The Uncertain Promise of Human Rights in Sports

As the world watched the Tokyo Olympics unfold, one of South Africa’s most iconic champions, Caster Semenya, remained absent. She was barred from defending her 800-meter crown due to new World Athletics regulations that target women with naturally high testosterone levels.

A podcast conversation explored the legal, sociological and ethical dimensions of this case, which challenges definitions on gender, fairness, and human rights in global sports.

The study by Matteo Winkler, co-authored with Giovanna Gilleri from the European University Institute, analyzes the full legal journey of Semenya v. IAAF (now World Athletics). It deconstructs the legal and media narratives that shaped the case. It prolongs research on gender identity, sexuality, and how legal systems apply rules to the body.

Sports is a powerful metaphor for understanding the relationship between law and the human body. This case is especially compelling because Semenya was neither transgender nor intersex under existing legal definitions, and yet she was subject to regulation simply because of her body’s naturally occurring traits.

The Semenya decision activates four narratives that will likely shape future sports and legal disputes. The first narrative concerns identity: the tribunal insisted it was not ruling on Semenya’s gender, but rather on eligibility based on testosterone. However, this distinction collapses under scrutiny, since Semenya’s eligibility is precisely determined by how her biology is interpreted in relation to gender norms.

This contradiction is central to the confusion - and injustice - embedded in the case. The second narrative surrounds testosterone. World Athletics and the Court of Arbitration for Sport relied on studies suggesting that testosterone predicts athletic performance. But we found that these studies were methodologically flawed and that counter-evidence exists. The science behind the policy is far shakier than the ruling implies.

The third narrative concerns the so-called harmlessness of hormone suppression. We argue that the treatment imposed on athletes like Semenya causes physical pain and undermines dignity.

When you are forced to compete with a body that no longer responds to your actions, your athletic capacity is neutralized. The tribunal treated this protocol as a minor adjustment; but it is seen more as an ethical violation. Athletes should not be asked to damage their own bodies to fit into artificial legal categories. The final narrative claims that such rules protect women’s sports. That argument assumes that excluding women like Semenya levels the playing field.

It also begs the question: at what cost does society protect the majority of women by excluding a minority based on their biology? This is not inclusion; it’s a form of expulsion disguised as fairness.

The Semenya case echoes longer histories of how bodies from the Global South have been scrutinized and dehumanized. One can compare her treatment to that of Saartjie Baartman, a South African woman paraded and dissected in 19th-century Europe. Baartman’s body was studied, stored and exhibited.

Semenya has endured a modern version of that violence - her body dissected through regulations, her dignity questioned in courtrooms and public debate. Western societies still exoticize and fear bodies that do not conform to their norms. The fascination with Semenya’s appearance, musculature, and performance mirrors deep-seated anxieties about race, gender, and dominance. As we argue in our paper, the black body is too often portrayed as dangerous or superhuman - both feared and fetishized. Sport simply becomes another stage where these dynamics play out.

Methodology

The article, “Of Athletes, Bodies and Rules: Making Sense of 'Caster Semenya',” was co-authored with Dr. Giovanna Gilleri and accepted for publication in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. We conducted a legal and sociological analysis of the Caster Semenya case, drawing on court records, scientific publications, and gender theory to identify four dominant narratives in regulatory decision-making.

Applications

This research has implications for legal scholars, human rights advocates, sports regulators, and policymakers. We offer a framework for assessing how gendered and racialized assumptions shape eligibility rules in sport. Future regulations should prioritize fairness without sacrificing bodily autonomy or reinforcing colonial legacies.