Caster Semenya’s life and achievements are cause for celebration, respect and inclusion; her exclusion is consequential
In his paper, Loland1 offers conditional support for 2019 World Athletics (then known as the International Association of Athletics Federations) (‘IAAF’) ‘differences of sex development’ (‘DSD’) regulations,2 upheld that year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’)3 in the case of Caster Semen...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2020
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2020, Volume: 46, Issue: 9, Pages: 593-594 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In his paper, Loland1 offers conditional support for 2019 World Athletics (then known as the International Association of Athletics Federations) (‘IAAF’) ‘differences of sex development’ (‘DSD’) regulations,2 upheld that year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’)3 in the case of Caster Semenya. He states this is conditional due to the ‘systemic and psycho-somatic’ impact of hormonal treatment. Loland also calls for ‘further analysis of the nature of athlete classification’ and identifies some welcome options for reducing the significance of sex classifications in sport.While Loland identifies ‘essentialist and reductionist definitions of gender’ as problematic, he finds this inescapable, affirming the case as a ‘dilemma of rights’ where excluding Semenya is ‘protecting the integrity of women’s sport’.1 The idea that Semenya’s participation presents a dilemma necessarily presumes that she is not a woman. Loland’s conclusions support a convenience-based approach to classification of sex where choices about the status of people with intersex variations are made by others according to their interests at that time, inter alia, a woman in situation A if no-one complains, a woman in situation B when subjected to medical intervention, a man in situation C and non-binary in D. While a majority decision by CAS adjudicators denied consideration of the ‘wider impact’ of their decision outside sport, … |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106506 |