What is a Woman?

This is a question I've been asking myself since the Caster Semenya gender scandal gained popularity last week.

It's interesting, being a woman and suddenly asking myself what makes me think I am a woman. Or what makes me classify other women as women.


Is it our long hair? Certainly not, since many men wear their hair long and many women wear theirs short.


Is it our curves? The indentation at the waist, the full breasts, or the pouting lips? Happily, I think not; otherwise, I (and many popular models) would not be considered women because of our nearly flat chests and lack of any real curviness. Then, too, are those who've undergone cosmetic and gender reassignment surgeries: Are they more womanly than I am because a doctor enhanced or completely altered the shape and nature of the body parts that Nature and God assigned them?

Is it purely genetic composition, perhaps chromosomal markers, that designate gender? I wouldn't think so for two reasons: 1) gender is more of a social label, whereas sex refers more to scientific classification by chromosomes; and 2) as the above article points out, some "women" don't have standard female chromosomes. We may think of the definitions of the sexes as always being XX or XY, but there are variations where an individual has an extra chromosome -- possibly XXY -- making it more difficult to classify them.

What is it then that makes a woman a woman? I'm tempted to say that it is one's ability to conceive and bear children (since it's the one thing a male can't do), but this has the obvious flaw in that many women, for one reason or another, cannot have children.

This also raises the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't define gender as strictly one or the other, black-or-white; being a female isn't merely a lack of male characteristics or the possession of characteristics males lack. Indeed, there's something more.


Photo from the Huffington Post website.

Other questions come to mind as well: Why does it matter whether Caster is a woman? And why is this athlete's gender suddenly being questioned?

It seems the IAAF is so interested in Caster because the athlete is so much faster than other opponents in recent races and has even been breaking her previous records. That this would be so remarkable is confusing to me, since at 18 her body continues to grow, and I'm sure many of these changes would result in increased strength and speed, especially when combined with proper diet and a rigorous training routine.

So what, then? Is it really so odd for a female athlete to demonstrate superior abilities? Or do we prefer that our top female athletes be model material?

I won't even begin to suggest, as many people in the article suggest, that race would be a factor. Babe Didrikson was American, white, and of Norwegian descent -- yet her gender was questioned for years because of her dominance of sports, even putting many prominent male athletes to shame.

So now I think we're getting somewhere. It's not because Caster's black or poor that makes anyone question her gender. It's the combination of her athletic ability and -- let's face it -- downright unfeminine appearance.

But if she were merely unfeminine would we question her gender, or would it even be such a big deal? Heck, I don't think she's very feminine, and in fact I myself question whether she is a woman because of the way her body is storing muscle and the fact that she could use a shave. But it seems that some people (including her competitors) only question it because she is so freakin' talented.

What does this tell us? Well, it tells me two things: 1) society isn't very comfortable with unfeminine women, and 2) there is an idea (even among female athletes) that women cannot compete at the same level as men.

As a woman, I find both deplorable. Then again, I think all sports and athletic competitions should be coed, anyway. I've always thought that smacked of discrimination to separate male and female athletes.

And now we come back to my original question: What is a woman? The only honest answer I can give is that a woman is whatever she makes of herself. If she can only be a woman by possessing stereotypical physical traits, then more power to her. If reproducing is what makes her feel like a woman, then have at it.

As for myself, I'm off to perform my Suzie Homemaker routine -- minus the pearls, heels or makeup, but with lots of punk rock and some accounting lesson reviews to boot.