By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Caster Semenya achieved a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights, after a seven-year legal battle concerning track and field’s sex eligibility rules. The court determined that Switzerland’s Supreme Court violated her right to a fair hearing, but declined to rule on other aspects of the case, including allegations of discrimination. The case will now be sent back to the Swiss federal court. This ruling, which does not overturn World Athletics’ rules, focuses on the Swiss court’s lack of a thorough judicial review in Semenya’s appeal against the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) decision.
Read the original article here
Human rights court rules Olympic champion Semenya did not get fair hearing in sex eligibility case. That’s the crux of the matter, really. The European Court of Human Rights has spoken, and it’s a win for Caster Semenya, the Olympic champion whose case has sparked so much debate. The key takeaway from the court’s ruling is that the Swiss Federal Court, which initially reviewed Semenya’s case, didn’t do a thorough enough job. They didn’t provide the kind of “rigorous judicial review” that was absolutely necessary, especially since Semenya had no other choice but to go through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In essence, she didn’t get a fair shake in the legal process.
This ruling, while significant, won’t magically reinstate Semenya’s eligibility to compete. That’s a separate issue altogether. However, it sets a precedent and has important implications for future athletes. It’s about time, honestly. It’s utterly unfair the kind of scrutiny and hurdles that intersex women are forced to navigate. The fact that the court awarded Semenya a significant sum for legal costs speaks volumes about the system’s failures. It shows the financial burden she had to bear, highlighting how the system let her down. Let’s be clear: Semenya is an exceptional athlete, period. This whole situation underscores the absurdity of trying to fit everyone neatly into rigid boxes when it comes to gender and sex.
The way Semenya was treated is, quite simply, a disgrace. You rarely, if ever, see male athletes facing the same kind of accusations or restrictions. Even if some male athletes have intersex conditions, it doesn’t get the same level of attention. The specific details of Semenya’s condition, 5-ARD, are relevant. It results in atypical sex development in biological males. The impact can be profound, sometimes leading to what appears to be mistaken identity at birth.
Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different intersex conditions, each with its own impact on the body and development. However, what is being asked is why intersex men or trans women are being banned from the women’s category, while men’s category is largely open. It’s easy to see how this is why you don’t hear as much debate the other way. Maybe because intersex males don’t have an obvious physical advantage over cisgender males? There are also valid questions about testosterone levels and how to define “too high,” but it is evident that the rules are much stricter for female athletes.
The question of fairness in sports is a complex one. At its core, the issue isn’t about denying women their place in sports. It’s about trying to level the playing field and protect opportunities for cisgender women, particularly if they feel it will deny their own womanhood if they don’t conform to the standards. However, the challenge arises when the existing categories appear to discriminate against those who don’t fit neatly into those boxes.
There’s a lot of debate over how much of an advantage certain genetic traits provide. For example, if we’re okay with athletes having advantages due to height, limb proportions, or how they process lactic acid, why should we treat being trans or intersex differently? At the end of the day, elite competition is always going to be about having genetic advantages.