In era of post-race (bwa-ha-ha), we still have the looming prejudices around sexuality, in particular, a post-Victorian, Puritanical society that judges women and men by skewed conceptions called femininity and masculinity.
Currently, South-African teenager and recent track gold metalist, Caster Semenya, is under a gender test to see if she really is "female". Sports officials expressed "concern" due to her muscular build, deep voice, and reports of vastly improving in her running times.
Out of all the things, the accusation is that the "chick has a dick".
There are several issues that I see.
One, from a European perspective, black women's femininity and body aesthetics has been historically linked to animalistic, primitive, and "masculine" traits.
Two, the fallacy that women cannot achieve physical feats as men.
Three, the idea of physical charateristics of "masculine" and "feminine". Also, the whole idea of "masculine" being a "man's thing" and the same for feminine. To me, this is what has a lot of folk messed up. Just because a female has a deep voice, does not situate her as a "man" or trying to be a "man," but it still can be considered a masculine trait.
What do I mean? In America, there have been these strict boxes of what a man should do and what is masculine. As well as women. The whole term "gender" is socially constructed, meaning that someone placed parameters, behaviors, and perspectives on what a gender is and how one fits into it. Therefore, anything outside of that is an outcast, an abnormality.
So if a guy who looks like Ving Rhames is seen with a hot pink apron, cooking dinner for a group of men, then he is termed as a gay male, automatically. But what is wrong with pink on chocolate skin, and a man with culinary skills who cooks for his brothers?
Just a rant, but a valid one. ecoSi blog on...
