A recent article in Time explained:

. . . that female athletes who in the past have been suspected of being men may have suffered from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), a condition in which a person who is genetically male — that is, their 23rd chromosome pair is XY — is resistant to androgens, the male sex hormones that include testosterone. As a result, the testes present in that person’s abdomen never descend, and neither they nor their parents ever realize they are actually boys. Those with complete AIS will have a totally female body on the outside, but will lack ovaries and a uterus. Others may demonstrate partial AIS. . .It’s those characteristics that Semenya’s competitors see in the world champ, leading them to predict — and hope — that her forthcoming gender results will leave her ineligible to compete with women.

Rather than a mere physical exam, where genitalia is the determining factor, the IAFF is calling for a months-long process of gender testing, involving several specialists and exhaustive testing.

I find it disturbing that anyone, least of all an 18 year-old, would be subjected to forced gender testing in order to appease their competitors. It might be another matter if Semenya was a boy disguised as a girl in order to compete, but that’s not the accusation. Semenya was born and raised as a girl, and those in the position to know — her midwife, parents, grandparents, and a former roommate — attest that she does not have, and has never had, a penis.

Lacking proof of actual male genitalia, Semenya’s competitors hope that the IAFF testing will reveal some other anomaly that will effectively kick Semenya out of the women’s category. Among the specialists that will participate in Semenya’s anticipated de-womanizing is a psychologist. I wonder what the outcome might be if Semenya’s DNA comes back as XX, but her thought processes are considered more male. Would the IAFF consider this an unfair “advantage” in women’s sports?

And what happens if Semenya isn’t an XX or an XY, but an oddly tall (5’7″)and vigorous XO? Genetically, she would be a female, but one with a missing chromosome. Should anomalous genetic makeup disqualify Semenya from women’s sports? If so, then shouldn’t other genetic freaks, like NBA basketball star Ming Yao, also be disqualified since his 7’6″ frame clearly gives him an advantage over his tall but genetically normal competitors? Should he and other overly tall basketball players be checked for mutations of the NSD-1 gene, which can cause gigantism? Is it fair to other players to allow Yao to professionally compete?

If the IFAA determination is that DNA is more important than genitalia in separating men from women in sports, then why not test all effeminate males? That’s a rhetorical question, because male athletes have not been subjected to gender testing like females regularly were up until 1999, when the International Olympic Committee passed a resolution to stop the practice.

Gender testing began when it was believed that males might disguise themselves as females in order to enter, and conceivably win, a women’s event. While this would be a valid concern, it was not the accusation against Semenya. The IAFF has repeatedly stated that they do not believe Semenya was being deceptive about her gender. “It’s a medical issue. It’s not an issue of cheating,” IAFF spokesperson Nick Davies said.

So at 18 years-old, Caster Semenya — born a girl, raised as a girl — will find out whether science agrees with the midwife who delivered her, the parents that raised her, and the children who taunted her for not acting like the girl they believed she was.  This is probably not what Semenya thought her victory would bring. Instead of being greeted with cheers and hailed as a hero, Semenya has been met with questions, derision, and public humiliation. Instead of having the difference she was born with accepted, sought-after, and nurtured, like Ming Yao’s was, Semenya’s fellow athletes have sought to have her thrown out of the sport.

Clearly, I think the IFAA decision is wrong. If they do not believe Semenya “cheated” — in other words, if they know that she was born with and has female genitalia, which they appear to — than they should not embark on a genetic fishing expedition to appease those who find Semenya’s talent and ambiguous appearance unsettling.

8/24, Corrected for spelling error. This article also appears on the Huffington Post for those who would like to comment.

Share this:

They dull the sun and obscure the view, and the sheer number of them makes it hard to appreciate what otherwise might be interesting, unique, or beautiful.  In this way, trees, I think,  are like nature’s exclamation points. And Minnesota has way too many of them.

I’m not sure what it says about me that I prefer the neat rows of palm trees in Southern California, or the leafless evergreen pines of Tahoe, or the dignity of Northern redwoods that insist on having their own space even in a crowd.  Even the rolling, prickly sagebrush of the Nevada desert is more appealing to me than the haphazard and overly-exclamatory trees of Minnesota.

Many people claim to love the wilderness. They are excited about Outdoors! Nature! Ruggedness! I wonder where the bodies are buried. They see Wildlife! Bears! Eagles!!! I see round-bellied crows feeding off of carcasses. They delight in the trees. Birch! Willows! White Ash! I feel anxious about not being able to see what’s on the horizon. I have never been able to see what’s on the horizon in Minnesota.

Kristine sat at the counter in her cut-off jeans and gym socks, dirty sneakers dangling from the stool, biting her lip and twirling her hair as she studied the geography of places she’d never see. . .

After the reading, Tammie/Raven took a deep breath and closed her eyes as if my future was exhausting, even to her. I tried to suppress my laughter, but the Avon catalog was still on the table, and my pockets were full of tiny test tubes of lipstick and Timeless Ultra cologne. . .

The baby was shirtless in October, splotches of M&M colors covering his chest as he sucked on a faded blue bottle filled with Sprite. . .

His voice rose as he repeated his request that I borrow him a big. A what? I asked. A BIG!!! he screamed. I asked him to write it down.  Oh, a bag.  Well, he replied, dat’s what I sayd a doozen times, ain’t it?

Minnesota has been my wilderness.  A land without a foreseeable horizon.  There are too many trees here, too many exclamation points, and too many strange stories.  I need the neatness of a valley to lay everything out in — I need to be able to see for miles ahead — I need sunshine to dry out and cure my memories.

California! Tahoe! Santa Monica! Santa Cruz!  It’s still a long ways off, but in the meantime I’m peering through the shadows of trees, imagining once again feeling like a friendly native in a land of diverse freaks I’m comfortable with and who speak the same language.  And sure, California probably invented the exclamation point (as well as the word awesome) but much like bronzer and belly button rings  Californians just wear them better.

Edited, 6/11/09

Share this:

I had my choice between a 10 minute, 100 question test or a longer 300 question version.  I’m impatient, so I chose the option that took the least amount of effort.  I’m pretty sure that psychology would give me a demerit for that, since its a subjective science that seems to use Jesus as a role model — and we all know that Jesus wasn’t a slacker.

As a school of thought psychology, like Jesus’s Christianity, seems to value a sense of altruism and sacrifice in its adherents.  It advances a pseudo-religious creed of love for all mankind, unselfishness, and an unbridled spirit of empathy and compassion.  It wants disciples who will strive to maintain a happy, positive attitude no matter how wretched or difficult a situation might be.

But are the ideals and expectations of psychology rational?  Do the terms and labels employed by psychology work toward better understanding and social enlightenment, or are they simply a convenient way to exclude in some way those who don’t fit the mold?

One of the agree/disagree statements on the personality test was:  “You have a good word for everybody”.  This is a question meant to measure one’s level of “agreeableness” — the value an individual places on getting along with other people.  The higher your score, the more “considerate, friendly, compassionate, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise” you are considered to be.  In other words, you’re that much closer to Jesus.

The problem with the “good word” question is that it’s illogical. Jesus might say there’s no such thing as an illogical question, but how rational was a man who believed he could walk on water and rise from the dead?  Jesus today would have been locked up or put on some heavy doses of anti-psychotic medication yet the school of psychology, perhaps unwittingly, relies on a role model very similar to Jesus to inform its beliefs on what constitutes the most positive and desirable individual traits.

As a rational person, I don’t have a good word to say about murderers, child abusers, rapists, suicide bombers, white collar thieves, war mongers, wife beaters, and baby slayers.  Jesus might have felt a calling to dig into the dark souls of the wretched and pluck out a ray of light — but I don’t see the point.  While it pays to understand the why and how of society’s predators so that we can work on prevention, I feel no particular compassion, empathy, or mercy towards the who that committed the crime.  A person who can rape a child, beat a woman to death, kill dozens in a bombing — or who revels in the high life after stealing millions of dollars from others — does not, in my opinion, merit empathy, but disdain.

Another unqualified test statement was “You like to make people happy”.  I know there are some people who might rejoice (such as neoconservatives and child abusers) if I never wrote another word, but I don’t really care about their happiness.  I’m also sure it thrills my neighbor when I clean up his dog’s shit from the communal lawn, but I don’t do it to make him happy. I do it because I have a dog and don’t want the condo association to change its pet-friendly policies.

Jesus would probably clean up after the lazy neighbor as a good deed.  Jesus liked to do good deeds even if they weren’t rewarded — but of course they usually were.  In fabled stories, the wicked would see Jesus’s good example,  have an epiphany, and fall to their knees in gratitude.

In real life, I resent picking up basketball-sized mounds of German Shepherd shit, and the only epiphany my negligent neighbor seems to have had, despite letters and conversations, is that someone else will eventually take care of the mess.  I don’t delight in Sunday mornings hunched over piles of dog poop with rubber gloves, but I might feel quite differently if my neighbor was incapacitated or actually needed my help.

Like most people, I also enjoy making those I love, admire, or otherwise value happy.  There’s gratification in giving to friends and family members, as well as to those whom I see as deserving but less fortunate. So do I like to make people happy? It depends on who they are and whether or not their happiness is important to me.

The test asked if I agreed or disagreed with the statement: “I am not interested in abstract ideas”.  Again, it depends. I met a philosophy student once who insisted that a Pepsi can only existed because I thought it did. He did not believe that material reality could exist outside of one’s own beliefs.  I wasn’t interested in his abstract (nonsensical) theory at all.  Carl Sagan, though, has put out some abstract theories that are fascinating — and so did Jesus — which is what I believe is at the root of psychology’s odd mix of mysticism and studied rationales.

The “think positive” movement is a prime example of mixing magical thinking with academic study.  “Think it and be it” and other reality-defiers are buoyed by massive studies that lead to such sterling conclusions as “happy people are happier”.

The feeling of happiness, despite the reality of circumstances, (think Job, think Jesus on the cross) has, in tides and trends, been sold like a mandate to the masses, and this mandate has diluted even our language — there are no obstacles, only challenges.  We don’t have problems, but issues.  We don’t have realities, but perceptions.  What would Jesus do?

Jesus likely wouldn’t have invented electricity, the telephone, the automobile, or the  MacBook Pro that I covet.  While I disagree with much of the criteria that psychology professor Dean Keith Simonton used to define genius in his recent book,  I agree with his general conclusion that geniuses tend to be “open to experience, introverted, (and) hostile. . .”.  In other words, not very Jesus-like at all.

What label, besides “hostile”, does psychology put on those who are emotionally reactive and therefore more likely to experience “negative” feelings such as anger and frustration?  Psychology calls them neurotic.  The old testament God would have scored very high in this category but the softer, gentler Jesus would have scored low.  According to psychology, the mythical God, creator of the world — the one who was emotionally reactive, moody, and easily irritated –  would have a diminished ability to “think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress”.  Jesus, by contrast, would be “calm and emotionally stable”.

If Simonton’s personality theory of genius is to be believed, then shouldn’t we be concerned with how much potential is being thwarted in classrooms when non-conforming smart children, who are easily bored and irritated, are taught a curriculum that’s geared towards the average and not the exceptional?  What about adults with above-average intelligence who find themselves frustrated by slow thinkers, outdated methods, and irrational beliefs?

The Jesus-model of psychology would have everyone believe that they are special and unique — but no more special or unique than anyone else –  which really gives “special” a whole new meaning, one that’ s not quite sameness, but more like same worth.  To feel that you may have more intrinsic or social worth than someone else, (no matter how base, unethical, or irrational that someone might be),  is considered by psychology to be arrogant, narcissistic, grandiose –  even delusional.  It’s just not very Jesus-like.

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of others, and didn’t whine enough about it to be considered a martyr or someone suffering from persecution complex, therefore it stands to (psychology’s) reason that people should be selfless enough to see the positives in their own adverse circumstances.  It’s not what happens to you, it’s how you feel about it.  You choose your own feelings.  No one else and no other circumstance can dictate the way you feel — it’s a choice — so think positive.

Try to keep that in mind the next time someone slams your finger in a car door or empties your retirement account. What would Jesus do? He’d forgive, of course, and then find a way to make it a positive, life-affirming experience because, after all, happy people are happier. And happier people are just a whole lot more fun to be around than those who are always questioning reason and authority and letting themselves be bugged by facts or circumstances that are not in their milieu or immediate power to change.

Yet no change occurs in a vacuum, and every grassroots social cause begins with disgruntlement or unhappiness over a certain situation — whether or not it is our own, or even on shared soil.  Positive changes, in other words, often stem from “negative” feelings and thoughts.  While joy is certainly a preferred feeling for its euphoric qualities, this doesn’t lessen the validity or rationality of other emotions, such as frustration, anger, or sadness.  That some people might feel these “negative” emotions more often than others might not indicate neuroses, but a heightened sense of awareness of the world outside their own front door.

Another flaw in personality tests is that questions are often asked in slightly different ways in order to measure truthfulness, but for many people, including myself, a change in wording is a change in meaning. “Do you feel that you have had more bad experiences than most other people” is, to me,  a totally different question than “Do you feel that you are cursed”.  One may be an arguable fact, while the other indicates a belief in the mystical concepts of blessings and curses.

The storied Jesus, while hanging on a cross, went through a range of emotions, at first blaming his father for forsaking him, then believing that he was being tortured so that others could be forgiven. I believe Jesus’s MMPI scores would have fluctuated dramatically given the day. In the end, though, it’s the feel-good story of Jesus — as a simple, self-sacrificing, loving, humble, calm, altruistic forgiver of all wrongs — that seems to inform psychology’s definition of social harmony and mental health.  There is no doubt that many people, particularly the religious, find this not only acceptable but somehow perfect.  After all, who wouldn’t want to be more like Jesus?

There’s a disparity between Jesus and mere mortals, though, that many seem to forget.  Jesus could turn water into wine, heal the sick, stop a storm, and drive the evil spirits out of the wicked and possessed.  Is it any wonder he was such a calm, affable guy?  I know I’d be much less stressed out if I was capable of pulling off a miracle or forty-seven.  I’d definitely be a lot more agreeable.

If psychiatry is to psychology what science is to art, (and I believe there’s truth in that), but both rely on the Jesus model to some degree, then both would seem to be less rational, less tolerant of difference, more bent on conformity, and ultimately much more limiting to the advancement of humanity, than they make themselves out to be.

How many employers are now using personality tests to decide who gets a job and who doesn’t?  How many “introverted” people or “hostile” geniuses are being excluded from consideration due to these supposedly undesirable traits? In schools, how many extraordinarily bright but “easily frustrated” children are being labeled with ADD or personality disorders?   How many potential “beautiful minds” have we lost by insisting that they are not socially harmonious or agreeable enough for our schools, our workplaces, our institutions?

How many potential  Galileos and Van Goghs would the modern day world of psychology have us abandon to the mythical, invisible role model of Jesus?

Share this:

This edition of WTF Friday doesn’t aim to ask any deep questions, though. Taking the lead from some big, popular publications, we are instead going to ponder the inane and irrelevant with all the lightheartedness we can muster in a world where puffed-up provocateurs like Rush Limbaugh make more in a month than many of us will earn in a lifetime.

Oh yes, I know, my kindred American dreamers.   It’s all about working hard, keeping our noses clean, and paying the bills.  The working-class ethos of my ragtag childhood are ringing in my ears at this very moment.  There’s no such thing as cheap Oxycontin, a free lunch, or a free ride.  People with lots of money work really really hard and make wise decisions.  Just ask newly-minted millionaire Dustin Dibble, age 25.

Dibble had to work (the bottle) really hard in 2006 in order to get drunk enough to fall into the path of an oncoming subway train.  He lost part of one leg, but was so inebriated that he doesn’t even remember falling.  A New York jury recently awarded Dibble 2.3 million dollars after his attorney convinced the jury that the conductor was 65% at fault for not stopping in time.  Dibble stumbled onto the track when the train was about 180 feet away.

Elaine Hess of Florida also recently raked in the big bucks — $8 million of them — because her chain-smoking husband died in 1997 after a forty year habit.   8000 other Floridians are standing in the same lawsuit line, waiting for their slice of a $145B class action award the State won from big tobacco several years ago.  Never mind that these billions could have been used to fund actual health care costs, cessation programs for smokers, and prevention programs — all of which were originally part of several State’s cases against big tobacco.   Instead, let’s make a few millionaires, buy some golf carts, hire a dogcatcher, build a museum… because.  Well, didn’t we just talk about shit garden economics, and the vegetables it grows?

The question on everyone’s mind though should be What Really DID happen to Anna Winthour’s Thumb? If you don’t know who Anna Winthour is, then we’re pretty much on the same page.   I didn’t know either, but my fashion is pretty much limited to tatty sweaters and faded jeans.  In the world out THERE, where the super-riche and fashionable people live, Winthour is the editor of that thick pile of ads otherwise known as Vogue.  The mystery in the fashion world this week wasn’t why women can no longer find jeans without lycra in them, or why Vera Wang designed such hideous clothes for Kohl’s, it was why Winthour was wearing a Band-Aid on her thumb.  This incredibly important story is complete with a slide show, and the relieving news that Winthour miraculously healed — even if the reporter’s emails to Vogue did go mysteriously unanswered.

It might also behoove you to know that “Hillary Clinton’s Glasses Make Rare Appearance in Seoul”.  And yes, thank God, there’s another slideshow.

My point is — we seem to have missed the gravy train, people.  As far as I know, there is not one paid reporter of meaningless news, or multi-million dollar lawsuit winner among us.  WTF? I think some of us may have taken that whole work-hard-keep-your-nose-clean-American-dream thing a little too seriously.

So how was YOUR week?  Any WTF’s you’d like to unload?

Share this:

I’d lace up my white, metal-wheeled skates and race myself around the blocks of Valmar Place and Severn Drive, pretending to be a jammer making my way through the pack and around the rink, occasionally having to elbow Dee Bauchery or Shirley Trample out of my way.

Outside of the Olympics and occasional gymnastic or ice skating championships,  female athletes were  mostly invisible in the 1970′s.   The wealthier girls in my neighborhood might have taken dance lessons, but the closest most of us got to any sort of organized athletics was tether ball or softball at school.   Women’s roller derby was over-the-top and theatrical, but it also showed that women could be strong, competitive, and successful, even if — especially if — they weren’t cute, 88 pound pixies.

I was a little disappointed when a roller derby movie, Kansas City Bomber, came out in 1972 starring Raquel Welch.  I thought I’d prefer someone like Ali McGraw, who was both tomboyish and beautiful, but Raquel’s athleticism surprised me. I later found out that she did most of her own stunts for the film.

I recently learned that roller derby, in all its theatrical, punk-feminist glory, has been revived, and that there are almost 300 roller derby leagues currently playing around the nation. Why did this have to happen now, when I’m about two decades removed from my prime? I so would have joined in my twenties. I could have been Jamie Demolition according to this roller derby name generator. I could have been somebody. I could have been a contender.

Dreams die hard, but it’s nice to know that roller derby lives on for the next generation of rough and tumble girls.

So what would your roller derby name be?

Share this:

So why are the parents of the boy now shopping around for an attorney?  According to them, their child is “sensitive and shy”.  He has, according to his father Richard Smith,  “no mental health problems.  He’s never hurt himself. He’s never hurt anyone else.”  While mother Barbara Smith admits that her son has thrown such tantrums before, and was once suspended for knocking over a desk, she believes she should have been allowed to “defuse” the situation without police intervention.

However, police in Largo, Florida did intervene and after speaking with the boy and other parties involved, decided to implement the Baker Act and send the boy to a mental health hospital for evaluation.  The boy stayed overnight, against the will of his parents, and now the parents are outraged and looking to sue.

The police find themselves in the position of having to defend their decision to use the Baker Act — which gives them the authority to hospitalize people against their will if they believe there’s a likelihood of them injuring themselves or others — against a seven year-old.

Anyone familiar with my work knows how I feel about automatic hero status being conferred upon those in fields like education and law enforcement.  I don’t believe that a certificate or a badge makes a hero, any more than I believe that every parent does what’s best for their child.  So when I read stories like this, I’m not automatically given to one side or the other.

In this case, it’s particularly difficult because there’s a third party involved that has been rendered near-powerless by policies meant to ensure equal access to education.  School districts have little long-term authority over troubled and disruptive students, and what authority they do have is often granted by the parents in the form of an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or other cooperative program.  Parents will often resist their child being placed in “special education” due to the stigma attached, which places an extra burden on non-Special Ed teachers and their students.

So while this child’s behavior issues might have been earlier and better addressed between the parents and the school, it’s understandable to me why the police were called and why they decided to use the Baker Act.  Ideal?  No.   Absolutely necessary?  Probably not.  Logical, needs-based, and an attempt to be preventative?  Yes.

I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon of  “they must be terrible parents” because children with behavior problems can happen to the best-intentioned and most loving parents.  However, a failure to recognize recurring tantrums — especially those that involve things like upturning desks and throwing books — as problematic and unacceptable is dangerous.  It’s dangerous for the child in question, for his future, and for others in his vicinity.

What we call a temper tantrum in a young child is a fit of rage as they grow older.  The lack of impulse and emotional control shown by a screaming, desk spilling, seven year-old is not something he’s likely to grow out of on his own.

I know how easy it is for parents to disbelieve, though.  Children come to them after their bath, sweetly snuggle next to them on the couch, smile and giggle as they tell their stories, and they think there’s just no way. . . no way there’s something wrong with this child.  They hear reports, as the Smiths did from the hospital psychologist, that their child was “polite and friendly” during an evaluation and they think “See?  It was just a moment, just a bad day, something that this or that person provoked”.  They begin to believe that the incident was blown out of proportion — they find fault with others — they begin shopping for an attorney.

What they don’t do is comprehend that their child — the one whose eyes are wide with excitement on Christmas morning, the one who sits on their laps, and loves to ride his bike — is in need of help.  That while he may be sensitive and shy, he may also be unable to control his impulses or his emotions.  That while it’s unlikely any psychologist would categorize a seven year-old  as “mentally ill”,  most would believe that the child could benefit from therapy and behavior modification, and there should be no stigma, for either parents or child,  attached to that.

The worst action that could be taken is action that doesn’t address the needs of the child — such as downplaying his behavior, or attempting to sue the police for trying to get him professionally evaluated — when it was obvious that his own parents believed no such evaluation was necessary.  At what point in a troubled child’s life should a more objective authority than his parents be able to intervene?  At what point is it not enough that the mother can “defuse” the situation — when the situation shouldn’t be occurring in the first place?  Don’t teachers, (particularly those who don’t specialize in special education),  and their  students have a right to teach and learn in a safe, non-threatening environment?

This child needs help.  The police, instead of turning their backs and saying “not our problem”  did what they could to get him some.  Instead of the parents looking to cash in on what they believe was  “a total abuse of police power”, they might better serve themselves, their child, and society by getting their son the help he needs.  Before his childhood tantrums become teen or adult rage.

Sources:
TampaBay.com
10Connects.com

Share this: