Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Palo Alto, CA 94305, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(7):3-16. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.680533.
In May 2011, more than a decade after the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) abandoned sex testing, they devised new policies in response to the IAAF's treatment of Caster Semenya, the South African runner whose sex was challenged because of her spectacular win and powerful physique that fueled an international frenzy questioning her sex and legitimacy to compete as female. These policies claim that atypically high levels of endogenous testosterone in women (caused by various medical conditions) create an unfair advantage and must be regulated. Against the backdrop of Semenya's case and the scientific and historical complexity of "gender verification" in elite sports, we question the new policies on three grounds: (1) the underlying scientific assumptions; (2) the policymaking process; and (3) the potential to achieve fairness for female athletes. We find the policies in each of these domains significantly flawed and therefore argue they should be withdrawn.
2011 年 5 月,在国际田径联合会(IAAF)和国际奥林匹克委员会(IOC)放弃性别检测十多年后,他们针对南非赛跑运动员卡斯特·塞门亚(Caster Semenya)的情况制定了新政策。由于她惊人的胜利和强大的体格,她的性别受到了质疑,这引发了国际社会对她的性别和作为女性参赛的合法性的狂热质疑。这些政策声称,女性体内异常高水平的内源性睾酮(由各种医疗条件引起)会带来不公平的优势,必须加以规范。鉴于塞门亚的案例以及精英体育中“性别验证”的科学和历史复杂性,我们基于以下三个理由对新政策提出质疑:(1)潜在的科学假设;(2)决策过程;(3)为女性运动员实现公平的潜力。我们发现这些政策在这些领域都存在严重缺陷,因此主张撤回这些政策。