The Limits of Gender

Caster Semenya, an 18-year old runner from South Africa, recently took gold in the 800m race of the world championships in Germany. But her performance and medal are being disputed by some due to a debate over her gender, and the whole issue brings to light the problems with applying dichotomous gender categories in some cases.

Cleared of drug use, other athletes, sport commentators, and teams have challenged Semenya's running in a women's competition. Though the testing has yet to be done, it is possible that the running star could have a genetic mutation -- for example, a Y chromosome like men have -- which allows her to perform better despite having female genitals. Semenya could also have greater levels of testosterone due to a hyper-active adrenal gland, which could allow her to run faster.

This event brings two questions to light. First, how should biological gender (sex) be defined for athletic competitions? Second, what should be done about the Semenya's particular case?

As for sex, a line must be drawn somewhere. Either female genitalia or reproductive organs seems like a reasonable criteria. However, it is not acceptable to rule out any person with high naturally-occurring levels of testosterone, in the same way that we should not disqualify Michael Phelps for having abnormally short legs and a long torso, or Shaquille O'Neal for towering 7'1" above the ground and carrying large amounts of muscle mass. Indeed, most record-breakers or top-level athletes are born with abilities or traits which 99.9% of humans do not possess.

In fact, this concept could even be extended beyond athletics: the leading physicists are born able to understand extremely complex concepts and formulas, the best singers are born with the ability to hit otherwise-unthinkable notes, the most influential politicians were born to connect with people, etc.

So, it would be either misunderstanding or outright jealously that would drive officials to disqualify athletes for their inherent capabilities.

Second, Semenya's case: the answer is technically uncertain right now because, as mentioned, the testing must be done. However, I think we can assume that she has female genitalia, given how far she's made it without anyone pointing out this obvious problem for a woman athlete. So what could the testing reveal that would justify revoking her medal? It is difficult for me to imagine a strong case against letting Semenya celebrate her hard work and ability through a gold medal -- and probably more in the future.

In this case, we must embrace individuality, not punish it.

Missing the Point of the Public Option

The following was written by guest author Sue Ann Orsini.

Tonight, President Obama gave a press conference to further discuss the health care reform initiative. (Transcript available here.) A question was asked regarding the public plan option, particularly on whether or not Obama would use his own Administration’s plan if his family members were sick, even if the plan didn’t offer all types of available treatment. The same question was posed by a doctor during ABC’s “Prescription for America” discussion held last Friday. And while the President fumbled his way through a mostly political response at both events, I wondered why he wouldn’t just say the truth – questions of this sort are meaningless and betray a deep lack of understanding about what a public option would mean.

Certainly, these questions illicit emotional responses, particularly fearful mob reactions to the word "socialism" that inevitably pops up when the public plan is discussed, and also anger over long-standing class-based complaints that the rich and powerful always get a better product. For me, asking whether or not Obama would use his public plan overlooks two very important issues. First, a public option may improve the health of the insurance markets by providing competition and regulation of the industry. And second, anyone who insinuates that the Administration’s public option will be the only option has obviously not read the text of any Congressional proposals.

The health insurance market is complex. It's not just composed of big name companies, like Blue Cross or Aetna, but a number of side-players, including Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), that actually have great influence on cost and sometimes commit outright fraud. Hardly any regulation governs these health care middlemen, and they are left relatively free to set prices. Such rampant manipulation hurts consumers and propagates an unhealthy market. Congress has been aware of this manipulation for years - the courts have, too. Major litigation occurred only a few years ago concerning pharmaceutical price-fixing. And just last Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to address issues of competition in health care insurance. The public option would attempt to regulate the health care market by providing an alternative to private plans (keyword here is alternative).

As for my second issue, I wonder how many people running around screaming "Socialism!" have actually read the part of the recently introduced House bill concerning the public option. Nowhere in that bill text does it say that we will have to choose the public plan. Nowhere does it suggest that you can't continue with the coverage you have right now. The argument that a public plan will take away your choice and drive us down the road to socialism is a lie propagated by people who fear change. And to those people I would ask this question: Do you truly have a free choice now as to what kind of doctor you can see? Do you truly have a choice as to which treatments you can seek without paying through the nose?

My recent journey into the health care system tells the story - I hurt my back, was constrained as to which doctors, specialists, chiropractors, etc., that I could see through my insurance plan. I was constantly on the phone with my insurance company making sure as to what they would cover. And then, when I transitioned into employer-based insurance, I had to prove to that I'd been covered before in order to waive the "pre-existing condition" clause (something which would be forbidden by the current bill). I may be able to get insurance through my employer now, but I have no choice as to which insurance company I use. Adding a public option into this mix isn't going to make my lack of choices any more or less pronounced. It may improve things.

In the end, much of the discussion over the public plan amounts to nothing more than fearmongering disguised as rhetoric. Fearmongering gets us nowhere and rhetoric can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Check out the latest bill for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Sue Ann Orsini is a law librarian that specializes in the legislative process. She works in Washington DC.

ALTERATION: on 23 July at 11:43 AM, the title of this post was changed.

White Man's Neutrality

Last Thursday, Steven Colbert (on The Colbert Report) used his conservative pundit spoof, yet again, to express through humor what most news media either miss, skew, or don't say outrightly. In this case, he performed another in his regular segment called "The Word" -- a satire of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" -- in which Steven pontificated the claim that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's life experience is a scar on her record while all past (white) nominees' life experience was an asset to their qualifications as a judge. Using this ridiculous argument, Steven was pointing out the hypocrisy of those (in news media or politics) that focus on Sotomayor's pride in her life experience as a problem. Most delightfully, Colbert makes this argument using a comparison between the nomination and an ordeal over the color of Band-aids. I'll let you see for yourself the brilliant connection -- watch the clip below. (If the video does not show up, then click this link.)

This clip also had me thinking: pushing out material like this four nights every week, it must be exhausting to be a writer for The Colbert Report.

What Scares the Chinese Communist Party?

The past couple of months have seen events heat up (and then cool down) over internet censoring system in China, called Green Dam Youth Escort. This program is purportedly meant to protect Chinese youth from pornography, though many are concerned that the program could be used to expand surveillance or censorship. In May, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) ordered that all computers sold in China have that software installed by 1 July. The ultimate result was a rare occurrence in national Chinese politics: on 30 June, the CCP retracted its directive. Actually, to be more accurate, they "postponed" the directive. In fact, a government official said that the CCP "will definitely carry on the directive on Green Dam. It's just a matter of time." But even if this does happen, it is questionable whether or not the directive will be enforced strictly.

Setting aside the distinct possibility that Green Dam will eventually be mandated on all Chinese computers, there is a more important question that bears on whether or not the directive is ever truly carried out: why did the CCP step back in the first place? In other words, what scares the CCP enough to so clearly reconsider their policy?

In short: the people of China.

The blowback against Green Dam came from both domestic (primarily netizens) and foreign (IT industry, governments, civil liberties groups) sources in China. But while some claim that pressure from the outside was important, I think that pleasing foreign audiences is only a bonus in the calculus of the CCP decision -- not the primary factor.

There are two particular reasons why Chinese citizens -- not foreign entities or foreign NGOs -- are most responsible. First, the reaction from Chinese internet users, who would be most affected by Green Dam, was powerful. This community of 300 million is a tremendous social force, particularly if a great number of them become unified behind an interest. And the CCP monitors internet chatter constantly, gauging reactions to certain policies. In the case of Green Dam, the CCP had overstepped a line. Chinese netizens saw it, at best, as a computer-wrecking software and, at worst, a threat to their rights. Most profoundly, an open letter was published by a group of anonymous Chinese netizens, in which they explicitly threaten the CCP:

"We hereby declare that we, the Anonymous Netizens, are going to launch our attack worldwide on your censorship system starting on July 1st, 2009."

The attack was never commenced. But the CCP also retracted its directive the day before the netizens' action was to take place. So it is hard to know for sure whether or not the letter was a bluff. In any case, the rejection of Green Dam by the Chinese public was clear. And as a one-party state, significant discontent of the people cannot be expressed through voting or organized lobbying. It can only be expressed through dissent. This is not a road down which the CCP wants to trek.

Second, in past events involving domestic civil liberties, foreign entities have had little to no leverage over the CCP. China and its government is now too large, powerful, and prosperous to be heavily influenced by other governments when it comes to domestic policy. The CCP knows full well that any threats of economic sanctioning are empty because most large nations are too intertwined with China's trade sector. And no amount of protest from the outside has ever changed CCP policy over, for example, forced citizen relocation for infrastructure projects and the Olympics, policy in Tibet, political prisoners, or policy in Xinjiang. (A caveat: governments or foreign entities that work to develop Chinese civil society can arguably have a long-term effect on grassroots pressure for change from within the country.)

Even foreign companies that were affected by the Green Dam directive do not have as much influence as some would like to think. Technology firms do business in China knowing very well that the government has myriad restrictions. But if and when the Green Dam directive is carried out, those companies will continue to do business in China for the same reason that they were there before the new rule: the Chinese tech market is huge. (And this is particularly attractive in a time when the world's previous champion of consumerism -- America -- is dealing with a deep recession.)

In addition to both of these reasons, Green Dam has been shown to be rather ineffectual, thus reducing the opportunity cost for the Chinese government.

The lesson here is that the CCP knows to whom it is primarily accountable. And those people are standing firmly within the borders of China. More accurately, many of them are probably sitting in front of their computers... blogging.

Beauty Amidst the Chaos

As has been widely reported, Iran is in the throws of a large social movement. Some have called it the beginning of the end for the current regime. (Another similar opinion here.) I will reserve judgment for now. But as can be gained through print and video, dissent is flowing through Tehran. And faced with such a massive political movement, the regime is threatened.

The unfortunate truth is that these movements often entail violence -- both from protesters and (especially) from a threatened government. But while surveying the many many videos of the Iranian struggle, I came across something that, I think, is worth pointing out because it rare among the footage. In a particular video (below), a motorcycle-mounted agent of the government (could have been police or Basij militia) either fell off of his bike or was forced off by protesters. Afterward, he was presumably beaten (though it is not shown in the video) by some in the crowd.

Yet in this chaotic scene filled with fire, screaming, and violence, beauty emerges. The government agent, who looks to be suffering from a concussion, is pulled out of danger by a number of protesters. Then, most profoundly, they proceed to protect and care for him. This is such a heartening act of humanity. These people had the courage and kindness to almost immediately take in the same person who, moments ago, had been beating other protesters.

It begins at about 2:20 and continues until the end of the video (3:30). I look forward to your thoughts.

In defense of meat

A different version of my last post (regarding the myth of eating meat) was published today on the Foreign Policy website. It can be found here.

Eating meat is bad for you and the world... kind of

When reading a recent Foreign Policy article, I was reminded of the growing movement toward vegetarianism and away from meat or animal food products. I was also reminded of the nutritional falsehoods being touted in this campaign.

There are three essential lines of argument against eating meat, all of which are discussed in the linked article above.

First, meat is bad for a human's health. Second, the meat industry emits a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is contributing to climate change. Third, killing animals for food is immoral in and of itself.

I disagree with the third issue philosophically. (Although the manner in which many animals are farmed is horrid.) But animal rights is a much more murky issue and I'll leave it alone for now.

The second premise is accurate; the livestock sector accounts for 18% of GHG emissions. But saying just this misses some nuance within the meat industry. Beef and pork are not equal to poultry, some fish, and other sources of protein relative to GHG emissions. According to one study (page 6), poultry and milk are three times more energy efficient (in carbon emissions) than beef and six times more than pork. Herring is seventeen times more efficient than beef. And this does not even account for methane emissions, which are 25 times more potent as a GHG. With everything factored in, the beef industry emits 13 times more GHG than the chicken sector.

Lastly, the idea that meat is bad for your health is simply not true. Again, there is a huge difference between eating a diet with a lot of beef and pork and one with a lot of poultry and fish. The main difference here is saturated fat. Beef, pork, chicken, and fish all have relatively high amounts of cholesterol. But cholesterol, by itself, is not a threat to your health. It only becomes the bad stuff that clogs arteries when a person's diet is also high in saturated or trans fat. Most cuts of beef and pork are quite high in saturated fat. Chicken, however, are composed of leaner cuts.

Furthermore, to group fish in with either of these is absurd. Any fish that is high in fat is composed of very healthful Omega-3 fatty acids, specifically docosahexaenoic acid. Far from being damaging to health, a person is more likely to have a healthy cardiovascular system by eating fish, when compared to a diet without it.

The other nutritional component here is the utility of protein. The argument from a climate perspective is that more protein is not linked to better health. Again, a falsehood. Protein, as a building block in the body, may have diminishing returns, but when compared to the common alternatives for vegetarians, then the importance of protein becomes clear.

If someone is not eating protein as a source of calories, then they must be those calories from either carbohydrates or fat. Since carbohydrates are the cheapest to produce (e.g. grains, rice, sugars), this will be the most likely food choice. But these are also the foods that will raise blood sugar in high consumption. Therefore, these are the most likely to cause diabetes in people. Protein, on the other hand, has negligible effects on blood sugar. So a diet high in protein is less likely to raise blood sugar than one high in carbohydrates.

(Carbohydrates, of course, have an important role to play as well. Top among these are fiber and the many vitamins/minerals/antioxidants associated with carbohydrate foods. My point is simply that anything can be overdone.)

Rather than educating the public on the above nutritional differences, many in the climate movement generalize all meat together, using studies that also do not differentiate types of meat.

The upshot: beef and pork farming emits a lot of GHG. At the policy level, governments need to begin taxing or capping GHG emissions in order to reduce the most polluting meat sources. Furthermore, public money needs to be pumped into a solution that would make this whole issue null and void: in vitro meat. Until that happens, we all need to diversify our sources of protein, eating less of it from meat in our daily diet. Dairy, whey protein powder, soy, and poultry are some of the least energy intensive choices.

I am a strong supporter of policies and behavior that will halt climate change. That is why it bothers me when falsehoods are perpetuated by others with a common interest. Campaigns for change are a necessary part of human progress, but not if they are driven by dishonesty.