How do institutions respond to expert contests over epistemologies of sex and gender? In this article, I consider how epistemological ascendancy in debates over the regulation of women athletes with high testosterone is established within a legal setting. Approaching regulation as an institutional act that defines forms of embodied difference, the legitimacy of which may be called into question, I show how sexed bodies are enacted through and as part of determinations of expertise. I focus on proceedings from 2015 when the Court of Arbitration for Sport was asked to decide whether an Indian sprinter, Dutee Chand, could compete as a female athlete. Despite acknowledging that sexed bodies are unruly, the court ultimately endorsed the use of testosterone as seemingly essential to women’s athletic performance, thereby reasserting a two-category model of biological difference. The legitimacy of these regulatory efforts was established through the concurrent narrowing of expertise and the body, a process that is also revealed to be gendered.
AzocarMaria JFerreeMyra M (2015) Gendered expertise. Gender & Society29(6): 841–862.
2.
BergMarcAkrichMadeleine (2004) Introduction – bodies on trial: performances and politics in medicine and biology. Body & Society10(2-3): 1–12.
3.
BermanPaul S (2005) From international law to law and globalization. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law43(2): 485–556.
4.
BermanPaul S (2009) The new legal pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science5: 225–242.
5.
BermonStephaneGarnierPierre YHirschbergAngelica Let al. (2014) Serum androgen levels in elite female athletes. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism99(11): 4328–4335.
6.
BohuonAnaïs (2015) Gender verifications in sport: from an East/West antagonism to a North/South antagonism. The International Journal of the History of Sport32(7): 965–979.
7.
BöschenStefanKastenhoferKarenRustInaet al. (2010) Scientific nonknowledge and its political dynamics: the cases of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(6): 783–811.
8.
CavanaghSheila LSykesHeather (2006) Transsexual bodies at the Olympics: the International Olympic Committee’s policy on transsexual athletes at the 2004 Athens Summer Games. Body & Society12(3): 75–102.
9.
CharmazKathy (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
ColeSimon A (2007) Where the rubber meets the road: thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony. Villanova Law Review52(4): 803–842.
12.
ColeSimon ABertenthalAlyse (2017) Science, technology, society, and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science13: 351–371.
13.
CookJudith AFonowMary M (1986) Knowledge and women’s interests: issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry56(1): 2–29.
14.
CookyCherylDycusRanissaDworkinShari L (2013) ‘What makes a woman a woman?’ versus ‘our first lady of sport’: a comparative analysis of United States and the South African media coverage of Caster Semenya. Journal of Sport and Social Issues37(1): 31–56.
15.
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (2015) CAS 2014/A/3759 Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). Lausanne: Court of Arbitration for Sport.
16.
DavisGeorgiann (2015) Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis. New York: NYU Press.
17.
EpsteinSteven (2004) Bodily differences and collective identities: the politics of gender and race in biomedical research in the United States. Body & Society10(2-3): 183–203.
18.
EpsteinSteven (2007) Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Fausto-SterlingAnne (2000) Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Fausto-SterlingAnne (2003) Science matters, culture matters. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine46(1): 109–124.
21.
Fausto-SterlingAnne (2012) The dynamic development of gender variability. Journal of Homosexuality59(3): 398–421.
FrickelScottGibbonSahraHowardJeffet al. (2010) Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, and Human Values35(4): 444–473.
24.
FujimuraJoan (2006) Sex genes: a critical sociomaterial approach to the politics and molecular genetics of sex determination. Signs32(1): 49–82.
25.
GalanterMarc (1975) Afterword: explaining litigation. Law and Society Review9(2): 347–368.
HarawayDonna (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
28.
HenneKathryn (2010) WADA, the promises of law and the landscapes of antidoping regulation. Political and Legal Anthropology Review33(2): 306–325.
29.
HenneKathryn (2015) Testing for Athlete Citizenship: Regulating Doping and Sex in Sport. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
30.
HenneKathrynPapeMadeleine (2018) Dilemmas of gender and global sports governance: an invitation to Southern theory. Sociology of Sport Journal35(3): 216–225.
31.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) (2011a) IAAF Regulations Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition. Appendices. Monaco: IAAF.
32.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) (2011b) HA Regulations: Explanatory Notes. Monaco: IAAF.
33.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) (2016) IAAF commitment to healthy and drug-free athletics. Available at: http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/medical-anti-doping(accessed 20 February 2016).
JasanoffSheila (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
JasanoffSheila (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
JasanoffSheila (2005) Designs on Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Jordan-YoungRebecca MKarkazisKatrina (2012) Some of their parts: ‘Gender verification’ and elite sports. Anthropology News53: S1–S41.
40.
KaneMary J (1995) Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: exposing sport as a continuum. Journal of Sport and Social Issues19(2): 191–218.
41.
KarkazisKatrinaJordan-YoungRebecca M (2018) The powers of testosterone: obscuring race and regional bias in the regulation of women athletes. Feminist Formations30(2): 1–39.
42.
KarkazisKatrinaJordan-YoungRebecca MDavisGeorgiannet al. (2012) Out of bounds? A critique of the new policies on hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes. American Journal of Bioethics12(1): 3–16.
43.
KesslerSuzanne J (1998) Lessons from the Intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
44.
KirklandAnna (2012) Credibility battles in the autism litigation. Social Studies of Science43(2): 237–261.
45.
KleinmanDaniel LSuryanarayananSai (2012) Dying bees and the social production of ignorance. Science, Technology, & Human Values38(4): 492–517.
46.
LentschJustusWeingertPeter (2011) The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LorberJudith (1993) Believing is seeing: biology as ideology. Gender & Society7(4): 568–581.
48.
MacKinnonCatharine (1987) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
MagubaneZine (2014) Spectacles and scholarship: Caster Semenya, intersex studies, and the problem of race in feminist theory. Signs39(3): 761–785.
50.
MartinEmily (1991) The egg and the sperm. Signs16(3): 485–501.
51.
McGoeyLinsey (2007) On the will to ignorance in bureaucracy. Economy and Society36(20): 212–235.
52.
MeadowTey (2010) A rose is a rose: on producing legal classifications. Gender & Society24(6): 814–837.
53.
MerrySally E (1984) Anthropology and the study of alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Legal Education34(2): 277–283.
54.
MerrySally E (1988) Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review22(5): 869–896.
55.
MeyerowitzJoanne (2002) How Sex Has Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
MolAnnemarie (2003) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
57.
MolAnnemarieLawJohn (2004) Embodied action, enacted bodies: the example of Hypoglycaemia. Body & Society10(2-3): 43–62.
58.
MoscucciOrnella (1990) The Science of Woman: Gynaecology and Gender in England: 1800–1929. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
NelsonRobert LBerreyEllen CNielsenLaura B (2008) Divergent paths: conflicting conceptions of employment discrimination in law and the social sciences. Annual Review of Law and Social Science4: 103–122.
60.
OudshoornNellie (1994) Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones. New York and London: Routledge.
61.
PapeMadeleine (2017) The fairest of them all: gender-determining institutions and the science of sex testing. In: DemosVasilikie PSegalMarcia T (eds) Advances in Gender Research 24: Gender Panic, Gender Policy. Bingley: Emerald Books, pp. 177–202.
62.
ParkerChristineBraithwaiteJohn (2003) Regulation. In: TushnetMarkCanePeter (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–145.
63.
PieperLindsey P (2016) Sex Testing: Gender Policing in Women’s Sports. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
64.
RappRayna (1999) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.
65.
RitzStacey (2017) Complexities of addressing sex in cell culture research. Signs42(2): 307–327.
66.
RobertsCelia (2007) Messengers of Sex: Hormones, Biomedicine and Feminism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SanzVeronica (2017) No way out of the binary: a critical history of the scientific production of sex. Signs43(1): 1–27.
68.
SmartCarol (2002) Feminism and the Power of Law, 2nd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
69.
SpanierBonnie (1995) Im/Partial Science: Gender Ideology in Molecular Biology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
70.
StraubelMichael (2005) Enhancing the performance of the doping court: how the court of arbitration for sport can do its job better. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal36(4): 1203–1272.
71.
SuryanarayananSaiKleinmanDaniel L (2013) Be(e)coming experts: the controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder. Social Studies of Science43(2): 215–240.
72.
TimmermansStefanTavoryIddo (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory30(3): 167–186.
73.
TuanaNancy (1988) The weaker seed: the sexist bias of reproductive theory. Hypatia3(1): 35–60.
74.
TuanaNancy (2004) Coming to understand: orgasm and the epistemology of ignorance. Hypatia19(1): 194–232.
75.
van AndersSari M (2012) Testosterone and sexual desire in healthy women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior41(6): 1471–1484.
76.
WestbrookLaurelSchiltKristen (2014) Doing gender, determining gender: transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society28(1): 32–57.
77.
WilsonRA (2016) Expert evidence on trial: social researchers in the International Criminal Courtroom. American Ethnologist43(4): 730–744.
78.
WynneBrian (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
79.
WynneBrian (2008) Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter ‘science’? A response to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public’. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 21–33.
