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."
Former Member
Boy, uh, man, uh whatever, am I glad I've been too busy to get into this one.
I've only skimmed over the posts so I'm not sure if anyone has raised this point... We probably don't know yet, whether or not it is going to be 'fair' for a transexual (male to female) to compete against women. I would be willing to bet that there isn't a whole lot of literature on the subject of transexual athletes. Maybe when the school term is over and I have some time on my hands I will google a little bit and see if there is any scientific research on whether a male to female transexual loses his/her physical advantage after several years of hormone treatement? Has the medical community measured strength, etc in male to female transexuals before surgery, after surgery, during the course of hormone treatement. What were the results?
Lainey
Originally posted by aquageek
Bologna! Bologna!
There is nothing that precludes religion from science. Matter of fact, if you believe God created everything and everything is part of his plan, then all things, including science and math, are his doing. There isn't a God part of life and a science part of life. They are one.
I said that ***I*** don't mix the two.
That's just what I do. Anyone else can do whatever siuts them.
For me, *my* religion and how I practice is a private spiritual matter, not open to discussion in this forum.
So, is it my turn to get up on the soapbox and start calling your statements bull and start being insulting? Nah, you're allowed to disagree.
I respectfully call your attention to the recently posted "forum etiquette" guidelines.
Originally posted by SWinkleblech
My thoughts exactly!
I think everyone needs to understand we all have our own beleifs and feelings on this issue. To go and start name calling and cricticzing others because they feel differently about the issue doesn't need to happen. I myself have my own feelings and beleifs about this but in no way does it make me less of a person. Do I feel it is right? no. Do I except people for who they are? Yes. I think many of those writing on this can say the same.
I am not going to get into any arguments over this because it will not change my veiw and I don't think I can change anyone elses either.
So, who is calling whom names?
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
LindsayNB Wrote:
“In not wanting USMS to allow transexuals to compete as their post-operative sex the logical implication is that people are willing to have a sex change in order to do better in masters competition, something totally beyond being taken seriously.”
Gosh, I do not see this as a logical implication at all! I see this thought process or line of thinking to reflect a possible unfair advantage. You are correct in your assumption that it is preposterous to think a Masters Swimmer would undergo a sex change operation to swim faster times as a female swimmer within USMS. It is very logical however to assume an unfair advantage may/could arise out of a former man---competing against a woman--- as a surgically altered woman....knowing good and well that 99.99999999999999999999 % of them would have had this operation for reasons OTHER then swimming fast USMS times.
The logical implication arises from the paragraph prior to the one you quoted, i.e. that people opposed to the new policy were opposed based on the premise that it would be used as a way to "cheat".
BUT, the real issue with respect to logic, which I keep trying to bring up and which keeps being ignored is that the whole argument based on fair/unfair is circular! People assert that a race between someone with XX chromosomes and someone with XY chromosomes is unfair, period. What is your definition of fair? So far, the only definition of fair that fits the argument is that it is only fair if the two people have the same chromosomes! For the sake of the argument, when you give your definition be sure to state it in a way that makes it "fair" for a five foot, 100lb woman to race a six foot lean 170lb woman but makes it "unfair" (to the woman) for a five foot, 100lb man to race the same six foot woman. It is absolutely true that many men are bigger and stronger than many women but it is equally true that many women are bigger and stronger than the average women but no one is arguing that we exclude (naturally) bigger stronger women from competition!
Anyway, please define "fair" in this context.
Originally posted by gull80
Medically gender is straightforward. Yes there are specific medical conditions where an individual does not develop the appropriate physical characteristics for their sexual genotype, but that's not what we're talking about here.
I tbelieve it is very much what we're talking about here.
A fully grown functioning and hormonally and genetically male is not likely to undergo the sex change operation.
There is often anomalies, not just physical, but hormonal, chemical and brain struture and early psychological development that thanscends the genital physical features.
People don't undergo sex change operations because they have been born and raised with a clear cut gender identity. If they were, then the sex change would never occur to them, and would be un-necessary.
People who undergo the procedure are not your clear cut males or females to begin with, so whether their genitalia or their genotype indicates on or the other, there is more to it than that. So, we are talking about those people that don't develop appropriate gender charachteristics, be it physically, mentally, hormonally, genetically or any other aspect that defines gender.
As for the political correctness, I'd be the last one to worry about that.
Order in nature... I would say order is too strong of a word. There is hierarchy to things in nature. It is not without fail or without deviation.
As for scientists believing in god....
There is a difference between science and personal beliefs. One is objective, the latter one leaves a lot to subjective interpretation. I'm not a fan of mixing the two, untill we get to into social scences and examining human behavior, individually, and at the level of a society.
When it comes to medicine, physics, math, chemistry and such, I'm not into attempting to apply religious symbology to scientific events and findings. Science can stand on it's own, without religious interpretations.
Originally posted by swimr4life
They would be excluded because they would have an unfair advantage. PERIOD! The more this topic is expanded, the more this fact is being twisted and turned into a totally different direction.
What if there is a female that was born with a lot of male characteristics, the height, the build, the hormonal makeup closer to a male than a female... but with female genitalia.
Is it fair for a genetic anomaly like that to compete amongst women?
What if a male undergoing a sex change to a woman is already a small framed feminine kind of a guy, smaller and weaker than the above example? Who has the unfair advantage there?
We need to look at all posible sides before deciding just what would define the unfair advantage.
Gender is not always so straightforward. There are several Sex Differentiation Disorders, which are medical conditions and are often underlying a decision of a person to have a "sex change" operation. A greater understanding of these conditions and the lives of transgendered people might lead to greater acceptance....
Klinefelter's Syndrome is a chromosomal condition that affects males. In Klinefelter syndrome, a male has two X's and a Y. The condition is COMMON and affects 1 in 500 males. The infant with Klinefelter's appears normal at birth, and the condition usually becomes apparent in puberty when secondary sexual characteristics fail to develop (or develop late). At this time, testicular changes occur that usually results in infertility. Symptoms include: small penis; small firm testicles; diminished pubic, axillary, and facial hair; sexual dysfunction; enlarged *** tissue; tall stature; abnormal body proportions (long legs, short trunk). The the severity of symptoms may vary from case to case, and some cases go undetected.
Turner's Syndrome is a chromosomal disorder that affects females. It occurs when one of the two X chromosomes normally found in females is missing or incomplete. This disorder is often accompanied by several medical complications. One aspect of treatment is hormone therapy so that the affected person can develop secondary female sexual characteristics.
A Hermaphrodite is a person born with both male and female sex organs. There are 3 types of Hermaphrodites: True, Male Pseudo and Female Pseudo.
A True hermaprodite is born with both ovary and testicular tissue, this could be 2 seperate gonads (one of each) or a combination of both in one (an ovotestes). The genitalia can vary from completely male or female, to a combination of both or even ambiguous looking. The chromosome can be XX, XY,, XX/XY or XO. Those XX with female genitalia on the outside (testicular tissue inside) are raised female while those XY with male genitalia outside (ovary inside) are raised male. The children born XX/XY or XO with genitalia male or female are raised in the sex they look most like. Those born with ambiguous genitalia usually have doctors assign them a sex, and surgery is done at an early age. The way the child is raised and/or the early surgery sometimes doesn't work for the child or the adult that the child becomes, and some hermaphrodites who were assigned a sex as children change their sex again as adults through sex change operations and hormone treatments.
A female pseudo hermaphrodite is a person born XX with normal female internal organs but with "masculanized" genitalia. They can appear more male then female or a combination of each.
A male pseudo hermaphrodite is a person born XY with testes (usually in the abdominal cavity). The external genitalia are usually female but can be ambiguous.
Discovery Health Channel (I think it was) recently had a series of documentaries on trangendered people and hermaphrodites. I recommend seeing this series if it comes on again. One of the documentaries profiled several people who had or were having sex change operations. Their decisions (and lives) are not easy, nor are the gender issues clear.
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
Besides that, Beth's argument ignores and in effect ridicules the intellectual argument that is needed to make such a moral decision -- others here are very eloquently trying to explore the fundamental points of this issue, but evidently Beth did not do well in her philosophy or medical ethics courses. (quote)
Obviously, you do not know me. I resent the implication that just because of my beliefs on this issue, my ethics, medical or life, are in question. HOW DARE YOU! I am a very kind, tenderhearted person. Accuse me of being judgemental after you have watched me care for a cocaine addicted baby and treated her mother with the upmost respect when she comes in to see her baby. Accuse me of being unethical after working one day alongside me in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. You don't know what I have done in my life. You have really hit a nerve with your pompous remark!
Phil, you said this,"The word is penus, not something silly like willie, and I don't think cutting it off is either necessary nor sufficient.".......I did do well enough in school to know it is spelled "penis"...change the u to an i.
You also said,"It is too bad that perfectly good words are treated like insults." Yes, it is indeed. You sir are no gentleman. Accusing me have not having ethics is a pretty low blow. I AM OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION! I am tired of self-rightous people that accuse others of being judgemental and unethical just because they have a different point of view.
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
Also, Aquageek, I would not try to explain why "a man cut of his willie to race with the girls." The whole tone and word choice of this question ridicules a serious issue -- people who put up with the social and physical difficulties of changing sex do not 'cut off their willie." The word is penus, not something silly like willie, and I don't think cutting it off is either necessary nor sufficient. I don't think anyone would change sex to swim with the 'girls,' and they are not girls, they are women.
This whole situation is silly. First, a person is a man or a woman, period. It's not hard to figure that out. For the .0000000000000001% of folks who have some physical abnormality that makes the determination impossible, does anyone really think they will be Olympic swimmers?
You may not like my choice of words but it speaks to the truth. For a man to claim to become a woman he has to hatchett the johnson and then have all sorts of odd surgeries thereafter.
I probably should have used the word "woman". The PC police at work again.
Then we have pinkflamingo talking about hermaphrodites. Give me a break! What does that have to do with who swims in the Olympics? Did the Discovery Channel show feature any of these genetic mutants swimming in the Olympics.
If you are a woman/girl, swim with the women/girls. If you are a man/boy, swim where you belong as well.
Originally posted by aquageek
You clearly invited responses when you brought up your spritual beliefs. It didn't come up magically.
For one, responses and opinions are one thing, putdowns are something else.
Also, I didn't bring up my 'spiritual beliefs' at all.
I brought up the fact that I keep them separate from scientific discussions.
You on the other hand aluded that my unstated spiritual beliefs are baloney, without even having a clue what they are.
Back off and think things through before you fire off an emotional subjective and confrontatinal response.
Your argument and attempt to deflect it back on me aluding that I started it holds less water than my goggles did this morning. Several people have aluded to god and god's order of things in nature before I mentioned religion.
Also the fact that I touched upon a subject doesn't mean that you have to be derrogatory with your assumption of what my spiritual beliefs may or may not be.
If you'd bother to look up the forum guidelines, you may have noticed that being derrogatory or antagonistic about (well anything, but especially someones religious beliefs) is unacceptable way to respond in this forum, regardless of whether they have been 'mentioned' or not in a previous conversation.
Sorry aquageek, your response is non sequitur.
Or let me oversimplify it for you... since your nickname is public knowledge in this group (has been brought up) is it okay for me to start atacking it and putting it down???:rolleyes:
