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
From what I understand, a 'transgendered female' is phenotypically female, in form and muscles, and even hormonally. They act in life as one of the female gender. We use female pronouns not only because it is polite, but because it is correct.
There are many cases of unclear sex, and the decision to be male or female (driven by our society) is decided by appearance, personal history, and which sex is easier to medically accomplish, not by XX or XY chromosome. (I read recently of a child who had some organs XX, others XY)
So I fail to understand Beth's argument, "because it is unfair." How is it unfair? Is it unfair because a women is taller? We deal with that type of unfairness all the time. I think it is far more unfair that a man is born to the wrong sex. 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.
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.
It is too bad that perfectly good words are treated like insults. If you think that races should not mix, as I heard a man on the radio claim yesterday, then you are a racist. If you think people of one sex should only live certain gender roles, or not live others, you are a sexist. If you think that people should not change genders, you are a . . . . genderist (?)
Finally, it is the case that Tom, either wittingly or unwittingly, starts the most controversial threads. ;)
Just how does one determine sex and/or gender at a swim meet? Is there an established guideline? Do we have an official inspector?
Any volunteers?
Michael
Originally posted by Msparks378
Just how does one determine sex and/or gender at a swim meet? Is there an established guideline? Do we have an official inspector?
Any volunteers?
Michael
Would that be kind of like 'zipping up the suits?'
Originally posted by LindsayNB
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.
If we take your argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, there should be no distinction between men and women in sports. I suppose that you think we should just get rid of women's competitions all together and treat everyone equally based upon their god given ability. Should all sports be unisex and only based upon the player's ability regardless of their sex?
Hook'em
Blue
Originally posted by Blue Horn
If we take your argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, there should be no distinction between men and women in sports. I suppose that you think we should just get rid of women's competitions all together and treat everyone equally based upon their god given ability. Should all sports be unisex and only based upon the player's ability regardless of their sex?
As I have said in my earlier posts I think that the justification for separating men's and women's competitions is based on encouraging women to participate in sport, not on fairness according to any definition of fairness that I can think of. And so far no one on the board has been able offer a definition of fairness that makes a race between any two people with different chromosomes unfair but a race between two people with the same chromosomes but different physiques fair.
My conclusion is not that we eliminate competitions for women but that we recognize that fairness is a non-issue in the debate about whether transexuals should be able to compete in their post-operative gender.
Originally posted by JC_FLY
I totally disagree with this! I could enter myself as a woman and play hockey.
Are you saying that you would actually be willing to be surgically altered to a female anatomy and undergo heavy female hormone treatment for at least two years in order to play hockey on the women's team?
