Recently, there has been much talk concerning Olympics champion Caster Semenya after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled against her issuing a verdict that she should lower her testosterone levels in order to compete. What is appalling and most distasteful here is that the court admitted this to be discrimination, yet it still considered it a ‘necessary evil’. This reminds me of a popular quote I encountered while studying history in high school; that slavery was a necessary evil. How ironic that this African woman should be subjugated to such a reasoning. I am left to wonder what other necessary evil will be required for women, particularly African women, in the world of sports?

In short, the case is that Semenya’s level of testosterone is deemed too high. It is believed this gives her an unfair advantage against other female athletes. Before we begin to consider this ‘disadvantage’ we must first evaluate her ‘advantage’ to prove whether she used drugs to enhance her output. However, as far as we are aware, there is no such evidence. Therefore, we can take the aforementioned claim, and interpret it to say: Caster Semenya’s natural biological make-up (anatomy) gives her an advantage when compared to other female athletes.

With such an interpretation it implies that anyone with any difference (natural advantage) should be ostracised for their anatomy and reduced to ‘normal’ so that others do not feel inferior. How ludicrous!

On another note, let us venture out of the sporting arena for a minute. As an educator, there exists a number of diversities in the classroom, particularly cognitive diversity. Some students learn faster than others. Yet, never has it been suggested that these students be dumbed down to create equilibrium. Instead, we have specialised programmes for the slower learners. And when I say slower learners, I am not just referring to students with learning disabilities, but those who learn at a slower pace in comparison to their peers, including geniuses.

Therefore, why should Semenya have to change herself? Why is it that the other athletes cannot be recommended for specialised and more intense training which will improve their performance?

Back to the world of sports. The renowned Olympic champion Michael Phelps has been lauded for his superior swimming ability. He is tremendously talented. However, it is alleged that his unique make-up — height, double-jointedness, and that he produces half the amount of lactic acid than the typical athlete — simply makes him better equipped at a biological level to excel in his sport. But do we have an outrage or a court order to ‘fix’ him?

Similarly, Usain Bolt is considered to be the fastest man in the world and the only man to have won three Olympic events three times consecutively. Yet, no one considers his genius anatomy to be disadvantageous to other male athletes.

These are just two of many males who excel in the sporting arena. So, why pick on Semenya? It cannot be helped seeing this as a gender attack; an attack against the gender identity of an Olympic champion, no less.

Unfortunately, and quite disturbingly, this is not only a matter of gender discrimination, but I will also posit that it is one of race. I am sure that many will be outraged and have many arguments to say that there is no discrepancy of race in the sporting arena, especially since we have so many different people involved and who are also medal holders. But before you rage, let us examine some world record holders. Jarmila Kratochvílová, who is quite fair in complexion (white), holds the world record in the women’s 800 metres. And how can we forget Florence Griffith-Joyner, who hails from the United States and is considered the fastest woman of all time with a record of 10.49 over 100 metres. In fact, she has the world record of 21.34 for the 200 metre event as well. The allegations of race here are not as transparent as black and white, but rather one of origin. Therefore, is it possible that her coming from South Africa is the reason for the open and blatant discrimination and attack against her person? If it is not an issue of race, then how are we supposed to interpret it?

Here hails a woman from the mother country, Africa, who does not even have the fastest time in the world, but is making it big, and the only thing that can be said is that her talent, her victory, is a disadvantage to others. How low must we stoop to criticise someone for being born a particular way? Should we also shun the deaf, lame and disabled?

Furthermore, another crucial factor to note is that the side effects of the proposed reverse-doping are unknown. Some questions which ought to be answered are: How low will Semenya’s testosterone levels drop? What effects will this provoke in her? And will she be required to constantly take this drug?

All in all, I am disgruntled by the decision taken by the court, and the International Association of Athletics Federations’ (IAAF) agreement with the said decision. Further, discrimination is against the international human rights law and should not be encouraged in any form, lest we give an inch and pretty soon, a yard is taken, and the society devolves into chaos.

The world is filled with imbalances (differences), and that is what makes us unique. Some are born with a cognitive superiority and others with superb physical prowess, while the rest of us are considered normal and have to work twice as hard and with twice as much heart. Everyone naturally has a disadvantage and an advantage when compared to another, but this should not be a reason to shun or subjugate others to the prescribed norm.

Romane Elliston is an educator, writer, and motivational speaker. He is also an activist for young people, at-risk boys, change, and enlightenment. Send comments to the Observer or ellistonpolyglot@gmail.com.