The Gender Investigation of Caster Semenya

I'm sure by now, many of you have heard of the controversy surrounding 18-year old South African runner Caster Semenya, whose victory in the women's 800-meter race in the World Championships of Track and Field spawned an investigation into her gender. While the results of the testing have not yet been released, the 5 foot 7 inch tall, 140 pound athlete has become the center of a debate on the merits of gender testing in athletics, and opinions on the topic are widely varied.

Phillip Cohen wrote a piece featured in the Huffington Post, in which he claims that

For fairness at the top levels, you have to police that sex boundary. Of course, as Alice Dreger explains, female elite athletes are not typical women. They are likely to have succeeded in part because they have some of the hormonal advantage that men have -- sex is a continuum, and top female runners are more likely to have bodies closer to the male side of the social dividing line (wherever that happens to be).

He goes on to explain some of the policy behind this assertion:

And contrary to the impression left by some critics, the International Association of Athletics Federations is not rigidly imposing a stereotypical line between "male" and "female," so that women who are "too good" are thrown into the "male" category. In fact, they have a very complicated explanation of their "Policy On Gender Verification," which attempts to identify and exclude from female competition only those who possess a hormonal advantage over other women. Unfortunately, while they helpfully list intersex conditions that are allowed in "female" events, they don't define those that are disallowed, except in the case of sex reassignment, which is what the policy seems intended to address.

Cohen eventually concludes that the so-called "line" between male and female should be drawn closer to the male side of the spectrum, using what could arguably be called a "better of the two evils" argument. In his opinion, "since the alternative is forcing women with some ambiguous hormonal advantage to run with the top men, against whom they would lose, and thus effectively excluding them from top competition.

Even if you subscribe to Cohen's arguments, there are a few problems that arise. First, there hasn't been all that much research done on the idea of a gender continuum, so we're working within a theory that hasn't received much of a strong backing from the scientific community. Moreover, opinions concerning gender concepts in our society are steadfastly held, and even the idea of a gender continuum would likely trigger much controversy, especially in places that have a long history of promoting gender role stereotypes.

Still, if the theory has merit, then should it be investigated further in order to make a fair assessment? And until then, where should a line be drawn?  Should it be left up to the gender identity of the athlete him/herself? Would this encourage false claims in order to gain competitive advantage of some kind? Or is it a small risk to take in favor of respecting the individual? To what degree should privacy of the athlete enter the conversation?

With all of this in mind, I ask you- should hormone and gender testing be implemented more widely in athletics? If so, at what level of competition should this apply? For solely professional athletics? Or at a certain level of prestige? And if this type of testing should be conducted, then where should a line be drawn?