Alyssa Ritter | alr5289 November 15, 2013 An Olympic-Sized Dilemma Every two years, the Olympic Games, whether

in the winter or summer, draw the attention of the world; the best athletes in the world mesmerize us, as do their extreme showcases of what the human body can do. However, in 2009 a world class athlete, Caster Semenya, drew the attention of the public, not for her athletic abilities, but for questions about her gender. Fellow competitors raised concerns over Semenyas gender just prior to the 2009 World Championships, noticing that Semenya seemed to have a masculine appearance (Curley, 2012). The dilemma of gender testing in athletics, in what division intersex people should participate, or whether they should participate at all, arose in this situation, along with exactly what should be done regarding Semenyas case. First, in order to make judgments surrounding this ethical dilemma, the facts of this complicated case must be determined. After complaints were raised to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), they tested Semenya for gender verification. This is important because it shows that people were worried about the ethical implications of Semenya competing. The IAAF tests people for gender verification to ensure that men are not competing with women in order to maintain fair competition. Semenya was found to have both male and female sexual characteristics and approximately three times the female level of testosterone. Due to health risks from her condition, Semenya was advised to have surgery to prevent any problems from having undescended testes and the IAAF cleared her to compete in 2010. In 2012, the IAAF revised their gender testing policy from a DNA test to a measure of testosterone levels and from testing gender to determining eligibility; this is also important for this case because it will affect all future participants whose gender is called into question, and because Semenya had high testosterone. Increased levels of androgens are associated with better performance in athletics, but many question if this is the best method for testing and promoting fairness in competitions. One fact, that women with fully female sexual characteristics and genetics have lower levels of androgens than males, is used to support this androgen testing; however, people on the other side of the argument state that since androgen levels can vary between and within individuals, it is an imperfect system. This argument is just one of the many issues that must be considered when making a decision in how to proceed in cases such as Semenyas (Curley, 2012). The first issue is whether it is ethical for the IAAF to investigate such a private matter as gender and androgen levels in athletes, including Semenya. This is an important question because it could violate the privacy of the athlete, the ethic of duty to protect and respect the individuals involved. By doing this testing, you could also reveal information about the athlete that they were not prepared to hear or were unaware of, causing harm to their well-being. Another ethical issue is the question of where female athletes with high levels of androgens should compete since they are not on a level playing field with either males or females; determining in which situation the competitor in question and other competitors will experience the least amount of harm is important. Should intersex athletes be able to compete at all? Both of these are important issues to consider because world-class athletes base their profession on these athletic competitions, as well as devoting much of their time, efforts, and abilities to physically improving their fitness. Another ethical dilemma is whether the athletes should be

required to undergo treatments or surgeries to change their condition in order to compete in the athletic competitions. For someone whose livelihood depends on their ability to compete on a global scale, making these changes could impact their performance and ability to provide for themselves. This could violate the athletes right to autonomy, especially since the problem is surrounding their body and their medical decisions. There are also ethical issues surrounding how each case will be decided; while trying to maintain fairness, it is incredibly difficult to maintain similar treatment in cases that are so complex and varied. Because these decisions influence the competition and those personally involved, this issue is important and must be considered when studying this case. All together, these issues affect many people and many entities could be impacted by these decisions. First and foremost affected by this case are the athletes directly affected by the decision to allow Semenya to compete in the womens competition. This situation directly affects Semenya, with her gender being called into question along with having to handle the repercussions that follow. The athletes competing against her are also affected because the competition is changed, whether Semenya was allowed to remain in the womens competition or not. Future athletes will also be affected, either those who will have their gender tested or who will compete against others having their gender tested. The IAAF is affected when someones gender is called into question, as well as the doctors who will perform the examinations and the tests as they are all deemed responsible for the decision. The families of these athletes are also affected, as media attention and the emotional stress of the athlete can all impact their immediate and extended family. When determining the entities affected by a decision in the case, ethical values must also be considered. Harm could be done to the participants that are not allowed to compete because of their levels of testosterone, but harm could also be done if they are allowed to compete and have an advantage over the other competitors. Also, allowing females with high androgen levels to compete gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors. This brings up the value of fairness which is extremely relevant to this case because of its importance in sporting events. Also, purity must be considered as it is important to maintain the most honest and unadulterated competition in order that everyone has equal opportunities to perform to their best abilities, without others having resources they do not. Clearly, the dilemma Semenya found herself in, as well as the possible dilemmas that other athletes will find themselves in, have many facets and consequently many options for action. First, the IAAF could decide to not test any of the competitors androgen levels, as this is how they now determine eligibility. However, while this protects purity, privacy, and the competitor from emotional harm, it also makes the competition unfair for those who do not have increased levels of androgens. Another option is to test Semenya and others with contested gender, and allow them the option of correcting the problem causing increased androgens or not competing any longer. The consequences of this decision include Semenya competing equally with the women after receiving medical treatment, or no longer competing. This is the decision that was made by the IAAF regarding Semenyas case. Conversely, the IAAF could allow those with elevated androgens to compete with the male competitors, since they have more similar physical characteristics. This could cause harm to the participant because they would be competing differently, but would also prevent unfair competition in the womens arena. Finally, a possible penalty could be applied to the athlete with higher levels of androgens so that the penalty would account for the increased athletic ability, evening the playing field in the womens competition and making it fairer. This could be seen as unfair to the athlete but would for the better good of the rest of the competitors and the overall fairness of the competition.

Prior to making a decision, the morals of these choices must be determined. The first option, which is the IAAF not investigating the gender accusations, harms more people than it helps. By allowing the woman with high androgen levels to compete, holding up their privacy, the fairness of the competition is compromised, as well as the honesty of the woman competing with an unfair advantage. Defending this option to society, peers, and close relatives would be challenging because it violates our honesty and integrity, turning those who make the decision into people willing to ignore the truth and problems in front of them. The second option, allowing Semenya and other with high androgen levels to compete after correcting their medical problems, or to leave the competition, is a good option both for the people participating and the athlete in question. While many of the treatments are not reversible, deciding to leave the competition and later changing her mind to undergo treatment and compete is a reversible decision and one that could be made sometime in the future. This prevents harm from the most people and provides compassion and care to the athletes in question. Defending this decision to the public and peers would be fairly straightforward, since it values each person involved in the case, as well as maintains honesty and fairness. Another option, allowing Semenya and others with hyperandrogeny to compete with the males, harms Semenya and other gender-tested competitors because the competition will now be more challenging than before, putting their livelihood and income in jeopardy, but the rest of the competitors are not harmed and competition is fairer for them. It is a reversible decision, since the athletes could choose to not participate at all or to make the necessary changes to compete with the female competitors. However, this might be hard to defend to the public, as it makes those making the decision seem very harsh, uncaring, and more critical of these athletes. Finally, the option to penalize those with high androgens harms those with the condition, but benefits those who are competing against them by making the competition fair. It is a reversible decision since the penalty could be changed or removed at any time; however it wouldnt be reversible for races that had already passed. It also would be very subjective, making it hard to defend the decision to the public, as well as making the person responsible subject to criticisms. Clearly, there are benefits and consequences for each of these options, but the one option that produces the most benefit and the least harm for the most people involved, is to test those with contested gender, such as Semenya, offer them the appropriate medical interventions and treatments, and to allow them to compete if their androgen levels have decreased. It does not prevent all harm, such as the media attention or any psychological impacts, but it does ensure fairness and honesty in the decision and competition, as well as care for the most people involved. If concrete medical research were to show that the levels of androgens these women were producing do not give them an advantage, then this decision could be reversed and those with higher levels of androgens should be allowed compete without penalty or inquiry. Ultimately, this dilemma occurred originally because of the strict separation of men and women in athletic competitions. The only way to avoid these separations is to divide competitors based on ability, or to have every participants gender and hormone levels tested. Placing more of an emphasis of the abilities of the competitors instead of their physical bodies, could allow this to be prevented too; each competitor has different access to training and nutrition, and this could be considered just another factor. It will be impossible to avoid questions of participants gender in the future because many times those with these conditions are unaware of them. However, with a plan in place on how to approach these situations, they can be handled with respect and simplicity for all of those involved.

References Curley, A. J. (2012). Expert: Gender testing imperfect for female athletes. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/health/athletes-gendertesting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12.