![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Saturday, June Thomas wrote a Slate blog post speculating about why South African runner Caster Semenya did not win gold in the women's 800 meters. Could she have purposely not run her best? Who gives a flying fork?
Naturally, because the media is hung up on these things, any mention of Semenya must include reference to her humiliating debacle in 2009, when the International Association of Athletics Federations self-appointed gender police subjected her to intrusive testing and a temporary ban from competition because she was too awesome for them to handle. There's been all sorts of speculation about the results of the tests -- OMG what does Caster Semenya have in her pants the world HAS to know?!?!?!!??! -- but Semenya refuses to dignify this bull hooey with a direct response.
Thomas encourages Semenya to discuss the results of the IAAF's tests. While acknowledging that Semenya's physical and psychological abuse at the hands of the IAAF was "humiliating" and that the people who gossip are "nosey" [sic], Thomas seems to think that Semenya has only 2 options. First, she can hide forever. Second, she can tell the world in excruciating detail all about her hormonal levels, her reproductive organs, her external genitalia, et hoc genus omne.
I vote for option 3 -- ignoring people like Thomas and the self-appointed gender police. Gender variant people like Semenya do not owe the gender homogenous masses anything. Gender variant people do not have publically available bodies that anyone can check out and see what's inside; they aren't library books! People are way too hung up on policing gender, and Semenya's public response to the IAAF's abuse would grant power and legitimacy to their invasive crapola. Jesus Christ, it's not that hard. Anyone who identifies as a woman should be allowed to compete as a woman against other women, and she should not have to drop trou every time she does something impressive.
Aug. 13th, 2012
Tracking a package online is kind of like watching a pot boil. Nothing happens...nothing happens...the tracking status does update...doesn't update...the water sits there, not bubbling...not bubbling... Then the package moves 1 or 2 steps on its journey; a few bubbles make their way lazily from the bottom of the pan to the top, etc., etc. The more I want the package to arrive or the pot to boil, the slower the process seems to go.
Sometimes the moment right before delivery/boiling seems to last the longest. Currently, Lura's head, coming from Germany, has achieved "arrival at unit" as of Saturday. This sounds great, right, like the package has actually been dropped off at its destination? WRONG. "Unit" = post office. "Arrival at unit" is followed by "out for delivery" and THEN "delivered." The ambiguous wording really irritates me in this case, especially since the "unit" is 5 minutes' walk from my work address, to which the package is being delivered. So close and yet so far.
GIMME ME MY PACKAGE!!! I called the "unit," actually a carrier station, not a full-service PO, and they said that Lura was out for delivery as we speak, so I sure hope she comes today.
Sometimes the moment right before delivery/boiling seems to last the longest. Currently, Lura's head, coming from Germany, has achieved "arrival at unit" as of Saturday. This sounds great, right, like the package has actually been dropped off at its destination? WRONG. "Unit" = post office. "Arrival at unit" is followed by "out for delivery" and THEN "delivered." The ambiguous wording really irritates me in this case, especially since the "unit" is 5 minutes' walk from my work address, to which the package is being delivered. So close and yet so far.
GIMME ME MY PACKAGE!!! I called the "unit," actually a carrier station, not a full-service PO, and they said that Lura was out for delivery as we speak, so I sure hope she comes today.