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
ME, No! but there are some people who will do ANYTHING to win an Olympic medal.
I agree nyswim! I get the feeling that some are saying,"Let's just not have competition any more! It might not be fair to everyone involved.....gosh, someone might not feel like they are being treated fair because their self image is hurt by being beat by the big, bad woman that trains harder. That wouldn't be fair!":rolleyes: Ya'll are WAY out in left field. Are you saying that because some women are taller than others and that is unfair..some women can beat some men... and some women are bigger and stronger than some men we should not divide women's competition from men's?!? What are you suggesting? We have a mixed competiton so that everyone will be "equal"? I think this argument for "fairness" is sooo out there, soon some will suggest that we all will have to weigh the same thing in competition.... the lighter swimmers will have to drag weights to "equal" the playing field! A time penalty will be given to swimmers that have the audacity to train harder!? Look at Janet Evans! She was far shorter and smaller than most of the swimmers she competed with but, she beat them hands down because of hard work, dedication and determination..... The American ideal is that if you work hard in life, you will be rewarded.
Originally posted by swimr4life
The American ideal is that if you work hard in life, you will be rewarded.
You seem to be forgetting the new American ideal - whine, moan, complain and sue and you will be rewarded. It's no longer about how good you are, it's about how good you think you are. And, apparently if you think you are good enough, you are entitled to as much as those who are actually good.
Right on, Beth!
Lindsay, I'm with Tom on this one! I'll be in the lane next to you Tom!!! Is all you have to do is look at the world records in just about any physical sport and see who has the fastest times, lifts the most weight, etc. MEN!! Swimming ANY Woman in the world today against Phelps, Crocker, Thorpe, ETC they get to see nothing but wake the whole race! Is that your definition of fair! They wouldn't have a chance!
Oh, and one more thing to get out in the open. There are absolutes (givens) in this world; for instance, it is theoretically impossible to compress water, entropy increases in closed systems, -270 C is as cold as it gets, you screw around with Superman you’re going to get hammered. Now that we have established a few absolutes (givens) in this world, we find very few absolutes in managing the variables of sports competition. Sports bodies have historically chosen to separate the genders for obvious reasons. Men are inherently stronger then woman. That is an absolute ….and to make men and women compete on the same field of play would remove a variable designed to make sports competition as fair as possible.
I thought my reply to Shannan made it pretty clear that I am aware of and acknowledge the differences between men and women. Was my statement there in some way unclear?
The point of disagreement is whether "fairness", in any sense beyond "conforming to the rules", has anything to do with transexuals competing in the Olympics or USMS meets.
One the one hand people claim that competitions between men and women are unfair because men are bigger and stronger. On the other hand people claim that competitions between bigger stronger women and smaller weaker women are fair. I hold that there is a contradiction between these two claims.
Either it is all some sort of historical accident or, at some point, someone somewhere believed that there is some sort of social purpose achieved by separating out the best women in the world from the other 99.999999% of the populace that also aren't fast enough to compete with the best of the men, that also aren't as big and strong as the elite males. I wasn't there when the decision was made so I am open to hearing the real scoop. It's even possible that they too never noticed the circularity and contradiction in the fairness argument. Who knows.
If you agree that men are stronger then woman how can you say that it is fair that a man becomes a woman and competes against woman. The woman who used to be a man still as the same genetics that he/she was born with.
As for larger woman competeing against smaller woman I am not so sure is as much an issue. Is their any research out there that says the larger woman really has that much more of an advantage. I have seen some pretty small woman out there that are pretty tough. If you take some of the top woman swimmers are you going to say the largest swimmer will be the winner.
When it comes to some sports such as gymnastics they actually say the smaller the better.
