Nov
23
I came across two magazine articles this weekend that raised all kinds of questions about identity. The first, in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, profiled several men who had found out through DNA tests — which can bought for cheap online — that the child they were raising was not biologically related to them. Naturally, the men were furious that their partners had cheated on them, but what was interesting — and in some cases, quite sad — was how they related to their kids after the paternity test. Some fathers rejected their child outright, with devastating consequences; others struggled to maintain their relationship with their kids, while trying to come to terms with their spouse’s betrayal, the laws that govern such situations and what it really means to be a dad.
The main subject of Ruth Padawer’s story is a Pennsylvania man identified as Mike L. He tested his five-year-old daughter’s DNA after he found out that his wife had had an affair with a co-worker. It turns out the co-worker was the girl’s biological father. Mike separated from his wife, got partial custody of his daughter and paid child support, in part, because the biological father refused to do so. But when Mike’s ex married the co-worker, Mike went to court and asked to be relieved of his legal and financial responsibility as a father. He didn’t want to lose his daughter, but as he explains: “I pay child support to a biologically intact family. How ridiculous is that?” It’s a fair enough question given the circumstances — Mike only gets to see the girl on the weekends, while her biological father, with whom she now lives, had been reluctant to take any responsibility for her. However, the judge refused Mike’s request on the grounds that Mike acted more like a dad than the biological father.
As an adoptive parent, I’m in favour of any court that understands that it’s not genetics that make a family, but love and commitment. That said, my heart goes out to Mike – a man who in every way seems like a great father, but one who also bristles at having to send a monthly cheque to the woman who betrayed him. I wonder, though, if this kind of situation would be easier for all the players to bear if we weren’t so fixated on blood ties. Tellingly, the most vulnerable people here — the children — are the ones who are the most clear on what really matters. As Mike’s daughter points out: “I want him always to be my real dad. Because if he’s not my dad, then who is he?”
The other article that captured my attention this weekend was Ariel Levy’s fascinating New Yorker story about the case of Caster Semenya. Semenya, as you may remember, is the female world champion middle distance runner whose title was contested because of suspicions that she is not really a woman, but transgendered or intersex (that is, born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the typical definitions of female or male.). Semenya was subjected to a humiliating witch hunt by both the media and sports officials and even submitted to a ridiculous women’s mag photo shoot in which she posed in make-up and girlie clothes in order to prove her feminity.
Levy traveled to Semenya’s running club in South Africa to report on the case and along the way provides a terrific primer on research into gender identity (turns out “male” and “female” aren’t as fixed as we think) as well as the history of gender testing in sports — which has often been used to undermine the achievements of female athletes (a mere woman couldn’t possibly run/jump/throw so well). Levy raises some terrific questions about what makes us the gender we are and how sports might more equitably and respectfully deal with those who might not fit “the norm.”
This post was written by Rachel Giese
