In the article she talks about the difficulty of genders and how they differ and what it means to define male and female. Talks about the different techniques that have been used to classify and verify sex in athletic events. And when I thought of that I immediately thought of Tiger Woods or Brett Farve, both were accused of texting and one was proved of it, which caused his game to go to hell and looked upon as an awful role model and lost a lot of sponsors. But lets be honest how Brett played this year you could argue that both went to hell. Also the article goes into influence of the SRY gene that can often create uncommon physical traits obscuring the lines between male or female. Which is where we find the trans gendering. This is not common but not uncommon. I found this very interesting when she addressed the issue of androgynous genitals, looking at who gets to decide what constitutes male and female. What makes a person's penis large enough to be male and a clitoris small enough to be female? Because you can make arguments that if they have a penis and it's not large that they are still male. Who was the person that decided if you have a smaller penis youre a woman and if you have a small clitoris you're not truly female? She believes that a woman shouldn't be looked past because of her hormones because this is a natural advantage just like any other natural advantage, such as a person's height.
Verifying Myth talks about what makes a male, and what makes a female who gets to make the distinction between males and females in our society and how there are only two genders. Society today assumes that there are only two forms of gender, male and female. This brings up many questions on how this has become a fundamental truth. Why what made it that way? Why did society make only two genders and who defines us? What defines us? Why is this wrong? Why is this Right? Can science really sell people on the logic behind what defines us?