Cut From Yahoo News:
LAUSANNE, Switzerland - Transsexuals were cleared Monday to compete in the Olympics for the first time.
Under a proposal approved by the IOC executive board, athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery will be eligible for the Olympics if their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy.
The decision, which covers both male-to-female and female-to-male cases, goes into effect starting with the Athens Olympics in August.
The IOC had put off a decision in February, saying more time was needed to consider all the medical issues.
Some members had been concerned whether male-to-female transsexuals would have physical advantages competing against women.
Men have higher levels of testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung capacity. However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after hormone therapy and sex-change surgery.
IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said the situation of transsexuals competing in high-level sports was "rare but becoming more common."
IOC medical director Patrick Schamasch said no specific sports had been singled out by the ruling.
"Any sport may be touched by this problem," he said. "Until now, we didn't have any rules or regulations. We needed to establish some sort of policy."
Until 1999, the IOC conducted gender verification tests at the Olympics but the screenings were dropped before the 2000 Sydney Games.
One of the best known cases of transsexuals in sports involves Renee Richards, formerly Richard Raskind, who played on the women's tennis tour in the 1970s.
In March, Australia's Mianne Bagger became the first transsexual to play in a pro golf tournament.
Michelle Dumaresq, formerly Michael, has competed in mountain bike racing for Canada.
Richards, now a New York opthamologist, was surprised by the IOC decision and was against it. She said decisions on transsexuals should be made on an individual basis.
"Basically, I think they're making a wrong judgment here, although I would have loved to have that judgment made in my case in 1976," she said.
"They're probably looking for trouble down the line. There may be a true transsexual — not someone who's nuts and wants to make money — who will be a very good champion player, and it will be a young person, let's say a Jimmy Connors or a Tiger Woods, and then they'll have an unequal playing field.
"In some sports, the physical superiority of men over women is very significant."
Parents
Former Member
Interesting thread! I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this, so I've cooked up some test cases as a mental exercise. We'll start easy.
A woman happens to have an unusually muscular build, narrow hips, long legs and (say) 6'2" height, all without surgery or injected substances. I can think of no reason to exclude such a woman from women's events, and every reason to include her.
A person is born with double jointed knees and ankles, naturally webbed hands and feet, and a dorsal fin. In addition trains hard, etc. becoming a world class swimmer. I see no reason to exclude him or her from competition. The unusual physical traits are just part of that person, and thus constitute a fair advantage.
A boy by birth is accidentally mutilated during a circumcision, is subsequently given a sex-change, with the attendant hormoal supplements, lives life as a female, becomes a world class swimmer. Who among us would exclude her from competing in women's events? Not I.
A person got into a neck accident, damaged the thyroid, therafter needing hormone injections and cosmetic surgery. Gender not at issue. I would have no trouble permitting the person to compete (within the uncontested gender classification), despite the surgery and injections. Can a transsexual make a parallel argument? E.g., biochemical accident during fetal development caused incorrect sex organs, sex change was cosmetic, hormones restored normalcy? I would not be convinced by the case.
A world class male swimmer one day declares that he is really a woman, dresses like a woman, and lives life outwardly like a woman. Some schools of thought would recognize such a declaration as valid, but it clearly would not be justified to let this person compete for women's gold medals. What if s/he subsequently gets the female hormones but the surgery is delayed for valid medical reasons - should s/he be permitted to compete as a woman (i.e., is the IOC going to be checking everybody's plumbing from now on?), or banned because of the hormone injections? I am inclined to exclude this person from women's events, but the lines are getting blurred.
Maybe this is one of those situations where reasonable people of good faith can make principled arguments for either side, and where the best we can do is find a compromise that will please no one 100%, and that will not conform entirely to one ideal or another, but will give us a way of moving forward. The IOC's decision is one way to do this. So is declaring that you are what your chromosomes say you are (except I don't know what to do about the XXY's).
Does anyone see a clear way through this?
Interesting thread! I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this, so I've cooked up some test cases as a mental exercise. We'll start easy.
A woman happens to have an unusually muscular build, narrow hips, long legs and (say) 6'2" height, all without surgery or injected substances. I can think of no reason to exclude such a woman from women's events, and every reason to include her.
A person is born with double jointed knees and ankles, naturally webbed hands and feet, and a dorsal fin. In addition trains hard, etc. becoming a world class swimmer. I see no reason to exclude him or her from competition. The unusual physical traits are just part of that person, and thus constitute a fair advantage.
A boy by birth is accidentally mutilated during a circumcision, is subsequently given a sex-change, with the attendant hormoal supplements, lives life as a female, becomes a world class swimmer. Who among us would exclude her from competing in women's events? Not I.
A person got into a neck accident, damaged the thyroid, therafter needing hormone injections and cosmetic surgery. Gender not at issue. I would have no trouble permitting the person to compete (within the uncontested gender classification), despite the surgery and injections. Can a transsexual make a parallel argument? E.g., biochemical accident during fetal development caused incorrect sex organs, sex change was cosmetic, hormones restored normalcy? I would not be convinced by the case.
A world class male swimmer one day declares that he is really a woman, dresses like a woman, and lives life outwardly like a woman. Some schools of thought would recognize such a declaration as valid, but it clearly would not be justified to let this person compete for women's gold medals. What if s/he subsequently gets the female hormones but the surgery is delayed for valid medical reasons - should s/he be permitted to compete as a woman (i.e., is the IOC going to be checking everybody's plumbing from now on?), or banned because of the hormone injections? I am inclined to exclude this person from women's events, but the lines are getting blurred.
Maybe this is one of those situations where reasonable people of good faith can make principled arguments for either side, and where the best we can do is find a compromise that will please no one 100%, and that will not conform entirely to one ideal or another, but will give us a way of moving forward. The IOC's decision is one way to do this. So is declaring that you are what your chromosomes say you are (except I don't know what to do about the XXY's).
Does anyone see a clear way through this?
