What Makes a "Woman" a "Woman"?

STU FORSTER/GETTY IMAGES

In this class so far, we’ve read articles and excerpts from books that aim to either describe or define the experience of being considered “intersex,” “transgender,” or a “hermaphrodite.” While these are incredibly intriguing, I found myself drawn more towards accounts of real-life experiences rather than the more “academic” writing; like Stryker, Reis, and Fausto-Sterling strive to do. With this in mind, the piece that struck me the most was; “Caster Semenya has stirring words for her critics after winning women’s 800m” by Andrew Webster; which appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald on August 21, 2016. During the majority of the month of August, the Olympics were televised, and gender was at play more in Rio than ever before. Semenya, who has been described as “hyper androgenic” and “intersex,” “considers herself a woman," (p.2). Recently, Semenya married a woman from South Africa, the country she competes for and also resides in. However, Semenya’s gender expression has brought up some important questions; and most importantly, what makes a “woman” a “woman”?

            Near the middle of the article, Semenya is quoted as stating, “My friend, tonight is all about performance…we’re not here to talk about IAAF [International Association of Athletics Federation], we’re not here to talk about some speculations. Tonight is all about performance. This press conference is about the 800m that we saw here today. So, thank you," (p. 3). But, for a woman, is it ever about performance? As I researched gendered happiness this summer under Professor Wesoky, I learned that if you identify and pass (the key word being “pass,” as those who are transgendered women but do not “pass” as so are often treated very differently than a cis-gendered woman), your life, at home and in the workplace, is so inherently filled with oppression and restrictions, that it takes a toll on your happiness. A woman is expected to take on the total work of the home (meaning home, children, and work), while a man chooses one; either home, children, or work. In relation to Semenya and the 2016 Rio Olympics; since her gender was not clearly identified at first glance; her experience competing should have been colored by how the IAAF has been treating her currently and in the past. For instance, before this year the IAAF president, Sebastian Coe, “insist she should only compete if she takes hormone-suppressing drugs,” and Semenya “competed under those conditions in London four years ago," (p. 2). Also, “many believed she should not have been allowed to compete on this night at the Rio Olympics," (p. 2).  But, this begs the question; why?

            To answer this question, I retreated to the realm of YouTube; where society's somewhat honest opinions lie. Embedded below is the link to the jacksfilms video that I felt most accurately represented how society would classify a "woman," titled, “What Makes a Woman a Woman?” 

WHAT MAKES A WOMAN A WOMAN, jacksfilms 

In this video, Jack reads comments from his viewers that are supposed to answer the question posed within the title. Some of the comments to note include; “knowing all the lyrics to every Disney song,” “.”, “a woman is only a woman if she has nice, round elbows,” “bad parking,” “the Vjj,” “a real woman is a woman when she is a woman,” and, finally, “if she hot.” Some of these make absolutely no sense, see: “a woman is only a woman if she has nice, round elbows,” or, my personal favorite, “if she hot.” First of all, “if she hot” person; who determines if she’s hot? You? Victoria’s Secret? Darn, I bet I’m really not hot then; I must not be a woman. And then, “a woman is only a woman if she has nice, round elbows.” Frankly, I have quite pointy elbows, but I do have “the Vjj,” so does this make me a woman? Can I have one and not the other and still meet societal standards? For Semenya, while she clearly identifies as a woman, and can “pass;” albeit, as an extremely fit woman, society has come to the main consensus that her testosterone is too high for her to truly be “female.” Also, considering transgender issues, I have many friends who have transitioned from female to male but still have a “.” or “the Vjj.” This begs the question; when is society going to decide that how one identifies is more important than biology, at least socially, and that while society may be uncomfortable with the transition to being more LGBTQAI+ friendly; it is a necessary step for progression towards equality.

Another important point to note in this article is when Webster states, “Do elevated testosterone levels in a female enhance athletic performance? If so, by how much? Ten percent? Five seconds? The difference between gold and fourth?" (p. 4). Personally, I have a close friend who has extremely high testosterone levels, that often endanger her well-being. However, she clearly “passes,” as a woman. So, is the problem with Semenya that she can be perceived as more androgynous than feminine; or the testosterone levels? And if so, is it fair to bar her from competing in the Olympics because of her testosterone? Is that something, as a society, we believe is fair to limit; in order to make a more “equal” competition?  

            Semenya, without trying, made a statement at this year’s Olympics. Claiming gold in the women’s 800m, Semenya remained composed and confident; even as questions were thrown at her regarding medication, and is even quoted saying, “Let this press conference focus on today. Let’s not focus on the medication," (p. 3).  But again, what makes a “woman” a “woman”? Is it the “.” or “the Vjj,” or perhaps even, “if she hot.” Semenya, on her own terms, defined herself as a woman; regardless of boobs, periods, or possession of “the Vjj.” Despite criticism from society, and the societal consensus that she shouldn’t be allowed to compete; she claimed gold, high testosterone and all. If Caitlyn Jenner can be initially named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour Magazine, what should stop women like Caster Semenya from being able to compete in the Olympics, just because she looks “androgynous”? In the end, it is my firm conclusion that what makes a “woman” a “woman” is how she defines herself to society; despite how she appears, her biological gender, or her testosterone levels.

References

"Caster Semenya has stirring words for her critics after winning the women's 800m" by Andrew Webster, August 21, 2016. 

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympics/rio-2016/olympics-athletics/caster-semenya-has-stirring-words-for-her-critics-after-winning-womens-800m-20160821-gqxm1n.html

We're All A Little Queer

The term ‘genderqueer’ gives an identity to those who don’t fit in the boundaries of our societal binaries of male/female and subsequent masculinity/femininity.  Most of us are familiar with the gender hierarchy as males having more power than females – they and any others outside of the dichotomy are marginalized in many aspects of life. Genderqueer as a concept is intended to knock this vertical hierarchy of ‘male-female-other’ down to a horizontal playing field so that oppressed people may become equal in power and politics.

            Riki Wilchins would agree that dismantling the language we use that perpetuates binary powers is key for genderqueer individuals. In her chapter Queerer Bodies – Two’s a Crowd, Wilchins describes that within the male/female binary women are always genderqueer. She believes that each binary is truly about the one ‘thing’ that carries more weight or power in society (male/masculinity/heterosexuality), and the other term consists of the absence of good traits or the absorption of bad traits. So the others who don’t fit in the binary itself are even more marginalized than the second term of the binary (duh!), transphobic legislature in the US being a good example of that.

            Promoting genderqueer as an identity is problematic – the idea is to move away from gender labels, but understanding the concept gets us one step closer to becoming a more inclusive, non-dichotic society regarding gender and bodies. The query here is how can we get the word out without reincarnating another categorized system of gender with more names and more labels and a more complex hierarchy of power? We can’t just not talk about it, right? Wilchins clearly suggests a change in the system is necessary, but doesn’t propose any route by which we might get there.

            ‘Genderqueer’ poses a unique paradox that makes this question difficult to answer, but taking a closer look at our bodies may give us insight as to how binaries affect our thinking. For example, why would curvy women in our society see their bodies as undesirable? I would argue that the current feminine ideals for women are being thin and dainty, and therefore, discourse is created with females whose body types do not come close to the ideal. Many women thus feel marginalized by their shape and push back, defying social norms. We can see in the media now that many women express their gender by accentuating their curvature – Kim K’s plump booty is iconic with the press, and plus-sized models are becoming more and more common in industry. Body ideals can be seen as relative from this perspective and continuously changing, but the gender attached to the ideals remains as the consistent base off of which these molds are made.

            The construct of gender provides the foundation for us to create body ideals for each sex. From these ideals comes discourse when the body does not fit the mold, and individuals are forced to conform or push back, attempting to defy and ultimately change the ideal to another form that creates discourse or anxieties for others. The foundation isn’t questioned in most cases. But, if we use the example of body shape ideals to show the flawed foundation of gender, that might get us somewhere! Questioning ‘real’ genders, male and female, is far too broad for the majority of people in our society to comprehend – imagine trying to explain genderqueer to that old, confederate uncle we all wish we had.

            Of course, body image is mostly related to women within our society, but I believe it has the potential to change discussion for genderqueer individuals as well. There’s an official Body Image Movement that embraces all body types and physical diversity (woman-focused). I would consider this a step in the right direction, with the deficit of promoting one gender over the others.

            The idea is to start somewhere widely relatable but not too abstract and expose the erroneous system that is the cause for so many types of discourse present in our society. We must begin to see that our oppressions are universal and we all face some form of conflicting beliefs or behaviors, whether it be the color of your skin, the gender you want to sleep with, or the way you do your hair. Relational thinking allows us to link these experiences in order to understand how others think and feel.

            The differences among humans are vast and unpredictable. Unfortunately, this causes anxieties among people who are taught to believe in one Truth – their own. Realistically, there are many truths that vary from person to person, and these truths should not be thought to be wrong or one better than the other. We each have our own unique qualities, beliefs, genders, and bodies that stand as truths internally, so doesn’t that mean we’re all queer, in a way?