My new hot button: why My New Pink Button pisses me off

“Want to see something that will make you mad?”

“Sure.”

“Look up ‘My New Pink Button.’”

My boyfriend knows better than anyone what angers me, and he was right on the mark. My New Pink Button is a product designed to bring that “fresh” look back to female bodies.

In other words, it’s labia dye.

‘Sex test’ for runner not same as gender

Originally published August 27, 2009.

She left the competition in the dust during the 800 meter dash at the Athletics World Championships in Berlin last week. Her obvious skill, which made itself known at the 2008 Commonwealth Youth Games and the 2009 African Junior Championships, was awarded … with an order for a comprehensive and degrading sex test.

Supporters of Caster Semenya are calling the actions of the International Association of Athletics Federations sexist, racist, and downright appalling.

Many aspects of the aftermath have frustrated me, Semenya’s shameful treatment being far from least. But one thing in particular seems to be the source of my other aggravations: the massive public confusion surrounding the concept of gender.

Every piece I’ve looked at that discusses the Semenya controversy uses “male” and “man” interchangeably, asking in headlines whether “she” is really a “he.”

However, that’s not really the question at hand. What the IAAF wants to know is whether Semenya is female. So if Caster Semenya believes she’s a woman, presents herself as a woman, then she is indeed a woman.

Many people don’t realize there is a huge difference between being female and being a woman—or being male and being a man, for that matter. Female and male are biological terms that relate to the possession of XX and XY chromosomes, but also to phenotypic sex expression, including “the plumbing.”

Gender, on the other hand, is a social construction—a set of behavioral “norms” dictated by members of a society. As much as people will argue otherwise, gender isn’t tied to genitals.

The forced and binary gendering of children, however, is another topic for another time. What does all this have to do with Caster Semenya and her gold medal?

Well, she can still be a woman while being genetically male.

Results from tests prior to Semenya’s win claimed that her testosterone level was three times higher than the average female. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome could explain the issue, as the condition renders the body resistant to androgens (male sex hormones containing testosterone) while overproducing them in an effort to make them work on the body the way they should.

Plus, the testes never drop, making the genitals look more like a vagina instead of a penis—which is unfortunately still considered a criterion for womanhood by most, and increases the likelihood that her parents have raised her as a woman since birth.

AIS isn’t the only possibility, either.

A number of causes exist that result in intersex births. Beyond that, trans individuals who have successfully undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy would also manifest a physically different appearance from their genetic sex.

The outcome and aftermath of Semenya’s test impacts more people than just her. It is potentially a landmark in the struggle for trans women, intersex women, and those who are gender-fluid to participate in women’s athletics.

It’s unlikely that organizations like the IAAF would allow a trans woman to compete in male sports based on her genetic sex. And it would be disgusting to return to the days of mandatory sex tests for female (and only female) athletic events, because it does not really level the playing field to ensure no males participate. If Caster Semenya is found to be genetically male, her medal will not be stripped from her, but her dignity and her future opportunities to compete will be.

She would no longer be able to run against females because people would claim she has a physical advantage. And she certainly could not race against males because of societal stigma generated by her gender identity as a woman.

No, leveling the playing field will be forced to wait until competitive sports—and society—learn to separate sex from gender.

Chelsea is a fifth year senior in LAS.

Change needs a progressive partner, and that partner is…a boyfriend or girlfriend

Originally published April 2, 2009.

The word “partner” means a number of things: “a person who takes part with another or others in doing something,” “a dancing companion,” “a person who is party to something,” and “each of a group of two or more symbiotically associated organisms,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

A partner is also “a person who is linked by marriage to another, a spouse; a member of a couple who live together or are habitual companions; a lover.”

This particular definition represents the conflict of opinions surrounding the usage of the word “partner” in the context of an emotional relationship. The general consensus seems to agree that referring to someone as your partner denotes a lengthy, serious relationship with that person.

That relationship, however, can be as friends, as a dating couple, or as spouses…and these are only a few examples.

Introducing someone as your partner inspires a variety of responses. I typically get a confused look from the person I’m talking to, reflecting the internal debate over whether I’m straight.

For this reason, many straight people opt out of using “partner” to describe their own relationships. It represents the whole “Hey, it’s cool if you’re gay, but I don’t want people to think I’m gay” facet of homophobia.

The problem is that “partner” exists in a kind of linguistic limbo. People across the spectrum of sexuality feel that it denotes too serious a connection with someone to be used casually. It also comes with a lot of unwanted attention.

Because of the connotation that the speaker is in a committed, same-gender relationship, some LGBT individuals avoid it altogether.

Its usage suggests that the length or seriousness of one’s relationship is up for public discussion.

For some straight people, however, calling your significant other your “partner” demonstrates a willingness to open yourself up to this kind of discussion. I wouldn’t refer to the person I’ve been seeing for two and a half years as my “boyfriend,” and I’m fully prepared to explain in conversation with others why I call him my partner.

To me, talking about my choice of language forces me into a (only minimally) similar experience to what LGBT-identified people face when talking about their romantic relationships with others—the judgment of listeners.

Despite the readiness of some straight-identified people to give up some of their privilege as “the norm” by employing the term “partner,” the word itself took on its current meaning in an effort to provide LGBT people a means of talking about their relationships.

Because of this, some argue, “partner” inherently implies the existing legal and cultural inequality between different-gender and same-gender relationships.

Using it means many can forgo explicitly “outing” themselves in certain situations, but it also highlights the fact that for most LGBT relationships, titles like “wife,” “husband,” and “spouse” are legally unavailable though conversationally used.

Does this mean that it’s counter-productive for a straight-identified person to have a “partner” rather than a “boyfriend”? No, but it does point to a few other things. The first is that a single word doesn’t have the power to erase inequality. The second, though, is that the movement to make all these terms interchangeable does.

If straight people made a mass decision that as of tomorrow, everyone would say “partner” instead of anything else, it wouldn’t erase the belief that same-gender relationships are somehow inferior.

But if LGBTpeople claim heteronormative, gendered terms as their own and straight allies try to understand LGBT perspectives by making their sexuality ambiguous using terms like “partner,” a whole lot of confusion is bound to ensue.

That confusion results in explanation, which fosters discussion about relationships and relationship rights. And that’s where cultural change—the key to legal change, civil rights, and equality—begins.

Chelsea is a senior in English and creative writing and has mostly figured out how to wrap her sari … mostly.

Behavioral science, quant II…diversity ed?

Originally published February 5, 2009.

Every year, University housing sends new paraprofessionals through a variety of training sessions in order to prepare them for their residence hall positions. One of the training requirements for these students is an actual course, EOL199.

While new housing staff takes a specific version of this course, many sections are offered for undergrad students, recently revamped from EOL199 to EPSY203. Titled “Social Issues Group Dialogues,” the class “provides students with opportunities to converse on specific diversity and social justice topic areas offered as separate sections,” according to its description in the spring semester course catalog.

Essentially, the idea behind the course is to spend the latter part of the semester engaging in in-depth conversations with a small group of other students about specific social-identity-related topics such as sexual orientation, religion, race and ethnicity, among others.

Given the University’s current climate regarding issues of diversity, especially race and ethnicity, it’s encouraging to see that so many sections of this potentially eye-opening course are being offered for this semester (nine in all).

At the same time, I don’t think this is an effective implementation of this course. Its potential to do a lot of good for the University community is being stunted by its presentation.

First, it’s not even a full-semester course. That makes no sense given the complexity of the topics under discussion. One semester may only be enough to scratch the surface of subjects within gender, racial and religious studies, but six weeks is not even enough to make a mark.

Second, each course section admits students only by application. This may not be a big deal for students interested in taking EPSY203, but it eliminates campus-wide appeal. A student’s desire to take the course is likely precipitated by some interest or experience in diversity education, and while it’s fantastic for everybody to think deeply about social issues, this is not necessarily the type of person who really needs to take classes such as these. Rather, it’s the students who won’t go through the hassle of filling out an application, the students who have never given a thought to social identities and issues – the students who believe “diversity” is just some politically correct term that will disappear after graduation.

What we need is a broader version of EPSY203, one that lasts a full semester and examines social issues related to not just one specific aspect of social identity but to all of them. Courses meant to fulfill the non-Western/U.S. minority culture and behavioral science gen ed requirements don’t put students in a room together with the object of engaging them in dialogue about their life experiences being black, lesbian, Christian, poor, straight, differently abled, Muslim or white. For many students, the gen ed requirements put in place to make them “well-rounded young leaders in today’s world” are forgettable lectures in which their instructor doesn’t know their name or grade their assignments, much less push them outside their comfort zones.

Ideally, this introductory social issues course would be required for all undergrads during freshman year, first semester. It’s not intended to convert anyone to hardcore liberal thinking, as many might complain, but simply to act as an introduction: to make students aware of their surroundings.

Although campuses may promote diversity and tolerance differently than “the real world,” the knowledge that there are more types of people out there than just themselves equips students not only to better understand their society but also to better understand the increasingly global market. It encourages respect for others and creates cultural learning opportunities by enabling thought-provoking discourse instead of an evangelism of opinions.

Let’s face it: The campus perceives diversity initiatives like Inclusive Illinois as almost as badly managed and ineffective as Global Campus, but a required introductory diversity course has the power to really highlight social issues in a way many students may never have thought about them – through the eyes of a friend or classmate met in an intimate discussion setting every week.

Perhaps instead of just making us take a physical science or some quantitative reasoning classes, the University could include little things such as, say, teaching us to coexist with one another, too.

Chelsea is a senior in English and creative writing and is trying to learn to evenly apply 30 lbs. of pressure with her espresso tamper while rotating it 720 degrees.

Election won’t end prejudice

Originally published October 30, 2008.

After centuries of exploitation, an arduous and bloody struggle for liberation in the United States, and a perpetual battle against discrimination, it’s finally happened. As we draw nearer to Election Day and watch Senator Barack Obama still campaigning fervently, it’s apparent. Racism has been eliminated.

Yep, that’s right. Now that a black man has been successfully nominated by a major party for the presidency, now that he’s run a powerful campaign, and now that he just might win that spot in the Oval Office, racism’s gone. Everyone is equal now. Yes, if one black man can make it to the top, everyone can!

So goodbye, affirmative action! While we’re at it, why don’t we just get rid of the technicalities of equal opportunity employment and nondiscrimination statements, too? After all, Barack Obama has gotten rid of racial prejudice. That must mean that we’re done with discrimination, no matter who it pertains to. Thanks, Barack!

If nothing else, the Obama campaign has shown the United States the exact opposite of my jokes–that is, how very racist we still are. From mainstream news media’s attempts to focus only on Obama’s “racial appeal” in the beginning of his presidential run to accusations that he isn’t “black enough,” from the disgusting suggestions that he and his wife are clearly black supremacists to the recently derailed assassination plot of two white supremacists, it is incredibly hard to believe that the Illinois senator’s success has eliminated racial prejudice.

That said, it’s also ridiculous to suggest that Obama’s accomplishments render affirmative action unnecessary, especially when people still have so many misconceptions about it: that affirmative action pertains only to racial minorities (wrong), that it is used to meet population “quotas” (wrong) and that its implementation means the selection of a candidate based solely on his or her race (you guessed it: wrong).

Let’s clear these up quickly. Affirmative action deals not only with race, but with gender, disability status, and veteran status. It isn’t used to meet diversity quotas, which are illegal. Most activity related to affirmative action deals with recruitment and outreach to qualified candidates (keyword: qualified) in underrepresented communities. Building on that, the policy can be used (not “is always used”) to consider a single, identity-based criteria as a deciding factor regarding a qualified individual.

The whole idea behind affirmative action is to ensure that we make an active effort to create truly equal opportunities for all people. Sorry, but just stating that a university or employer doesn’t discriminate doesn’t make it true. The policy is a means of rectifying this issue.

Because of mainstream misinterpretations of affirmative action, it’s easy to say that the issue would never have been brought up in response to Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that it applies to her, too. It’s certainly not being brought up against Sarah Palin now. If Clinton were in Obama’s position now, would we make any assessments about policies perceived to protect the interests of women?

Gender isn’t listed as an identity criterion in federal hate crime law. A wage gap between men’s and women’s earnings still exists. We’re kidding ourselves if we really believe that the placement of any woman in the White House means we’ve completely shattered that oft-mentioned glass ceiling. With gender inequity so obvious, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would have suggested some repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Or maybe our silence has nothing to do with gender. Maybe it’s simply because Clinton and Palin are both white.

It’s not as though there’s been no change in attitudes about social identities, especially race, but let’s hold off on throwing confetti and proposing toasts to the “end of prejudice.” The appalling assumptions about affirmative action that still stand are testament to why we need it in the first place: people apparently can’t wrap their heads around the very real existence of qualified minority candidates applying for jobs and institutions of higher education, or that racial minorities can and do get selected without the implementation of affirmative action. Perhaps one day, we’ll reach a point when the policy is obsolete. For now, we still have a long way to go.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and has a dentist appointment on Halloween.