We posted earlier about the biology behind the controversy over Caster Semenya’s sex. Germán I. R.-E. and Philip Cohen (who has his own post on the topic) asked that we comment on her recent makeover.
Some sociologists argue that gender (as opposed to sex) is really more about performance than it is about our bodies. That is, we do gender and, when we do it in ways that other people recognize, everyone feels satisfied. This is, perhaps, what Caster Semenya’s handlers were hoping for when she submitted to a makeover for South Africa’s YOU Magazine:
Notice that Semenya carries the same body into this photoshoot, but she is properly adorned with make up, feminine clothing, jewelry, a passive pose, and a pleasant and inviting facial expression (because to be feminine is to be accommodating).
Perhaps more importantly, the copy and the interview tells the reader that Semenya likes dressing up and looking pretty, another important indicator of both femininity and non-masculinity. The cover says:
WE TURN SA’S POWER GIRL INTO A GLAMOUR GIRL – AND SHE LOVES IT!
(Notice, too, the implication that power and glamour are opposed.)
This insistence that Semenya feels (or wants to feel) feminine, as well as looks it, is mirrored in the text (as summarized by the Guardian):
It carries an interview with the 18-year-old student. “I’d like to dress up more often and wear dresses but I never get the chance,” she says. “I’d also like to learn to do my own makeup.”
The lifestyle magazine quotes Semenya’s university friends saying that she wants to buy stilettos and have a manicure and pedicure. Semenya adds: “I’ve never bought my own clothes – my mum buys them for me. But now that I know what I can look like, I’d like to dress like this more often.”
You magazine says that, after the photoshoot, Semenya told her manager that she would like to buy all the outfits she had modelled.
So, in the face of the leaked and unconfirmed finding that Semenya has undescended testicles and higher levels of testosterone than the “average” woman (see note at end*), there is an assertion here that what matters (i.e., the measure of sex that we should attend to) is her gender identity (feeling feminine) and her gender performance (doing femininity).
Anna N. at Jezebel points to how the public interest in Semenya’s sex may have pressured her, and those around her, to play this gender game. She writes:
…up until now, Semenya and her family have been unapologetic about the way she looks and dresses. Her father said that she had always preferred pants, but that she was still a woman — and the idea that she has to put on a dress and lipstick to prove her femaleness to people is pretty depressing.
It is also something that almost all women in Western countries do everyday. We perform gender, in part out of habit and in part consciously, all the time. Semenya hasn’t cared about this performance and that is at least in part why the controversy over her sex is taking the form that it is.
* Note: The release of male-related hormones, androgens, isn’t the whole story here. Cells must also have the relevant receptors for the presence of the hormones to matter. Semenya likely is lacking some of those receptors, either in her whole body on in parts of her body, because her body obviously didn’t respond to the hormones (otherwise she would have a penis and scrotum). My point here is dual: (1) the presence of testicles and testosterone doesn’t tell the whole story and (2) even if we knew the whole story, it doesn’t tell us if she is female or male. What if her body doesn’t detect the presence of those androgens? What if it reads the presence of some of them, but not others? What if she is chimera or mosaic? All these are interesting questions biologically, but the answers will not tell us whether she is male or female because sex, like gender, is a social construction.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 132
Jen — September 12, 2009
Am I the only one who thought she was more attractive pre-makeover? I hate this idea that to be female is to wear pretty clothes and make up. I often prefer men's clothing and have to be bullied into make up, but that does not make me less female. Likewise, Semenya sans pretty clothes and make up is still what she's always said she is: female.
genderkid — September 12, 2009
"there is an assertion here that what matters (i.e., the measure of sex that we should attend to) is her gender identity (feeling feminine) and her gender performance (doing femininity)"
That's what they're saying now -- but the media rarely cares about gender identity when it comes to trans people. There has been some improvement lately, but when referring to trans people, it's common to emphasize their "sex" as a measure of who they "truly" are. It's interesting how these criteria are reversed for Semenya.
In any case, it's always about "objectively determining" someone's identity without their consent.
Darrow — September 12, 2009
It seems glib to declare that biology is irrelevant because "sex is a social construction." On some level everything can be considered socially constructed. Volcanoes and earthquakes are socially constructed. Yet if your purpose is to predict their behavior you want a geologist, not a sociologist.
I could be wrong, but it also seems disingenuous to make knowledge claims about biology (thus rhetorically building up your argument) and then close by declaring the field irrelevant.
Anyway, one some level it seems to me that it really does matter where her specific biological make-up is located on the spectrum of sex/gender, if for nobody else the other women who she faces on the field.
Sara — September 12, 2009
I disagree with the assertion that sex is a social construction, but I do think that nature has shown us time and again that sex is not just the polar opposites (male and female) that people constantly emphasize. There is a lot of middle ground, which is where Semenya biologically falls.
R — September 12, 2009
It seems like the issue is imprecision in language more than anything.
'Does X have the properties necessary to be a member of Set A?' is a science question about fact.
"Our field wants to study question Y. Should we break people into sets A and B, or sets A' and B'?" is still a science question, but it's a terminology question.
"When people use the word 'male' are they refering to the members of Set A, or Set A'?" is more of a sociology question.
So, 'sex' is subjective, in that the three-letter-word 'sex' is a term we use to easily reference a concept. Depending on context/objective, it could reference a number of difference concepts.
And 'sex' is not subjective. Once we're clear about its referent, then the question falls into objective science.
Alessandra — September 12, 2009
I think sociologists could be much more useful concerning this scandal if they spent at least some of their time discussing why is society so aquiescent to fraud and doping in sports, instead of this current obsession with gender. Not that the latter is unimportant, but when it gets all the attention, it shows that sociologists are myopic at best in their choice of issues that merit attention. Given the drug-infested state professional sports are in, this is sad and irresponsible.
Generally speaking, the limits for most racing and jumping sports have been attained as far as training and competing clean are concerned. From now on, it’s the pills and the injections (or other such cute tricks, such as slick little swimsuits, as the recent controversy in swimming has shown us, may the most high-tech speedo win). But for competing solely as grand nature has made us, we’ve pretty much hit the limit. One exception that is clean, though, is the fact that humans are becoming much taller quite fast and some sports depend on height for achievement.
However, this performance limit barrier obviously entails basically no more record breaking and it makes the obsessive target of breaking multiple records every year a very different endeavor than it was decades ago, when there was still much room for clean improvement.
The current insane objective to always break a record is driven enormously by the sports ring masters. It is also enhanced by the media industry’s design of sports programming targetted for a not very wise public. There is an equally obsessive lust for medals, resulting from various contaminated, but complementary agendas. One is to reinforce political ideological superiority and nationalistic jingoism. Another is to exploit all aspects of attaining media celebrity, because this paves the way to more glory, more privileges, and, of course, ties into the third very important goal: heaps of money. All of this is inimical to ethical principles and attitudes.
Athletes are often intensely glorified if they win gold, in contrast to being sternly demeaned if they win second (as if there was an enormous difference). If they lose beyond third, they are often humiliated and punished by the nastiest reactions, as if they were a total failure, even when they show an excellent performance overall. You can be the fourth fastest runner out of all the billions of other little humans on the planet, but you didn’t bring home a medal, and certainly not a gold one, so I’m sorry, you’re worthless and you’re a disappointment to the nation. It is so insane.
Even though most people don’t like the fact that sports have become inundated by doping, nobody boycotts anything because of it. The money in sports only gets bigger, the politicians are always on the lookout to exploit their next little hero/shmero, and the drugs just keep getting stealthier. And, of course, the public must have their circus. All sports have come a long way about doping controls, but the problem is certainly very, very far from being solved; too far, in my opinion.
I have thought for some time that it was time to divide sports competitions between clean and drugged. It is not a matter of ideals, but of pragmatism. Since we cannot stop the doping because of all the factors briefly outlined above, not excluding yet others, let us bring it out into the open. I only saw one commentary on the Internet along these lines, related to the current African hermaphrodite train wreck. the basic idea is that everything concerning drugs in sports would be allowed. The only rule is that each athlete would need to inform the list of drugs they had been taking. Therefore we would have that Athlete A had beat the world record by 10 seconds while taking X, then Athlete B by taking Y, etc etc. And then we would have the “lame” ones, who would never beat a world record again, but who would race clean. At the end of the games, we would have the clean records, the drug X records, the drug Y records, etc.
Of course, it would only a matter of time before we discovered that Athlete A beat the drug Y record while really taking drug Z, but I would still prefer this more transparent sports scheme to what we have now.
Matt K — September 12, 2009
Alessandra, what sociologists comment on chiefly depends on what they know. I would wager that there are many more sociologists with at least a casual interest in or knowledge of gender studies than there are involved in sports studies.
heather leila — September 12, 2009
I've been thinking about this story a lot lately. I'm not sure how this young woman's medical tests were made public to the world- doesn't medical confidentiality apply to her? Why is it the world's business to discover along with her? This is news to her and her family and could likely change her life.
One thing it will probably change is her career. Where is the place for her? She's an excellent athlete, but where can she compete now? I'd be interested to know if her times and records could ever qualify her to compete against men. If not, what a purgatory she's in: too fast to compete against women, not fast enough to compete against men...there are only races for men or women, not races for people.
It matters how she identifies herself. But she also identifies herself as an athlete, and what position is she in now?
Alessandra — September 12, 2009
As for Semenya and other related gender questions, one thing I found really frightening, on reading comments on the Internet, is that a significant number of people are incapable at acknowledging a multiple set of visible male secondary sex characteristics in an individual such as Semenya, and insist, if said individual is labeled a "girl," that s/he must be so.
Another interesting development in this scandal is the widespread supposition that Semenya is completely blind to her own male secondary sex characteristics, and that consequently she must be a) completely unaware of any intersex condition, and b) a naive little innocent girl.
Related to the above, it was interesting to see when commentators and politicians purposefully used the term "little girl" or "kid" to refer to Caster and when they switched to a vocabulary deeming her an adult, such as "our lady of sports" (which obviously is not just an inane child or doll manipulated at will by all around "her," but an individual who carries much more responsibility in their actions). "Our lady," btw, is a weird construction to have been chosen, and it certainly carries none other than religious associations with it.
And although I believe Caster would have never worn any such YOU make-up or clothes by choice, it was interesting to see how many women in the developed world hated to see that she stopped rejecting everything feminine, to appear on a magazine cover (-up) as a purported young lady.
Not exactly the type of comment to add in a sociology blog, but how gross does Caster look in drag.
kate — September 12, 2009
I think you mean that sex is a false binary, not a social construct.
Luey — September 12, 2009
Another important asterisk to add is that men have on average 40-60 TIMES the amount of testosterone compared to the average woman. If Semenya has a measly 4 times the amount of testosterone as does the average woman, she is still no where near the average male level. Additionally, male and female ranges of testosterone are very wide - in fact, they overlap. Yes, even in individuals with completely "normal" genitalia. People are making a huge deal about "normal" testosterone levels when they are in fact completely uneducated about it.
philip cohen — September 12, 2009
Interesting conversation. I agree sociologists should pay more attention to the sports angle. Semenya is nowhere near fast enough to compete with the fastest men. In my post linked above I argued for univeral sex testing with clear rules that recognize the sex continuum and draw the line way over toward the "male" side, permitting her to remain with the other women. Otherwise the rare athlete like her would not be able to compete, and that is a greater loss than the potential unfairness to the women she competes against (at least as long as the situation is a rare one and intersex folks remain a stigmatized group).
Matt K — September 13, 2009
Alessandra, I'm just a little confused by your comments. It is obvious that you are interested in the drugs and fairness angle of this story. However, could you answer a question for me? Earlier, you made a comment about self-labeling and falsehoods. It seemed there that you were connecting lying about one's honest dealings (ala Madoff) and one's gender identity. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant by that. You actually used the term "deranged individual", and I was wondering if you think this term applies to those who might be identified by society as biologically of one sex while self-identifying as the non-corresponding gender.
Alessandra — September 13, 2009
Matt, although the issue you raise requires a whole article for an answer, in short, I hope this will suffice. There is no aspect of external life events or internal human psychology that cannot have a deranged interpretation by some human being. This includes any topic our minds can address through thought processes, including our own perception of ourselves. How many people do you know that have never been mistaken about any aspect of themselves? I have never met such an individual. How many people do you know who are fully aware of every single aspect of their psychology including unconscious ones? I have never met such an individual. People can be wrong about each and every thing concerning themselves and the world around them. In fact, they often are a mixture of some awareness and some lack of awareness, some correct understandings and some mistaken ideas. Sometimes the mistaken ideas are grave, they are enormous, they are a result of compounded psychological problems, sometimes not. Anything related to our ideas about gender is no exception. Just because someone thinks they are something, it doesn't make it true. You can find examples of people who are deranged, and not merely "deranged" (in quotes), but truly deranged about any aspect of themselves, including gender. Why should gender be the only topic of human experience where humans would not have a single problem of understanding and awareness when they have these very same problems concerning everything else? It's a ridiculous proposition.
Did you read the recent article from Germaine Greer related to this? I thought some of it was excellent (although I am speaking from memory). One part in particular also offers her view related to your question.
There is a difference if an individual says, "I don't like being myself, and I would rather be Napoleon," and if they say, "I am Napoleon." And if in their own minds, they *are* Napoleon, does it alter their reality? No, because a label (or a mental construct) and reality are two different things. Equally grave, and quite sad, is the fact that we live in a culture which encourages people who firmly believe they are Napoleon not to investigate what it is that has led them to think that way, but to go sit atop a white horse all day long in order to embrace their "real" Napoleonic selves, reincarnated, no doubt, in the wrong "non-Napoleonic" body.
I imagine you have a different perspective? What is your view?
Dan — September 13, 2009
There is something I don't understand here. Ok, gender is a social construction. But sex? I believe that there can be a lot of middle ground, but I do not believe that sex is socially constructed.
I mean, if sex is socially constructed, shouldn't we abolish the distinction between men and women's competition and start an unisex competition?
Should an average, full equiped man be allowed to compete in the women's sports if he considers himself a woman? even when his biological sex gives him an unfair advantage?
Matt K — September 14, 2009
"Another case is: your body is male, you are always biologically male, you continue to grow into a male adult, as all other males, and then, at some point, you decide you are a woman in a man’s body."
Yep, because such people just "decide" one day that they are in the wrong body. They don't go through life feeling like that all the time, and don't suffer because of it. No, sir -- it's an impulse decision. You know what? Fuck this noise.
If someone else wants to give you a Trans 101, that's fine by me, but I'm not going to bother. Please go on challenging people's definitions of their gender -- just be aware that it makes you sound foolish and insensitive, and is, as per one poster's comments, incredibly offensive.
Craig — September 14, 2009
Without stepping into any of the far-ranging arguments in this comment thread, I think it should be said that _none_ of the results of the testing have been made public officially, and we are getting about six steps ahead of the music by indulging in speculation and trafficking in rumors.
Even if the "leaked" information is perfectly accurate, I haven't heard anything remotely conclusive. Ambiguous genitalia happen all the time and shouldn't be anything to get all spun up about. And if Caster has three times the testosterone levels of a "normal" woman, that would give her something like 1/15th or 1/20th the testosterone levels of a "normal" man. But I guess "Semenya has five percent as much testosterone as a man!" isn't much of a headline.
I think we'd do best to cool out for a few days or weeks and see what the real story is.
The nail that sticks up gets hammered down « Schooling Inequality — September 14, 2009
[...] shot of Caster Semenya yesterday and began crying, no I’d say nearly sobbing. Over at Sociological Images there is some thoughtful writing about this magazine cover around the idea of gender as performance [...]
Matt K — September 14, 2009
"You made a parallel to sexual orientation. Let’s continue the parallel but not regarding homosexuality. I want to know why a pedophile has a pedophile sexual orientation. I ask. And then I hear that this is a taboo subject, which no one should question in others (given that I am not a pedophile), because the minute I ask, some pedophile out there hurts, and that this must obligatorily mean that I have a hidden agenda to devalue the humanity of pedophiles, and that I must be bigoted and phobic."
What the fuck? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and have just somehow veered from transphobia to discussing pedophiles as having a "pedophile sexual orientation"? Look, I'm beginning to wonder if you've studied this stuff, ever, since I don't think many people who have would compare pedophilia (which is about power and control) to anyone's sexual orientation.
Look, you're not some big rebel here by questioning everyone's representation of themselves. I think you're lucky that you've been allowed to comment this long -- if this discussion were taking place on any of a number of other blogs, you would have been banned a while ago. You aren't a martyr and you're not some objective scientist trying to get to the truth while being smothered by damned "trans censorship". You're being an ass. Piss off.
Brandon — September 14, 2009
Alessandra:
Yeah, seriously... congratulations on linking sexual orientation to pedophilia. Get out from behind your cowardly "academic" front. Your arguments are becoming more and more like the garden variety comments I see everywhere else, just with correct spelling and a better vocabulary.
Does anyone seriously have to explain how pedophilia and GLBTQ issues are different?
You said "What you are suggesting is that I should stop thinking because someone else doesn’t like it."
No, no, no. Keep thinking. Go right ahead. What you don't seem to understand is that those of us who others are so eager to label as "PC" have no interest in controlling people's thoughts. Even if you wanted you, you couldn't.
All I'm saying is that your actions and words matter.
But keep thinking.
And I much appreciate the lecture on how my ideas are essentially bringing forth the Dark Ages, Part II.
P — September 14, 2009
Alessandra, your argument seems purely semantic. You conflate questioning an idea - alluding to some sort of intelligent inquiry - with questioning a person - alluding to doubt, mistrust, and ill-treatment.
Matt, you are always free to restrain your posting to those "any of a number of other blogs" which are run exactly as you prefer.
Dan — September 14, 2009
I was thinking that if Lu is right and trans-people have male or female brains in bodies that do not match, then sex (and to some degree, gender) is not purely a social and ideological construction. Am I wrong?
Andrew — September 14, 2009
My layman's-opinion is that sex, gender, sexuality, orientation, and even race exist at the intersection between nature and nurture, and are all social constructs with complex, largely unquantified biological components. Where do we get the idea that it has to be one or the other?
Although it diverts from the point, I think race is a useful comparison. We all know (I hope) that race is a social construct with no biological or genetic validity, and that the once-accepted notion of three distinct races has been thoroughly debunked by science. However, no one here will argue that Semenya is not "black." Her blackness, as we know it, is the product of perception and history, and we can imagine how it might have shaped her life experiences growing up in post-Apartheid SA. And plenty of objective biological circumstances have created the facial features and skin tone that we identify as black. The fact that race is a purely social, imaginary, and hugely oppressive construct doesn't change the validity of those points.
To say that she is a woman is not unlike saying that she's black. We could learn something that challenges our assumptions about this construct we call race - maybe, for example, that she was born to two white parents, or that she's actually Napoleon - but still, the fault lies with the paradigm, not with the person who must live in one of its blind spots.
Alessandra — September 14, 2009
You know another thing that is interesting about certain dynamics here, it's the fact that for some people here notions of respect and politeness are equated to having other people repeat exactly what they say. Therefore, any questioning is equated to disrespect or rudeness, exactly the same as it was done in religious institutions.
Alessandra — September 15, 2009
"it’s the fact that for some people here notions of respect and politeness are equated to having other people repeat exactly what they say. Therefore, any questioning is equated to disrespect or rudeness, exactly the same as it was done in religious institutions."
Oh, and I forgot the darling adjective so beloved by ignorant people with no arguments and nothing interesting to add: "hateful." Questioning is to be suppressed by deeming all challenging ideas or thoughts as "hateful." It is completely irrelevant that such ideas or thoughts are not hateful, but since they point to or pose ideological problems, they must be censored at all means. Exactly the same as it was done in religious institutions for centuries.
Matt K — September 15, 2009
This is a joke. You're honestly comparing LGBT advocates to oppressive religious instititions, eh?
Fuck, there's a lot of trolls in here lately. They're a little more eloquent than the usual, but still.
"In general, any person (or group) can look up and see someone who is somehow better off than they are, but also look down and see someone who is worse off than they are."
Welcome to intersectionality, put crudely. But you're not really right about one thing: I'm not really oppressed, for the most part. At least, I'm measurably less oppressed than people of colour, women, sexual minorities, and other such groups. So no, the "we're all oppressed, so don't bother trying!" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
El maquillaje de Semenya: el género como performance « el bosque de las cenizas — September 15, 2009
[...] Enlace al texto original [...]
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
Will we have to wait until November? Suspense…
For those interested in the possible fraud aspects of this case, click on name for full article:
A series of “smoking gun” emails are believed to be behind athletics boss Leonard Chuene’s bid to distance himself from the doctor who allegedly oversaw sex testing on athlete Caster Semenya.
The emails contain formal communication between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and South Africa’s team doctor, Harold Adams, dating from early in August.
And they could prove devastating to Athletics South Africa head Chuene’s claims that they were in the dark about the IAAF sex tests, which he said she was duped into undergoing in Berlin.
Adams, who advised ASA that Semenya should not take to the track in Berlin, has yet to break his silence on his role in the debacle – which could be damaging to his career and status as one of President Jacob Zuma’s doctors.
“I simply refused to withdraw her based on rumours. We were not given anything in black and white. The IAAF constitution also did not make provision for that. At that stage we did not even know about the alleged gender tests we read about in the media that were conducted on Mokgadi (Caster).”
Earlier, he said Adams had told him the medical commission of the IAAF had advised them to withdraw Semenya solely on the basis that they had conducted sex tests on her.
Semenya’s former coach, Wilfred Daniels, maintains ASA general manager Molatelo Malehopo authorised sex testing before Semenya went to Berlin. He also claims ASA deputy president Kakata Maponyane accompanied Semenya when she was tested in Berlin in August.
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
“Mr Chuene will be embarrassed when the results are released”
In an email sent to IAAF general secretary Pierre Weiss, ASA manager Molatelo Malehopo said the ASA had been inundated with media inquiries alleging that Davies had made a statement that Caster’s results were out and that the local association was impeding the IAAF’s efforts to contact the athlete.
“Mr Chuene will be embarrassed when the results are released and this will leave him with no option but to resign. We need the clarity urgently on these utterances so that we can respond appropriately to the media,” Malehopo’s email read.
Confirming that the IAAF had received Semenya’s test results, Davis told the M&G the IAAF needed to speak to Semenya privately once the results had been verified by its experts. “We hope to have her full cooperation in order to conclude this matter to the satisfaction of the IAAF, and with all respect to her personal rights,” he said.
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
And the best of the week:
Appropriately named ASAs look like they are in trouble !
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
The other thing I was thinking about is that probably the next statement we
will hear from Semenya is, “I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that girls
normally have breasts, no beard, and menstruate. Although I am very good at
running around in circles, you may not be aware that I am, in fact, legally
blind.”
Cynicism aside, this whole ambiguous (or contrary to what was previously
claimed) female sex definition for Semenya poses the following conundrum.
Let us suppose, just theoretically, that she was aware of her intersex
condition, but maybe unaware of the full details. She is told she can get by in the sports women’s category and win lots of money. So she does it. At the
same time, she does all of this while rejecting anything and everything that is female gender-wise. (Watch any previous interview with her for proof).
As an amusing twist of events, let’s just consider the possibility that Semenya really does not fall into the acceptable biological category for women as far as the IAAF goes. Because of it, she is told that she can no longer compete as a woman. However, she is also told there are no issues for her competing as a man. So, as of next week, Semenya, all of a sudden, begins to check the “male” checkbox and tells the world “she” is a “he.” For the first time in “her” life then, “her” male gender will actually match “her” more male than female sex.
At the same, there were a lot of people around the globe adamant to shove
Semenya into a woman identity, gender, and biology because of various
ideological agendas. To pay respect to the whims of such people, would
South African politicians then welcome her at the airport with signs saying
“Our Ex-First Lady of Sports?” Our “20 percent female woman” has
landed? How about our “former queen of the track, now mediocre third-rate duke”?
I am curious to see the outcome of all of this. If it turns out she is biologically more male than female, will she continue to claim she is a girl, maintain her male gender, but check the male sex checkbox? Or will “she” then say he was a boy mistakenly raised as a girl?
This would be a difficult enough situation for any young person, it has just
been made more difficult in this case by so many groups having chosen
Semenya as their political ping-pong ball.
(incidentally, I had previously quoted from memory that the signs at the airport to welcome Caster said "Our Lady of Sports," and remarked on how religious that phrasing was. However, the sign's writing was actually "Our First Lady of Sports," hence going in a very different direction in terms of association, much more political and presidential, and also hierarchical, competition-wise, and not religious.)
Village Idiot — September 16, 2009
Alessandra:
You said:You are confounding culture with reality.
Well, I think you mean "conflating." And I'm not doing that because they aren't two separate things and therefore cannot be conflated.
And you also said: So these people would live forever in a time-less state which is not humanly possible. However, we know that this is very silly description of their reality, because independently of whether they construct a label, concepts, and definitions of time in their minds (collectively or individually), time will exist independently of their mental processes and they will all be born, live, and die like everyone else who have been able to perceive this something we call "time."
Nobody can prove that "Time" exists as some independent force that exists on its own, such as gravity or electromagnetism. Where we see "time" there is only motion, and all aspects of time can be equally well described with terms alluding to motion. If you lack any way to conceptualize the past or the future, time may not exist for you even though you do indeed live, get old, and die. Each day happens in the present, and the sum-total of a life is the sum-total of vast numbers of biochemical reactions; lots of motion, in other words.
Also, recall that I said a lot of the problems with discussing these things stem from the fundamental flaws of language and the limits of a logic confined within a language.
The following sentence is false.
The previous sentence is true.
That's a logical loop; a paradox but one that only exists within the arbitrary confines of language. Likewise, consider the paradox of motion being semantically impossible: To get from Here to There, you must first go halfway from here to there. But to get halfway, you have to go halfway to the halfway. To get halfway to the halfway point, you need to first get halfway to that point. And so on, until you realize motion is impossible because we'll never even get halfway anywhere because we have to get halfway there first! Yet, in "the real world" we go places.
In another comment, you said: So, yes, I mistakenly thought here was a place with a space for asking and discussing a lot of questions, and I overestimated (by far) the crowd.
But earlier in the same comment you said: It is my first time here, and I bumped into this blog through a search for commentary on the Semenya saga.
So do you troll for fun, or is there a purpose to your engagement in this discussion?
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
funny, switched words - the correction:
confound: To fail to distinguish; mix up: as in ,”confound fiction and fact.”
Matt K — September 16, 2009
Wow, you sure got hir with that awesome nitpicking!
I think VI has pretty much hit the nail on the head now. Are you done playing the "disinterested" observer yet?
Matt K — September 16, 2009
One more thing. You mentioned the following: "At the
same time, she does all of this while rejecting anything and everything that is female gender-wise."
Anyone can reject any number of cultural associations with a particular gender and still lay claim to that gender. I can't believe I have to say this, since even middle school students tend to get this when I've explained it to them in the past, but there it is. Would you tell a "butch" woman or an effeminate man that they aren't "really" who they say they are, since they don't conform to society's checklist of what it means to be a man or a woman?
Here's the deal. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to know what you're talking about. Barging into a discussion about gender and sex with all these ideas about how people don't really know who they are is not only a slap in the face to a lot of people's basic identity, but shows that you're not willing to engage with the existing literature.
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
VI:
"Nobody can prove that “Time” exists as some independent force that exists on its own, such as gravity or electromagnetism. Where we see “time” there is only motion, and all aspects of time can be equally well described with terms alluding to motion. If you lack any way to conceptualize the past or the future, time may not exist for you even though you do indeed live, get old, and die. Each day happens in the present, and the sum-total of a life is the sum-total of vast numbers of biochemical reactions; lots of motion, in other words."
Define motion.
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
VI:
And then you said:
Of all the people here, it’s curious that you have chosen to say the above exactly to me, the one who was reminding everyone else of the phenomenon, and who obviously has not forgotten it or I wouldn’t be raising the issue in the first place.
I said that because during your reminding of everyone else, you forgot it still applies to yourself and I say that based upon the disingenuous idea that you’re just here engaging in simple, straightforward inquiry free of any agenda. No, your agenda is slowly coming into focus as you continue to post; the things you address, the things you ignore, your devolving tone (getting as snarky as those you accuse of the same), and the talking points you keep religiously returning to. It’s subtle, but not quite subtle enough.
===========
And what is my agenda exactly?
I would love to see that your answer isn't the product of a tiny, poisoned mind. Please show me.
And to speak of accusations of getting snarky-- from someone like you? You are the Village Idiot, indeed.
Alessandra — September 16, 2009
VI:
Nobody can prove that “Time” exists as some independent force that exists on its own, such as gravity or electromagnetism. Where we see “time” there is only motion, and all aspects of time can be equally well described with terms alluding to motion. If you lack any way to conceptualize the past or the future, time may not exist for you even though you do indeed live, get old, and die. Each day happens in the present, and the sum-total of a life is the sum-total of vast numbers of biochemical reactions; lots of motion, in other words.
You just substituted one label/concept for another and then said that the phenomenon of time continues to exist even if there was no label "time" for it, because now it's the label "motion."
" If you lack any way to conceptualize the past or the future, time may not exist **for you** even though you do indeed live, get old, and die. "
Thank you for repeating what I previously wrote. If you have no way to label time and you still live out the passage of time, time exists independently of your lack of a label.
A baby has no label for gravity, yet gravity exists for all babies whether they have a label for it or not.
If you only have the concept of "cotton" in your mind, and you apply that concept to every object around you, you will find that your proposal that external reality is dependent of your mental labels is not that clever.
For example, if I take a baseball bat and smash your face, even though you think the bat and your face can only be made of cotton (since that's the only labels you have in your mind), you will have a rude awakening as to how ludicrous your theory that reality does not exist is.
Village Idiot — September 16, 2009
Oh Alessandra, how you do carry on.
You must have thought you had *prooved* that there is a false dichotomy simply by saying so.
No, I did it by laying out a line of reasoning. You refuted it by saying "Yes there is!" so you're projecting.
I was not counter-arguing, because there was no argument to counter in the first place.
Funny, when I wrote my reply I was thinking the same thing.
Define motion.
Yes, ma'am! You know how I love it when you get all forceful. Here ya go: Motion is the transfer of energy or mass from one point in space or quantum state to another.
Everything doesn't happen all at once because all things do not exist in one place; there are always distances to cover, and some manifestations of motion occur with precise cyclical regularity so we use them as benchmarks to define "time." So, one second "is" either 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10 8 m) through a vacuum, 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, or some other arbitrarily-define range of motion. See a pattern? We have instruments that detect discrete forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, and particles emitted by interactions among the strong and weak nuclear forces but nobody has built a Time Detector. "Time" in a mathematical sense is a term of convenience denoting intervals between interactions, and the intervals are defined by benchmarks that are themselves just other intervals, such as cesium-133 transitions. It's easier to say "It took me two seconds to get there" than to say "1.8X10^10 oscillations of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom at mean sea level occurred during my transition from point A to point B."
Also consider that the closer your velocity gets to the speed of light, the slower a clock will run. That's a function of relativistic effects on the MOTION of the atoms that make up the clock, and whether it's a hyper-precise atomic clock or a digital oven timer doesn't matter; the effect is the same and easily demonstrated. Technically speaking, that means you can't really tell how "old" something is unless you know how fast it's moving. That's not really relevant to us since we're all moving about the same speed, but accelerate one of two identical twins up to near the speed of light and they are no longer the same age by any metric we can devise. This is not some kind of metaphor; it's physically reproducible and pretty damned weird.
And what is my agenda exactly?
I would love to see that your answer isn’t the product of a tiny, poisoned mind. Please show me.
Exactly? Well, I don't know exactly. I just said it's becoming clearer.
You're like a carnival barker trying to usher those who don't listen too close into your tent to sell them snake-oil and are trying to ignore the hecklers that stand there trying to point out that you're selling everyone a great big Nothing. And we're doing a good job I might add, though I wouldn't expect you to agree.
Anyway, what you're trying to sell us is a world that's black and white, this or that, right or wrong. You're selling a belief in certainty, and that takes more faith than most beliefs because there are so many indicators around for all to see that certainty simply doesn't exist. One might even argue that such a belief requires willfully-blind faith. You write as someone schooled in the basics of rhetoric, but are neglecting basic, well-recognized facts about cognition, physiology, and psychology and instead are trying to make sex/gender ambiguity non-existent with semantics and rhetorical technique, but since all systems of logic are closed systems it's a simple matter of adopting a different set of givens and voila', the conflict is insoluble. Whether your set of givens dictates social mores or someone else's does depends on whether or not you can make them stick (that is, power). Truth (or rather, "a high degree of probability that a supposition allows accurate predictions") is not particularly relevant. That's why there are "Intelligent Design" stickers in some high school biology textbooks, for example, yet it's easily demonstrated that "Creation Science" is a giant load of horseshit.
For example, if I take a baseball bat and smash your face, even though you think the bat and your face can only be made of cotton (since that’s the only labels you have in your mind), you will have a rude awakening as to how ludicrous your theory that reality does not exist is.
Hmm, interesting how your illustrations are becoming increasingly violent. Is that a symptom of frustration? I mean, you can pretend I didn't spell out my positions but I would happily wager ten thousand dollars that a clear majority of an independently-selected panel of university professors would conclude (if they read this thread) that you have been soundly schooled on the primary points of contention here. You'd get a pass on a few of the nit-picky things, but that hardly changes anything.
You're obviously well-aware of the fact that rhetorical technique can be used to 'refute' or 'prove' just about anything one desires but seem oblivious to the fact that we know this too.
Oh, and your baseball bat to the face argument is totally bogus because for one thing, you obviously underestimate the power of the mind. That is, perfect faith in the bat being cotton would indeed change the interpretation and therefore nature of the experience of being hit in the face with it (really, you should've used "straw" instead of "cotton," heheheh). Also, what would you call cotton if you started calling bats "cotton?" Bats and bolls of cotton are not likely to be confused for each other, and not even a schizophrenic who is totally delusional (whose model is not in accord with the consensus-model) perceives a homogeneous world (one in which every object is "cotton," for example).
You may not believe any of that, but your inability to wrap your head around concepts that form the basis of things like modern physics or the fascinating phenomenon known as the 'placebo effect' is not our problem. You think you know what the word "pain" means, but if pain and interpretations of it are universal (as you imply) then how did those Buddhist monks manage to set themselves on fire and then just calmly sit there as a protest of the Vietnam War (you know, like that guy on that old Rage Against the Machine album cover)? Some of what I say sounds crazy to you, but that's because the scope of your experience is rather limited (as evidenced by of some of your questions), and I am incapable of imparting the scope of experience that would help you to unclench your mind from the frustrating search for definitive distinctions in such a context as this.
Another reason why your analogy is flawed is because you'd never get near me with a baseball bat; a follow-up question I could ask might be: "If I lodged the bat firmly inside your rectum, would it seem bigger than it appeared while you were holding it in your hands? If so, did the bat "really" get bigger? Did you shrink? Or does perception play a major role in our formation of reality?" Talk about an "awakening," heheheheh....
Alessandra — September 17, 2009
"Barging into a discussion about gender and sex with all these ideas about how people don’t really know who they are is not only a slap in the face to a lot of people’s basic identity, but shows that you’re not willing to engage with the existing literature."
And above is another very nice little parallel to the dynamics of religious institutions (although just another repetition).
First we have the construction of a clique (consisting of an ideological echo chamber), where only some people are allowed to participate in. Those not belonging to the clique do not have proper authorization to speak. Thus, an outside-clique person is labeled as "barging" into a discussion and not participating in one, because that discussion was off-limits to the non-clique person in the first place.
Then we have (as noted before) the reinforcement of the idea that questioning equals lack of respect ("a slap in the face"), therefore it must be censored and repudiated on moral grounds. This reasoning provides a nice cover-up for enforcing censorship of questions and theories that pose ideological problems to the dominant ideology/religion of the clique. And just as importantly, this also provides the moral argument that no amount of violence done to those doing the questioning is undue or immoral, since the ideological "violator" was the one deemed to be behaving immorally in the first place. One of the grandest examples of this in history, is/was the Catholic Church, which perfected this paradigm throughout centuries.
And then there is the reference to the "literature." Since ideological dogmas in the social sciences are written in the "literature," called "canon" in religious contexts, "*engaging* with the literature" here means the same thing as seeing reality according to the ecclesiastical body of laws and precepts of a particular religion. It is not a mere coincidence why the word *canon* is also used in the social sciences to refer to its literature, or different subsets thereof.
Alessandra — September 17, 2009
Alessandra: "Define motion."
VI:
Yes, ma’am! You know how I love it when you get all forceful. Here ya go: Motion is the transfer of energy or mass from one point in space or quantum state to another.
Everything doesn’t happen all at once because all things do not exist in one place; there are always distances to cover, and some manifestations of motion occur with precise cyclical regularity so we use them as benchmarks to define “time.”
============
Your argument that above is the proof that labels are indistinguishable from reality is nonsense because you fail to explain why a baby moves or why they are made of atoms or why they obey the laws of gravity. A baby is someone who does not have the labels of atoms or energy or gravity in their minds, nor the related concepts, yet they move, they change, and they have atoms. And babies move and change in time.
Secondly, your defining of time as only a by-product of a change of an object in space is flawed because you could not put a sentence "together" if there was no time. This because you can't have multiple words existing at the same time and still make sense. The very process of using language in a logical way requires time. The concept of time which is nothing but a by-product of the definition of motion, that is an object moving in space, is incomplete and/or inedequate to explain other phenomena.
Thirdly, you wouldn't be able to provide a reference to that "people" you metioned who do not have any concepts of time, would you?
Matt K — September 17, 2009
Hey, I think I'll go have a conversation with my buddies in aeronautics about what they don't know in their field. What's that, you say? I don't know any aeronautical theory? Well, fuck that. They're just trying to keep me out of their super sekrit aeronautical clique! Just because I'm not willing to learn basic physics theory before I argue with them doesn't mean I shouldn't be taken seriously! They are trying to start some kind of aeronautics religion where only those who know how to make something fly are allowed to design an airplane! I, on the other hand, am a brave questioner of established theory. I will show them that I do not buy into their dogma and will design whatever kind of plane I wish, regardless of their "literature"! Fuck them!
(So yeah, your analogy is bullshit.)
Alessandra — September 17, 2009
VI:
"Anyway, what you’re trying to sell us is a world that’s black and white, this or that, right or wrong. You’re selling a belief in certainty, and that takes more faith than most beliefs because there are so many indicators around for all to see that certainty simply doesn’t exist. One might even argue that such a belief requires willfully-blind faith."
You've forgotten who said what here again!
I posed the question why it is that some people claim to know everything about themselves and to be always right. That is not a mere "belief in certainty," which you are correct to be critical of, but an ignorant, arrogant stupid claim to dogma being knowledge.
Anyone who claims they know it all about themselves and are always right about everything they think about themselves is only presenting the world with the certificate of their own idiocy. In your opinion, why are some human beings so extremely stupid as to believe they must be always right about everything concerning themselves? What's your explanation?
If there is anything that I am presenting here is the idea that it's a healthy exercise to question anyone who claims to be always right about themselves, because that is humanly impossible. It's not even a question of "willfully blind faith," it's absolute stupidity. However, this willfullness to blind faith, which is present in a lot of people, can certainly be honed to absolute stupidity if they hear again and again that everything they think must be right, without a question. Since you have a problem "forgetting" who says what on this thread, you should refresh your memory by rereading the comments here and being clear on who is making that claim.
And yes, that is the perfect description of a "Dark Age," an age where questioning has been outlawed because it makes people thinking and saying idiotic things look as stupid as they are.
You are presenting me with a world where some people will dictate to others what to question and what not to question, what to believe and what not to believe, where there is no difference between dogma and knowledge, and where violence is done to those who dare to question things, in the guise of some moral exercise. In case you haven't noticed, you don't have the power to make everyone go along with your profoundly shoddy paradigm.
Alessandra — September 17, 2009
Alessandra:
For example, if I take a baseball bat and smash your face, even though you think the bat and your face can only be made of cotton (since that’s the only labels you have in your mind), you will have a rude awakening as to how ludicrous your theory that reality does not exist is.
VI:
Hmm, interesting how your illustrations are becoming increasingly violent. Is that a symptom of frustration?
Another reason why your analogy is flawed is because you’d never get near me with a baseball bat; a follow-up question I could ask might be: “If I lodged the bat firmly inside your rectum, would it seem bigger than it appeared while you were holding it in your hands? If so, did the bat “really” get bigger? Did you shrink? Or does perception play a major role in our formation of reality?” Talk about an “awakening,” heheheheh….
============
According to your claims, my example was not violent at all. It was a lovely display of the "soundness" of your theory that concrete reality is a by-product of mental labels and concepts.
According to your theory, if a person has only the concept of cotton (as in cotton balls) in their minds, and that is applied to everything, a baseball bat hitting their face produces no violence. Where is the violence? It is only if you admit that concrete reality exists independently of labels and concepts that there is violence. If you are saying there is violence, you have just contradicted your silly claims that labels and concrete reality are one and the same.
"Oh, and your baseball bat to the face argument is totally bogus because for one thing, you obviously underestimate the power of the mind. That is, perfect faith in the bat being cotton would indeed change the interpretation and therefore nature of the experience of being hit in the face with it (really, you should’ve used “straw” instead of “cotton,” heheheh)."
Perfect faith, huh? Interesting, first it was labels, then concepts, now it's faith. (Speaking of analogies to religious institutions! You sound just like so many popes: "It's all about having faith. Amen.") And I noticed it's not just any faith, but it has to be *perfect*. Like a deluxe faith, perhaps? How does one acquire this very interesting "perfect deluxe faith?" Is it by praying three times a day? Let's say, if you pray one time a day, will your mind think only a little bit of the bat is made of cotton? If you pray twice a day, maybe an eyebrow is also made of cotton?
But back to our non-violent (according to your grand philosphy) baseball bat experiment. I really don't understand why you would object to trying it out. You first said labels were indistinguishable from reality. So you apply the cotton label to everything and there are no problems. Why don't we try that? Empirical evidence is very important in a scientific framework.
But now you've changed your argument, it's no longer labels, but faith, and not really any faith, but this thing called perfect faith. So, according to you, it's all a question of belief and power of the mind. Do you have a weak and stupid mind, by any chance? Why couldn't you use your mind power to believe everything is made of cotton? If the result of the experiment (violence or non-violence) depends only on faith, wouldn't it be quite stupid to continue not to have faith in face of a baseball bat being swung at your face? (Incidentally, that is the same argument the Catholic Church has made again and again: there are no problems in the world, only a lack of faith).
VI:
a follow-up question I could ask might be: “If I lodged the bat firmly inside your rectum, would it seem bigger than it appeared while you were holding it in your hands? If so, did the bat “really” get bigger? Did you shrink? Or does perception play a major role in our formation of reality?” Talk about an “awakening,” heheheheh….
An analogy to rectal rape! I'm sure that's on your mind all the time, isn't it? Did you try your little rectal rape experiment on children to see if you were right about your change of perception? I'm sure you must have, many times. Or do you prefer to lodge baseball bats in adolescent boyscouts' anuses? It's only an experiment of perception afterall, isn't it?
Darrow — September 17, 2009
this whole comment forum is unintentionally hilarious and deserving of some kind of sociological analysis of its own.
Alessandra — September 17, 2009
For those who are still interested in media commentary and representation of the Semenya saga, I thought this oped was quite nice (and a brilliant cartoon concept, undoubtedly):
"Zapiro’s spot on"
Today the M&G posted another excellent and “it says it all” cartoon by that master of public comment, Zapiro. In the picture, titled “Revealed in Oz … “, it shows Caster Semenya dressed up like Dorothy, flanked on her right by the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion. The Tin Man has “Aussie editors” scrawled on its steel carapace, the Scarecrow looks like a dapper representation of Athletics South Africa and the Lion is imbued with “IAAF”.
Zapiro accuses the Aussie editors of having no heart, ASA of having no brain and the IAAF of lacking a spine. Semenya is stuck with the label “No Ovaries”, with the reference for that being contributed to the Aussie Tin Man holding a copy of the Sydney Daily Telegraph which was one of the first media institutions to break the story of Semenya’s reported dual sex.
full article at:
http://www.sportsleader.co.za/adamwakefield/2009/09/16/what-has-the-semenya-saga-taught-us/
and this was nice phrasing:
"Since then we have found out that ASA has more dead bodies in its trunk then a 1920s Chicago Cadillac,"
Matt K — September 17, 2009
"Is it the “Moron’s Guide to Reality” Journal? Or maybe you prefer the “Monopoly on Sociology” Journal? The “I and only I can know Sociology” Journal? No, I’m sure you’re the editor to the “You can’t ask those questions or I throw up a little fit” Journal."
Ok, you got me -- I lol'd.
But seriously, cool story bro. Gonna go drop out of the social sciences now, spend my time telling people who they really are. (Only I can see the truth!) Laterz!
Latest Links – 09/22/09 « my sociology — September 22, 2009
[...] sex/gender controversy/disaster. Semenya was probably encouraged or forced to take on a “feminine” [...]
“Don’t Call Me a Cowgirl!” » Sociological Images — November 25, 2009
[...] work.” For instance, see this post on WNBA player Candace Parker, or Lisa’s post about Caster Semenya. Or even just compare the uniforms of male and female athletes. We’re more comfortable with [...]
Child Pageants and the Performance of Gender » Sociological Images — January 19, 2010
[...] the third gender in Oaxaca, the pregnant man, the threatening transsexual, the female body builder, a makeover for the manly athlete, and women who dare to be fat. Leave a Comment Tags: age/aging, bodies, clothes/fashion, [...]
colin r — February 21, 2019
He has deeper voice than many men. After the controversy he pretends to like girly things like girly clothes. Give us a break. Olympic male athletes are not girly even if they are fake competitors in ruining lives for genuine female athletes. END OF.