who is the world record holder for the women’s 800m run (and former 400m world record holder), was almost certainly taking PEDs when she set the world record. She came from a Eastern Bloc Country (state sponsored doping) during an era of widespread doping. She set the world record in the first competitive 800m race she ever ran, having never raced longer than 400m in a major competition. She has not been as widely criticized as Semenya. As Genel, the Yale research scientist said, it seems very odd that people criticize the, “handful of women with naturally higher testosterone levels. Meanwhile, you’ve got doping incidents that are at an estimated 35 percent” (Adelson). Critics and the media react in a very backwards way by being harder on people with rare medical conditions than they are on dopers.

Another theme often talked about is that women seem to be judged more harshly than men for sexual deviations. There are very few, if any, men in sports who are criticized for having a more feminine appearance or lower levels of testosterone. Additionally, men will usually be criticized for having ultra-high testosterone only if they test positive for PEDs. Yet, when someone like Semenya comes around and dominates her event, people want to ban her for something that she can’t control. Mariya Savinova, the 2012 Olympic 800m champion from Russia, famously said, “just look at her,” after losing to Semenya at the 2009 World Championships (Adelson). This quote demonstrates that critics react harshly to Semenya because they are simply not used to “deviants” like her.

This ties in with another point made by Adelson, that appearance matters more than performance when women are judged in sports. In my mind, there is no doubt that Semenya’s situation would not be highly publicized if not for her “breathtakingly butch” appearance. People react negatively to Semenya because she looks different than the vast majority of women. Looking again at Savinova’s “just look at her” quote, it is obvious that she is skeptical of Semenya’s performance because of her appearance. Similarly, Paula Radcliffe said that Caster should not be able to race against other women, because she appears to be a man. Radcliffe herself is the one whose performances we should question. Radcliffe’s marathon world record is over 2 minutes faster than any other woman has ever run, and 3 of her blood samples were flagged as “suspicious” (Wilkinson). However, because she looks like a woman, she does not attract the scorn that Semenya does. Another example of this is Katie Ledecky, who is currently the best swimmer in the world. Much like Radcliffe, people will celebrate her performances, and the idea that she “swims like a guy” (Adelson), because Ledeckey looks like a woman.

Adelson also debates the common idea that a man will always perform better than a woman in sports. Probably his strongest point comes from a study declaring, “there is no clear scientific evidence proving that a high level of T is a significant determinant of performance in female sport”(Adelson). The abovementioned Genel also states that “There are a number of athletes who have at one time or another been in the spotlight because they have excelled and have had one or another disorder that’s related to sexual development. It’s hard to say that is the only reason why they excelled”(Adelson). Paula Radcliffe, the world record holder in the women’s marathon, said that a gold medal for Caster would mean, “it’s no longer sport and no longer an open race”(Adelson). Radcliffe clearly believes that a person with high T levels would always hold an advantage in women’s sports. The fact that Radcliffe believes this in spite of scientific evidence demonstrates another of the author’s claims: that critics will shelve scientific research because they are scared and have trouble comprehending what is going on around them.

The last point of the article that I will address here is that the media largely determines a person’s sexuality. The first way that this happened with Semenya was in 2010 when she had to undergo a gender test that showed she has internal testes (Sharpstein). After this, most of the public decided to shame Semenya and call her a man. The media should have tried to see Semenya’s human side and understand the pain she is going through. The critics and media again failed to realize that the things they were (and still are) saying about her are incredibly offensive, harmful, and degrading. This is evidenced by a statement from Caster’s uncle in response to the scrutiny she has received. He said, “We are very humiliated by what has been said and do not understand how it can be true. This is a woman who was raised a female. She will always be a female, no matter what people say”(Sharpstein). I think it is important for people to remember that everyone has feelings, and that everyone deserves respect even if he or she is different than most other people. Those who do not want Semenya to compete in women’s races should still try to be understanding and respectful of her feelings.

Now that I have talked about the prejudices and biases that Adelson believes make people criticize Semenya, I will talk about some of the ways that this criticism creates an unfair disadvantage compared to her other competitors. Semenya’s critics fail to see her human side, and this causes them to judge her in inappropriate ways. While she ran away with the 800m gold at this last Olympics, she could have possibly accomplished something much greater- breaking a 33 year old world record. Because she knew that there would be an enormous amount of controversy if she broke the world record, Semenya visibly refrained from running as hard as she could have in the first 650m of the race (over 80% of the race distance). She did the same thing in London in 2012, and that time it also cost her a gold medal- to Mariya Savinova.

The controversy has affected Semenya’s performance in other ways. For a time, Semenya had to take testosterone-repressing medications. When she was on these medications, she was not running near as fast as she is now. However, that could be at least partly because being required to take medications like that is probably incredibly demoralizing and distracting. Athletes of any level simply cannot perform at their best if they are unable to properly focus on the task at hand. Even when Semenya competes, the scandal following her tends to keep her from running at her best.

I can understand why many people do not receive Semenya very well. She is nothing like anything that her critics are used to, so they will naturally question whether she should be allowed to compete. However, regardless of a person’s individual opinion, she should not be receiving such degrading comments. While she may have an advantage over the rest of her female competitors, sports can never be perfectly fair. If people realize that she cannot control her advantage like many of her competitors (drug cheats for example), then I believe that critics will at least think about her situation and try to consider the trouble she is going through.