A short passage on the second passage chosen above (But, setting aside the issue of gender, really so

different?):
Levys article about the case of Caster Semenya is a complex piece regarding the issue of sexuality,
especially the distinction between men and women, both of which are complicated by sports
competition, national and racial pride and individualistic ambitions of the men involved. The chosen
passage, amid all the discomforting information presented, has a certain frivolity feel to it. By removing
the issue of sexuality from the picture (setting aside the issue of gender), Levy points out the seeming
futility of the contention about Semenyas winning: hers is not much more different from Phelpss
legendary championship if we are to look at her difference as a physical abnormality. The complication
of intersexuality that has been outlined in details previously in terms of elementary scientific
understanding is now viewed from a much simpler perspective. This makes me question the necessity of
separating the sexes in certain fields like sports, and enables me to better appreciate why dissolving
gender altogether is described as a desirable path from the perspective of people advocating this
idea. Re-examining the text, however, brings up another complication: is Levy for or against the point of
separating genders? Genders have been a crucial distinction in organizing our society, as Levy astutely
argues in the following passage. The chosen passage thus not only enhances my understanding of the
different perspectives that the author brings forth, but also complicates my interpretation of Levys
overall point.