Discussion Board- Rhetorical Analysis

Because this is a popular article, if you choose to analyze logos, you do not need to find information from an additional source about the type of evidence that a discipline values (as you will need to do in your rhetorical analysis essay). Instead, you will skip that step in your paragraph. Please follow the directions below to complete this discussion board. 

After reading Ten ethical flaws in the Caster Semenya decision on intersex in sport, do the following:  https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448 

1. Identify the overall argument and the intended audience, and state that first.  This is very importatnt because the last sentence of your paragraph will explain whether the appeal helps persuade the intended audience to believe the overall argument.

2. Write one paragraph analyzing ONE rhetorical appeal. After deciding the appeal you want to analyze, find that appeal in the criteria for success in the RHETORICALANALYSIS assignment sheet, and include all of the necessary paragraph components (excluding the writing convention for logos). 

3. Include a correct MLA 8th edition in-text citation after the example of the appeal and add the works cited citation after your paragraph. This is how to do a works cited citation for a page on a website: 

For an individual page on a Web site, list the author or alias if known, followed by an indication of the specific page or article being referenced. Usually, the title of the page or article appears in a header at the top of the page. Follow this with the information covered above for entire Web sites. If the publisher is the same as the website name, only list it once.

4. Respond to ONE other student’s posts by commenting on the strength of their analysis. This is a learning experience, so it’s okay to be constructively critical. 

*I chose this article based on current issues, and it does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion. Remember that your personal opinion about this issue should not be present in your analysis. Only analyze the success of the author’s rhetoric. 

———————————————————————————————

RESPOND TO:

The author presents this overall argument:

It is unethical to require intersex athletes to adhere to surgery or to lower their testosterone levels to compete as women. The ruling is inconsistent with the values of sport and human rights and is also inconsistent with the treatment of other athletes. It can be discriminatory to some as it favors a specific type of person over the other. By requiring these changes, it abandons its previous ethics and morals to turn to a more unjust outlook of sex and gender. 

The intended audience:

The topic of transgender and intersex competitors in sports has been a long-discussed one. The intended audience would have to be the sports community, as this topic is constantly relevant and debated. This article aims to educate competitors, coaches, and fans about the unfair and unethical treatment of intersex people in the sports community.

Analyzing Ethos:

At the top of the article, the author’s credentials are stated to the right. Some of these credentials include Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. His credibility on the subject of ethical treatment allows the audience to trust his judgment when it comes to the ethics behind intersex peoples’ treatment in sports. Sex determination was abandoned in the 1990s in favor of gender. Many intersex athletes, including Semenya, have trained and competed fairly in competitions so to require intersex people to get surgery or to lower their testosterone levels, after not being forced to for years, would be highly unethical. The author argues that there are far safer alternatives to requiring intersex athletes to have surgery or to lower their testosterone. In paragraphs 47 and 48, the author states "Cisgender female athletes could take testosterone up to 5 nMol/L. This would reduce any advantage Semenya may have. It would also deal with the problem that up to 40% of elite athletes are currently doping anyway" (Savulescu, Ten ethical flaws in the Caster Semenya decision on intersex in sport). Savulescu also states "The CAS decision… does not cover a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which can cause elevated levels of testosterone in women with XX chromosomes. The implication is that XX females are real women, while those with XY chromosomes are not (Paragraph 18-20). This ideal that XX females and XY females are not equal would also lead to an unethical view about women and intersex people. 

The author also uses statistics in paragraph 22, to prove that Semenya is a fair competitor whose chromosomes don’t determine her ability to perform better than other competitors. "The difference testosterone makes between males and females in all events is estimated to be up to 12% (all other items being equal). But Semenya’s best time is only 2% faster than her competitors. It is not possible to determine how much of this 2% is due to testosterone, and how much due to other factors about her as an athlete, or her psychology" (Savulescu, Ten ethical flaws in the Caster Semenya decision on intersex in sport). Proving there is no advantage to being an intersex person in sports, will hopefully lead to fair and ethical treatment. There is no difference between being cisgender and intersex as long as they all play by the same rules and are given no advantages. If there is an unfair advantage, there are safer and more effective ways to allow equality rather than forcing intersex people to change who they are or not compete. The author was effective in his use of ethos to persuade the audience to believe the overall argument because of his knowledge of ethics and his credibility along with the statistics given to prove his knowledge on the subject. 

Works Cited:

Savulescu, Julian. “Ten Ethical Flaws in the Caster Semenya Decision on Intersex in Sport.” The Conversation, University of Oxford, 20 Apr. 2021, theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448.