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."
Originally posted by Conniekat8
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.
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.
This is incredible! I have followed this thread from the beginning, and what amazes me is that the differences of opinion in here are so profound it kind of reminds of......well......life! I would say the average age of everyone in here is at least an adult! But sometimes I really wonder how many people really understand what ego state they are talking in? And how it can affect a response from the receiving party. We ALL KNOW everyone has differences of opinion....get over it! SMILE:D And enjoy the fact that we are all different! Life would really, really suck if we weren't.
Originally posted by aquageek
Say what you want Connie but you brought up religion. As a Christian there is no part of my life that doesn't involve God. Everything I do is to glorify Him. There is no separation of religion from anything I do. I do not compartamentalize my faith for convenience. Your right to bring up religion doesn't usurp my right to fire back.
As to forum guidelines, you aren't in charge of that so please let the folks in charge do their chastizing of me if they feel it necessary. This discussion has tackled a touchy subject, full of all the pitfalls - sexuality, religion, politics to a certain degree - all loosely tagged with swimming.
Please provide latin translations when you use fancy latin phrases. I'm not very bright in that regard.
Lastly, ridicule me all you want. I've been given a bunch of nicknames on this forum, I prefer Swampything as an alternative.
I can see you missed my point.
In the interest of peace, I'm putting you on my ignore list, as I'm not interested in seeing any of your 'firing back'.
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
I am not nor will be a PC police, but state my beliefs clearly.
Do I have to repeat things to be sure that I am not misunderstood? Please read more carefully.
When you insisted girls was wrong, you assumed the role of Chief PC Man for this forum. It's refreshing to have a PC cop on board since that always does wonders for true debate.
And, Ion, I'm sorry, we'll re-read your posts until we understand better.
Yes, my two comments do definitely suggest an obsession. Maybe if I say it a third time gull80 can give me a psychiatric diagnosis and then the IOC can spend time deciding if I can swim with the boys or girls. Oops, sorry Phil, I mean men and women, my apologies.
Lefty, I could be wrong but I do recall you (maybe) calling me Ion a few weeks back. Maybe you are the obsessed one, but with whom is the question? Do you lean towards Mr. Beza or the Swampyone? What does this say about you? Delve into your XY chromosomes, swim on it, and get back to us.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
People who undergo the procedure are not your clear cut males or females to begin with. . .
On what do you base this statement? The focus of this discussion keeps shifting. I specifically excluded individuals with a disorder of sexual differentiation/development. When the term transsexual is used, it implies someone who is both phenotypically and genotypically male or female and decides to change gender. A male can undergo surgery, take hormones, live and dress as a female, but every cell in his body will have XY chromosomes. How society treats that individual is the subject of this discussion (or so I thought).
Here is an interesting and well presented article, definitely anti:
nytimes.com/.../20roberts.html
Which argues that athletes will go to any lengths for a gold medal. I still don't see much money coming from an olympic gold medal for a transgendered athletes, especially if there is a suspicion that the operation was done for that purpose.
Another good point of this article is that it will be extremly difficult for the drug testers to do their job -- the hormonal environment of the athlete will be totally artificial.
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
LindsayNB Wrote:
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.
This is where I get confused (confusion is a constant state for me). Are you really a surgically altered woman if all you have done is ---ALERT LEFTY, WILLIE REFERNCE COMING -- pump yourself full of hormones, take to wearing female clothes and -- LEFTY, ALERT, ALERT -- have your jimmy removed?
Aren't you just still a man, -- LEFTY, ANATOMICAL REFERNCE COMING -- just without a certain part?
“Finally, it is the case that Tom, either wittingly or unwittingly, starts the most controversial threads.”
Interesting observation, and factually it is unwittingly. With respect to this thread, I saw this article in Yahoo News and thought it was a topic that needed discussion. This topic has wide ranging implications for sports in general. Obviously, as we see here it also has some rather interesting moral and ethical implications as well. Looking back on the time line when I posted this thread, it’s plain to see that I waited an entire day to comment and when I did comment, I attempted to convey my thoughts in a humorous manner.
Unfortunately life is not always black and white; even though I tend to lean towards the side where things are black and white. In my case, reducing this topic to humor has no relevance to the seriousness, sensitivity or wide ranging implications surrounding this topic. It has to do with my inability to rationally find a comfort zone where I can honestly and openly convey my thoughts and feelings on this extremely controversial topic. By doing so, I allow myself the opportunity to read others thoughts and feeling on this matter and at the same time, continue to embrace the basic and fundamental ideas and principals that make me who I am.
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.
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.
