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
Originally posted by aquageek
On what scientific basis do you base this?
On the basis that chromosomes are microscopic groupings of genes in DNA strands internal to cells and as such play no role in the act of moving through the water.
Are you stating the entirety of the difference between male and female athletes are gonads?
Obviously not. I am saying that chomosomes act indirectly, primarily through hormones and their effect on tissues and growth.
It doesn't take a sophisticated medical test to figure someone 6'0" with long arms and legs but lacking only gonads is at a clear advantage.
But that is true whether the 6'0" person has XX or XY chromosomes. This is not the logical way to approach the issue. If you want to know whether chromosomes are the key issue you should consider the case of the infant that has sex reassignment surgury practically at birth. These people are indistinguishable from people with XX chromosomes, in the pool or out. The logical conclusion is that chromosomes are not the issue. The real issue is the changes brought on, primarily via hormones, at puberty and thereafter. Which, unsurprisingly, is why an international panel of medical experts recommended that all persons whose reassignment occured prior to puberty be treated as their assigned gender while people who underwent reassignment after puberty be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The policy is bunk. It assumes the only differences between the two sexes are a bra, a jock strap and hefty doses of hormones.
Just like the previous characterization of the policy:
"a policy that allows males/females to now swim as the opposite only becuase of shots, clothing and a legal document saying John is now Jane."
was incorrect because it neglected both surgery and the case-by-case evaluation, this characterization is completely untrue. The policy makes no such assumption:
...
In particular, a male puberty would mean an influence of testosterone, which could, in theory, be of importance even after a reassignment to female gender.
...
The present recommendation is the result of an updating of the IAAF guidelines by a panel of experts and to which clear requirements have been added with respect to eligibility for competition under the new gender following sex reassignment after puberty. The most debated aspects have been: (A) For how long will the hormonal influence of the earlier puberty be of importance? (B) Will the testosterone influence on the muscular strength during male puberty ever disappear? (C) For how long should the treatment with female hormones last in order to be considered sufficient? (D) How can one make sure that the required treatment with female hormone does really take place? All those questions were addressed by the panel, which also sought advice from further outside experts, before the enclosed recommendations were agreed upon.
Originally posted by aquageek
On what scientific basis do you base this?
On the basis that chromosomes are microscopic groupings of genes in DNA strands internal to cells and as such play no role in the act of moving through the water.
Are you stating the entirety of the difference between male and female athletes are gonads?
Obviously not. I am saying that chomosomes act indirectly, primarily through hormones and their effect on tissues and growth.
It doesn't take a sophisticated medical test to figure someone 6'0" with long arms and legs but lacking only gonads is at a clear advantage.
But that is true whether the 6'0" person has XX or XY chromosomes. This is not the logical way to approach the issue. If you want to know whether chromosomes are the key issue you should consider the case of the infant that has sex reassignment surgury practically at birth. These people are indistinguishable from people with XX chromosomes, in the pool or out. The logical conclusion is that chromosomes are not the issue. The real issue is the changes brought on, primarily via hormones, at puberty and thereafter. Which, unsurprisingly, is why an international panel of medical experts recommended that all persons whose reassignment occured prior to puberty be treated as their assigned gender while people who underwent reassignment after puberty be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The policy is bunk. It assumes the only differences between the two sexes are a bra, a jock strap and hefty doses of hormones.
Just like the previous characterization of the policy:
"a policy that allows males/females to now swim as the opposite only becuase of shots, clothing and a legal document saying John is now Jane."
was incorrect because it neglected both surgery and the case-by-case evaluation, this characterization is completely untrue. The policy makes no such assumption:
...
In particular, a male puberty would mean an influence of testosterone, which could, in theory, be of importance even after a reassignment to female gender.
...
The present recommendation is the result of an updating of the IAAF guidelines by a panel of experts and to which clear requirements have been added with respect to eligibility for competition under the new gender following sex reassignment after puberty. The most debated aspects have been: (A) For how long will the hormonal influence of the earlier puberty be of importance? (B) Will the testosterone influence on the muscular strength during male puberty ever disappear? (C) For how long should the treatment with female hormones last in order to be considered sufficient? (D) How can one make sure that the required treatment with female hormone does really take place? All those questions were addressed by the panel, which also sought advice from further outside experts, before the enclosed recommendations were agreed upon.
