Jones, Alexandia -F12A – Media Analysis 2

Media Analysis Article 2 – Caster Semenya

 

Alexandia Jones

Word Count: 2, 015

 

Caster Semenya is an Olympic star athlete that has sparked a lot of media attention in the past few years surrounding the question of her gender. The controversy surrounding Semenya and her gender has been around since she first competed in the Olympics in 2008. A lot of debate over gender politics in sport journalism has been focused on Semenya in the past few years, with people questioning whether or not it is fair to let her run in female events with Hyperandrogenism. Semenya has a condition called Hyperandrogenism, where her body naturally produces a higher level of Testosterone in her body. This media analysis will be a comparative analysis that analyses how articles represent and portray Caster Semenya in the media, and what assumptions are made about the readers. Three articles that share similar positive viewpoints and create positive representations of Semenya will be comparatively analysed in terms of style and argumentation. The first article, ‘Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage’, by Sisonke Mismang was published in The Guardian in August 2016. The second article, ‘South African Caster Semenya prepares for controversy ahead of 800m at Rio Olympics’, by Andrew Webster was published in The Sydney Morning Herald in August 2016. The third and final article, ‘Reactions to Caster Semenya prove we still define womanhood as weakness’, by Amy Middleton was also published in Sydney Morning Herald in August 2016. All articles were published around the same time due to the influence of the Olympics and have had years of story development to form an opinion since she first competed and sparked controversy in the 2008 Olympics. All three articles depict Semenya in a positive way but portray her in this way through different argumentative styles and using different techniques.

 

In the first article, ‘Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage’, by Sisonke Mismang, the central claim in this article is that ‘Caster Semenya is the athlete that suffers from a disadvantage due to her country being under-resourced’. Mismang argues that instead of Semenya having a physical advantage with her testosterone levels, other athletes that come from wealthier countries are put at an advantage with the use of nutritional, psychological and biomechanical performance enhancement available to developed countries. Mismang’s central argument is an evaluative argument is explicitly written in the title, with supporting claims throughout the article. These include:

 

“The irony of athletes from Great Britain, which spent £275m on preparations for the Rio games, raising fundamental questions about fairness in a race against an athlete from a country that spent less than £1.9m has somehow been lost.”

 

“The British athletes’ selective outrage over Semenya’s victory ignores the unfairness of their own situation. By cherry picking one form of advantage while being unprepared to recognise the myriad ways in which they themselves are privileged, athletes such as Sharp have chosen to portray themselves as victims – despite all the benefits of birth they have enjoyed.”

 

These are supporting claims to the article’s central argument. The first quote uses factual evidence to support the claim that is integral to supporting the central argument of the article that Semenya is disadvantaged to other athletes from developed countries due to more resources. These second claim is opinionated and justifies the central argument through appeals to emotion because they are claiming that the disadvantage for semenya is being ignored and they are only focusing on the physical disadvantage that they suffer.

 

This article portrays Semenya as the victim of this global controversy that has surrounded her life and her performance in the media where critics have argued that she does not deserve her medals. Quotations of Semenya have also been used to portray her in a positive way, giving her strong characteristic attributes.

 

“Semenya has been the object of a long and terrifyingly international campaign that has included the disclosure of private medical information and ongoing hounding by the media. She has refused to talk about the condition, saying only that “God made me the way I am and I accept myself”.”

 

Mismang’s use of quotes here portray Semenya as a strong woman, emphasizing her central claim that Semenya is the one with the disadvantage. This quote by Smenya used in the article expresses that Semenya as a good and fair person that just wants to compete in the Olympics. It also expresses her religion and emphasizes her portrayal of a positive figure. The evaluation and portrayal of Semenya’s character in this article is done by two analytical approaches. Mismang explicitly conveys evaluations of Semnya’s character through opinion, and also expresses these evaluations indirectly through implications and quotes. The quotes used throughout the article emphasize the victimization of Semenya. In the beginning of the article, quotes are used to express how Olympic athletes from developed countries feel that they are at a disadvantage to Semenya due to her physical ability.

 

“Paula Radcliffe explained why Sharp had been so upset. “However hard she goes away and trains, however hard Jenny Meadows goes and trains, they are never going to be able to compete with that level of strength and recovery that those levels of elevated testosterone brings,” she said.”

 

The article then shifts focus to the victimization of Semenya, as opposed to athletes from developed countries.

 

“It is calmly accepted that athletes from large, rich countries enjoy benefits not available to those from poorer, smaller countries, and so will always dominate sporting competitions such as the Olympics”.

 

The use of the world calmly, implies Mismang’s opinion that it is unfair that it is commonly accepted for athletes in developed countries to reap the benefits of resources that under developed countries cannot afford. This is an explicitly conveyed evaluation by Mismang. This article’s portrayal of Semenya is subjective and expresses Mismang’s opinion of Semenya and portrays her as the victim. They angle taken on the controversy of Semenya was focused on the unfair distribution of resources among developed and undeveloped countries for athletes in the Olympics. The evaluative position of the article – that Semenya is the victim and is disadvantaged is not treated as a ‘given’ and accepted opinion held by the readers. The article addresses the common misconception that Semenya is in fact viewed as having an unfair advantage due to her physical testosterone levels. Mismang argues that instead, the other athletes put Semenya at a disadvantage. This is a new angle and has not been commonly explored by journalists. Although journalists have a tendency to victimize Semenya, as Mismang has, this is a rare article that points the blame of disadvantage to the other athletes and hence treats this opinion as a new idea and not a given. This opinion and angle is portrayed throughout the article and factual and emotional claims are used to persuade the reader of this evaluation.

 

In the second article, ‘South African Caster Semenya prepares for controversy ahead of 800m at Rio Olympics’, by Andrew Webster, Semenya is portrayed as a victim of the controversy that the media and the athletic industry has created and subjected her to. This article is persuasive in its evaluative use of quotes that present Semenya as a victim of this global campaign against her running, and the main purpose of this article is to portray Semenya as a person. Webster makes the assumption that the readers believe that Semenya has an unfair advatange on the track and uses explicit opinions and implications through quotes to express his opinion and argue his central claim that – Semenya is person and does not deserve the unfair treatment she has been given. The article begins by portraying Semenya in a positive way, with the opening sentence being a quote from Semenya.

 

“I am not a fake. I am natural. I am just being Caster. I don’t want to be someone I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be someone people want me to be. I just want to be me. I was born like this. I don’t want any changes.”

I just want to be me.”

 

This quote is used to portray Semenya as human. It depicts Semenya as a fair human being that is happy with her body and this persuades the audience to understand that she was born with her condition and it is not her fault. The quote is then followed by an image of Semenya after finishing second in the London 2012 Olympics. She is depicted holding her flag and standing proud. Webster uses this initial quote and image to strip the reader of their previous opinions of Semenya and to portray her with characteristic attributes of being a fair athlete and a strong woman.

 

 

 

Webster continues to implement his own evaluative opinions in the article to persuade the reader that Semenya doesn’t deserve the unfair treatment.

 

“And with one remark, that should kill the debate when it comes to Caster Semenya even if it will not.”

 

This article is subjective and contains Webster’s opinions throughout the article about Semenya and her situation. The main portrayal of Semenya in this article is that she is a victim. This is expressed through facts, quotes and evaluations made by Webster.

 

“The appalling part of this remark is that the IAAF already knew Semenya was not a man, exposing her to a series of humiliating “gender verification tests” in South Africa and Germany by an endocrinologist, a gynaecologist and psychologist.”

 

The use of the words ‘appalling’ and ‘humiliating’ emphasizes Webster’s victimization of Semenya and his opinion that she has been treated unfairly. This adds to his portrayal of Semenya being a human with feelings and is used to persuade the reader.

 

“We need to remember these are human beings,” Coe said. “This is a sensitive subject, they are athletes, they are daughters, they are sisters and we need to be very clear about this. We will treat this sensitively. We need to go back to CAS and we have the right people looking at this.”

 

Webster also uses quotes to emphasize his point and add further to his positive portrayal of her.

 

“Here is a female who doesn’t walk inside in the normal boundaries of femininity, who has masculine appearances and traits, but has been cast as some sort of cheat as a result of simply being who she is.”

 

Here, Webster uses evaluative opinion and is used to persuade to share his opinion of Semenya. Her victimization is emphasized here by his comment “has been cast as some sort of cheat as a result of simply being who she is”. This depicts Webster’s view of Semenya as being first and foremost a human being with feelings and appeals to the reader’s emotions.

 

“Caster needed help and she was approached by people she shouldn’t have trusted,” he said. “Someone sold an article with Caster to You magazine where they dolled her up in a dress. You never see Caster in a dress. It was so awkward.”

 

This quote depicts how Semenya’s performance was not affected by her hormone suppressing drugs, but instead her personal life. This is also used to persuade the reader and appeal to their emotion. This also sheds light on a different angle toward Semenya’s character, as most articles blame her performance during that time on the testosterone hormone suppressing drugs that she was given, as opposed to issues within her personal life that no one ever considered.

 

In the third article, ‘Reactions to Caster Semenya prove we still define womanhood as weakness’, by Amy Middleton, Semenya is portrayed as victim from her gender controversy, but also as an inspirational figure that can help the common held sexist views on females and their relations with sports. This is a different angle from most articles that just focus on Semenya’s condition. This article is subjective with evaluative opinions used through both analytical approaches of explicit opinions by Middleton and implications through the use of quotes. Semenya is portrayed in a positive way in this article.

 

“Individuals like Semenya help pave the way for those who are gender non-conforming, those with diverse gender identities, diverse bodies and diverse experiences of self.”

 

Here, Middleton portrays Semenya with positive attributes to her character, by expressing that she is an influential figure for women with diverse gender identities.

 

“The majority of reporting on Semenya has been intrusive at best, and violent at worst. The reality is that physiological details of Semenya’s body and person are not crucial to this discussion. Caster Semenya is a woman. Full-stop. No need to touch on this again.”

This quote acknowledges past coverage on Semenya as being critical and judgmental of her condition. The use of the words ‘intrusive’ and violent’ emphasize the unfair treatment that she has experienced and emphasizes her victimization, further persuading the readers. Middleton’s dismissal of any questions regarding Semenya’s body and gender identity emphasizes her opinion and persuasion of gender equality and highlight her assumptions about her reader’s opinions – that they are critical of Semenya’s condition.

 

“But even after it found insufficient evidence in 2015 that naturally high testosterone levels give female athletes an advantage, Semenya is still being subjected to invasive interrogation around her body, her history and her identity.”

 

This article is subjective because Middleton’s opinions and commentary heavily influences her writing, however, these points are backed up by factual claims about the regulations regarding Semenya and her testosterone suppressing drugs, and her performances in the Olympics. Middleton phrases Semenya’s treatment as ‘being subjected to invasive interrogation around her body, her history and her identity’. The term ‘subjected’ portrays Semenya as a victim and emphasizes the point of her fair treatment and appeals to the readers’ emotions. The term interrogation further emphasizes this point.

 

“Semenya, on the other hand, was temporarily banned from her sport, has had her performance and identity hijacked by the media, and been forced into years of social and medical scrutiny. A statement from Semenya in 2010 confirmed this: “I have been subjected to unwarranted and invasive scrutiny of the most intimate and private details of my being.” 

 

Middleton points out the media’s unfair attention that Semenya has been subjected to, with the phrase emphasizing that her identity was ‘hijacked’ by the media. This emphasizes the unfair treatment on Semenya and appeals to the readers’ emotions to persuade them from their assumed opinion that Semenya has an unfair advantage, and that in fact her condition does not justify her unfair mistreatment. Middleton also links this to gender equality, making the argument that as mens’ athlete performances are not questioned, neither should Semenya’s.

 

All three articles took different angles towards the controversy of Semenya’s gender politics displayed in the media. There has been a shift in the portrayal of Semenya’s depiction throughout media over the past few years. In 2008 after her first Olympics, there was a wave of criticism that was evident in articles all over the world, with the common held opinion that Semenya held an unfair advantage and did not deserve her medals. Since then, Semenya has experienced social scrutiny and physical interrogation towards her body and privacy. Media opinions have since changed, with Semenya receiving a victimization in her portrayal in the media. All three articles used in this analysis were subjective and employed similar writing styles to appeal to readers’ emotions and persuade the readers into shifting from their assumed traditional view of critiquing Semenya’s condition, to thinking that Semenya cannot be blamed and should not be punished for her condition and perhaps Semenya is the one at a disadvantage. All articles, however, portray Semenya in a positive way with fair and innocent characteristic attributes and this represents the media’s shift in portrayal of her as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles used:

 

‘Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage’, by Sisonke Mismang

Published in The Guardian in August 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/caster-semenya-is-the-one-at-a-disadvantage

 

‘South African Caster Semenya prepares for controversy ahead of 800m at Rio Olympics’, by Andrew Webster

Published in The Sydney Morning Herald in August 2016

 

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympics/rio-2016/olympics-athletics/south-african-caster-semenya-prepares-for-controversy-ahead-of-800m-at-rio-olympics-20160815-gqtab7.html

 

‘Reactions to Caster Semenya prove we still define womanhood as weakness’, by Amy Middleton

Published in Sydney Morning Herald in August 2016.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/reactions-to-caster-semenya-prove-we-still-define-womanhood-as-weakness-20160818-gqvhgb.html

 

 

 

 

Media Analysis 2 Proposal – Alex Jones – F12A

Media Analysis 2 Proposal  – Alex Jones

My focus for the second media analysis task will be a comparison analysis on media articles that focus on the topic of abortion in the U.S. In particular, I will use articles that focus on how Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton address the issue of abortion in the U.S. in the current Presidential debate. I will choose several news journalism items which provide essentially the same argument – that abortion should be a decision made by an individual woman and not the government. These are examples of some of the articles I will use for my analysis.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/donald-trumps-abortion-policies-would-kill-women-w445735

 

http://www.scarymommy.com/donald-trump-late-term-abortion-debate/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/health/donald-trump-debate-late-abortion-remarks.html?_r=0

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-confuses-birth-with-abortion-and-no-there-are-no-ninth-month-abortions_us_5808dfa2e4b0dd54ce389b61

 

 

Some articles are more opinionated and some are more news and facts based. I will compare then analytically. I predict that my conclusions will result in articles portraying Donald Trump in a bad light and sympathizing with women and fighting for women’s right for abortions.

Media Analysis Article 1 – Caster Semenya – Alex Jones

 

Media Analysis Article 1 Outline

For my media analysis article outline I will be analysing two online articles that cover the topic of sports journalism in regards to gender politics. I will focus on the topic of gender politics with the controversy that surrounds Caster Semenya, an Olympic athlete with Hyperandrogenism.

The two articles I will be analysing will be:

‘Rio Olympics: Caster Semenya caught in middle of gender politics’ by Nicole Jeffery, which was published in The Australian in August 2016. The second article, ‘Understanding the Controversey Over Caster Semenya’ was written by Jere Longman and was published on NY Times in August 2016.

Both articles have central arguments with supporting claims that the treatment on Caster Semenya has been unfair and they have underlying opinions that she should be able to compete in the Olympics as a female athlete. These arguments are portrayed and expressed differently in both articles, as Jeffery’s central arguments is explicitly stated in the first line, however, Logman’s central argument is made throughout the article with supporting claims and is not explicit. There are no explicit or obvious assumptions that the authors have made about the audience, instead they are directing their articles to a neutral audience that do not have an opinion as of yet. Both articles can be considered persuasive in the argument that they are supporting Semenya and her participation in Olympic female running events, and are persuading their audience to convince them that it is not her fault she was born this way. Both articles contain elements of opinion but are written around a central argument with supporting claims through facts, authority and ethics.

 

 

 

 

Media Analysis Article 1

Alexandia Jones

Word Count: 1, 571

The controversy surrounding Olympic athlete Caster Semenya and her gender has been around since she first competed in the Olympics in 2008. A lot of debate over gender politics in sport journalism has been focused on Semenya in the past few years, with people questioning whether or not it is far to let her run in female events. Semenya has a condition called Hyperandrogenism where she naturally has a higher level of the hormone Testosterone in her body. There have been conflicting opinions on the debate, with one argument being that it is unfair for her to run in female events when she is ‘not 100% female’. The other argument is that she has been treated unfairly with invasions of privacy of testing and should be allowed to run as a female, because that is how she was brought up and that is how she lives. Two articles with similar viewpoints about this topic have been chosen to analyse. The first article, ‘Rio Olympics: Caster Semenya caught in middle of gender politics’ by Nicole Jeffery was published in The Australian in August 2016. The second article, ‘Understanding the Controversey Over Caster Semenya’ by Jere Longman was published on NY Times in August 2016. Both articles were posted recently and in the same period, and they also share a similar view on Semenya. Both articles agree that the treatment on Semenya has been unfair, however, these are both conveyed in different ways and through different techniques. Both articles are evaluative arguments that give a central argument of their own opinions and beliefs – which is that Semenya should be allowed to compete as a woman and should not be treated unfairly or scrutinized and punished for how she was born. There are no explicit or obvious assumptions that the authors have made about the audience, instead they are directing their articles to a neutral audience that do not have an opinion as of yet. Both articles can be considered persuasive in the argument that they are supporting Semenya and her participation in Olympic female running events, and are persuading their audience to convince them that it is not her fault she was born this way.

 

 

Jeffery’s central argument is incredibly explicit and is stated in the opening line of the article: “Caster Semenya has done nothing wrong”.

 

Longman’s central argument, however, is not explicitly stated but it is reiterated by supporting claims throughout the article. The central argument is that: Semenya is being treated unfairly and she should not be punished for being born the way she is. The supporting claims emphasize how she has been treated unfairly and justify why she shouldn’t be treated like this.

 

Firstly, I will analyze some key claims made in Longman’s article that support the central argument.

 

“Female athletes above the testosterone threshold of 10 nanomoles per liter – considered at the lower end of the male range – faced the prospect of invasive, humiliating and potentially risky measures if they wanted to continue competing. These included hormone-suppressing drugs and surgery to remove internal testes, which can produce testosterone.”

 

This claim appeals to a combination of ethics and facts, with the facts explaining testosterone levels to the reader. The rest of the claim appeals to ethics, with the description and use of language of “invasive”, “humiliating” and “potentially risky”. This claim also appeals to popular opinion, as Longman assumes the reader will agree that these measures are unethical and unfair.

 

Another key claim that supports the key argument is:

“At this point, it does not matter… The court said it had been “unable to conclude that hyperandrogenic female athletes may benefit from such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category.”

 

The claim: “At this point, it does not matter” is justified by the warrant that is stated directly after the claim, which is that it does not matter because it could not be proven that testosterone affects performance. “At this point, it does not matter” is a short and pithy statement that is effective in emphasizing how the debate does not matter because nothing could be tested. This highlights the persuasiveness of the text, as this bold statement is very strong and will capture the reader’s attention.

 

“The court ruling was the correct one. As the arbitration panel noted, science has not conclusively shown that elevated testosterone provides women with more of a significant competitive edge than factors like nutrition, access to coaching and training facilities, and other genetic and biological variations.”

 

This, much like the previous claim analyzed, contains a claim “The court ruling was a correct one”, which is then followed by its explicitly stated warrant which appeals to facts and authority. It appeals to a combination of these because it refers to the research from science, and it also appeals to authority from the use of reference to the arbitration panel. This claim supports the central argument from demonstrating that Longman agrees with the court ruling and he justifies that Semenya shouldn’t be treated unfairly with the appeal to authority and facts.

 

“All Olympians have some exceptional traits. That is why they are elite athletes.”

 

This claim has no justification but uses inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that “all Olympians have some exceptional traits”. Longman writes under the assumption that all of his readers share the same opinions and beliefs that Olympic athletes have exception traits and this is why they are elite athletes. At the same time, this statement has underlying connotations of the belief that all Olympic athletes have exceptional traits, and therefore it is acceptable that Semenya has a naturally increased level of Testosterone in her body because all athletes are special in a way and they all have ‘exceptional traits’.

 

Longman then explores the counter argument of if in fact Semenya competing is unfair. He begins by doing this by defending his counter claims:

 

“Experts do not suggest that Semenya has taken banned substances. No one serious is calling her a man. No prominent voices suggest that separate categories should not exist for women’s and men’s sports. But many remain concerned that women’s sports will be threatened if some athletes are allowed to compete with a testosterone advantage…”

 

He then goes on to write:

 

“In a sport once dominated by white Europeans, said Madeleine Pape of Australia, who competed against Semenya in the 2009 world championships, women who have fought so hard for the right to compete and for sustainable financial support can feel threatened by the rising success of a faster competitor. Especially, Pape said, if that athlete is non-gender-conforming and is married to another woman, as Semenya is.”

 

The use of this quote makes Longman’s article and argument more objective, as he explores counter arguments counter claims that suggest it might be unfair for Semenya to compete. The fact that he explores the counter side of the argument gives his piece more objectivity and considers another audience for his piece, however, overall his underlying tone and message is persuading the audience that Semenya should be allowed to comepete as a woman.

 

“Meanwhile, Semenya’s best performance at 800 metres of 1 minute 55.33 seconds, which is not the word record, is about 12 percent slower than the men’s record of 1:40.91.”

 

This is a factual claim made by Longman which supports the central argument – that Semenya should be allowed to compete as a woman and should not be treated unfairly. This claim can also be an example of persuasion used throughout the article, as Longman uses factual evidence to demonstrate to the reader that if her performance is not the same as the men’s times, then she is not a man, and is in fact a woman and should be allowed to compete fairly in women’s events without criticism.

 

“The Journal of the American Medical Association said it was appropriate for athletes who were born with a disorder of sex development and were raised as females to be allowed to compete as women. That sounds like the right call. Let athletes compete as who they are.”

 

This quote expresses more of the author’s opinion with the use of “That sounds like the right call. Let athletes compete as who they are”. This use of opinion makes the central argument of the piece more obvious.

 

“It would seem unfair to tell her, Sorry, you can’t run in the Olympics because of the way you were born.”

 

This is the concluding statement and it is where the central argument for Longman’s piece is most explicit and obvious. This is the opinion that the writer concludes with, emphasizing how unfair he thinks Semenya has been treated and how he thinks it is unfair that critics are trying to stop Semenya from competing as a woman.

 

Jeffery’s article argues the same main points and their central arguments are both very similar. However, there are more opinion statements present in Longman’s article and Jeffery’s article is more objective. Another key difference between the two articles is that Jeffery’s central argument is explicitly stated at the very beginning.

 

“Caster Semenya has done nothing wrong. That is the one thing that appears to be agreed in an increasingly fractious debate over her eligibility or suitability to compete in women’s competition. Through no fault of her own, the South African 800m champion has been thrust into the centre of a storm over the criteria to determine who is eligible to compete as a woman and how a woman is defined for the purpose of elite sport.”

 

Jeffery’s central arguent and underlying opinions and beliefs on the topic of gender politics surrounding Semenya is made clear from the first line and the first paragraph.

 

“Rival female athletes demanded she be subjected to sex testing and the international athletics federation conducted an inquiry after which Semenya was cleared to continue competing.”

 

Jeffery then claims that Semenya’s ‘rivals’ demanded she be sex tested, however, her results were cleared. The use of the word ‘rivals’ persuades the reader that Semenya is being treated unfairly and people are against her. This claim supports the central argument when it appeals to facts, stating that the results were clean. There is no warrant for this claim.

 

“Semenya had been found to have an intersex condition (both male and female sexual characteristics) and had been put on medication to limit her testosterone production to “normal” female range… For the next five years, Semenya ran well but spectacularly. She finished second at the 2011 Olympics world titles and won the silver medal at the 2012 Olympics, but never approached her blistering 2009 pace (1:55.45).”

 

This counter claim appeals to facts, based on Semenya’s past results. It explores how when Semenya was given testosterone lowering drugs, it enhanced her performance and did not run as fast. This is a counter claim for the central argument and suggests that the increased testosterone levels in Semenya’s body affect her performance. Using this counter claim, Jeffery’s article gains objectivity and may be considered more factual, less bias and neutral from the reader.

 

“The IAAF could not produce actual evidence that high natural testosterone production gave women an unfair advantage. The CAS suspended the IAAF rule but said it would review its decision if the IAAF came back with evidence within two years.”

 

This claim appeals to facts and authority by referencing facts from the IAAF. It supports the central claim and the persuading argument that Semenya has done nothing wrong, and naturally increased levels of testosterone may not even affect performance because there is no proof.

 

“Complicating matters is that scientists agree that there is no hard and fast line between the male and female genders. It is a spectrum, so any division would be arbitrary.”

 

Jeffery uses another claim here to support the central argument and appeals to authority to give the argument more reliability and validity.

 

“Advocates for intersex athletes to be allowed to run without testosterone limits (and therefore medical intervention) argue that her case is proof that they do not have an unfair advantage over other women.”

 

This claim uses an appeal to popular opinion to support the central argument, that Semenya has done nothing wrong and it is not her fault that she was born this way. This claim appeals to popular opinion because it cannot be considered a fact and advocators are not an authority they represent regular people such as the audience that have an opinion or a belief. This claim is also used to persuade the audience of the central argument.

 

“Daryl Adair, associate professor of sports management at the University of Technology in Sydney, has followed this issue closely and believes Semenya is being unfairly targeted.”

 

Jeffery uses an appeal to authority and a quote from someone that they assume the audience will trust. So firstly, there is assumption that the audience will trust this source and believe it is legitimate. Secondly, Jeffery uses the placement of this quote to use authority to persuade the audience that the treatment on Semenya has been wrong.

 

“It has less than a year to do so before its hyperandrogenism rule is thrown out permanently, which would plunge the future of female sport into ever more uncertain waters.”

 

The concluding sentence ends quite a neutral note, with the acknowledgement that if this situation is not fixed and a decision is not met then there will be even more controversy within the sport. This claim appeals to consequence and precedence. It appeals to consequence because Jeffery is stating that gender politics will worsen if a decision is not come to and precedence, because it has happened in the past with other athletes.

 

 

 

 

Articles Used:

‘Rio Olympics: Caster Semenya caught in middle of gender politics’ by Nicole Jeffery.

Published in the The Australian, 17th August 2016.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rio-olympics/rio-olympics-caster-semenya-caught-in-middle-of-gender-politics/news-story/7c854053708e98cdcd7c90157b31cf3e

 

 

‘Understanding the Controversey Over Caster Semenya’ by Jere Longman.

Published on NY Times, 18th August 2016.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/sports/caster-semenya-800-meters.html?_r=0