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
Originally posted by JC_FLY
ME, No! but there are some people who will do ANYTHING to win an Olympic medal.
Strangely this seems to be a common reaction, "No way would I do that" but "some people" would. The reality of the situation is that the motivations that people have for wanting an Olympic medal are defeated by undergoing a sex change to get one. Likewise for state motivations.
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
Lindsay has asked for 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.
Okay, according to Webster’s dictionary, A definition of fairness is “conforming with established standards or rules”.
USMS rules specifically allow for Men’s and Women’s competition. Therefore, by definition and by rule, competition amongst men is fair and competition amongst women is fair. USMS rules have no specific provisions for transsexuals, therefore any organizational view of fairness would either need to come down as a new rule or policy. This could lead people to conclude that the specific inclusion of men and women and the exclusion of transsexuals, within USMS code would constitute a difference.
Obviously Lindsay and everyone else is entitled to draw their own conclusion on recognizing fairness as an issue or non-issue, however USMS rules of competition are “designed to provide fair and equitable conditions of competition and promote uniformity in the sport so that no swimmer shall obtain unfair advantage over another”. So for me fairness and sporting behavior are issues of great importance in Masters swimming competition.
I absolutely agree that fairness in the sense of conforming to the rules is very important. What we are discussing however is a change in rules that the IOC has made. By the "competition is fair if it conforms to the rules" definition of fairness under the new rules allowing transexuals competition will still be fair, by definition. So that particular definition of fairness is clearly not relevant to the question of whether the new IOC rules are fair or whether similar new USMS rules would be fair.
Originally posted by tjburk
Lindsay...the XX or XY chromosomes determine how your body composition will turn out. Men's major leg muscles turn out to me more vertical, hence the ability to piston the legs straighter and faster, because a woman's leg muscles are actually more angled to the side. That is why you will probably never see a woman swim or run faster then a man. Men's records will always be faster then women's. That is one of the reasons why it is not fair to combine women and men.
I suppose it would be a cheap debating point to point out that some women swim and run faster than some men? ;) But seriously, if your definition of fair is that people of different physiques racing each other is unfair then surely competition among men and among women is also unfair as physique varies widely (as much?) within the sexes? People have a sense of fair that is purely based on current rules, the point is that if you change the rules the degree of fairness doesn't change. According to the "it is fair if the two people have the same abilities" definition of fair races should be between people of equal ability not people of identical chromosomes.
Another way to think about it is to question what makes an advantage unfair compared to any other advantage?
Originally posted by Conniekat8
You say that as if you're implying that there is something bad about that.
Not at all.
At least that is the way it comes across.
How so?
For the record I am in favor of separate competition for the women at the Olympics, I just don't believe that it can rationally be supported on the grounds of fairness. The only sense of the word fair that applies to Olympic level competition is the sense of everyone competing according to the rules.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
How is that?
There is a lot more benefit to winning the gold'carries, than an ego trip.
There is the admiration of your peers - oops, how much admiration will you get as a transexual who changed sexes for the purpose of winning a medal?
There are the lucrative sponsorship deals - oops, how many companies want to sponsor a transexual who changed sexes for the purpose of winning a medal?
There is the satisfaction of being the best you can be - oops, the surgery and hormone treatment has actually made you slower...
There is the propaganda value of demonstrating the superiority of citizens of your nationality - oops, the world doesn't think much of your nation now does it?
Um, what were those other benefits?
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
QUOTE: Originally posted by LindsayNB
"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."
I think that is a sexist statement. Women do not need encouragement to compete in sports. They simply need a level playing field, and in MOST cases, competition against men is not a level playing field. Men, by in large, are stronger, and that is a FACT. NEXT….
No Tom, by definition having separate competitions for men and women is sexist (discriminatory on the basis of sex). But it is socially justifiable sexism.
And Tom, I'm still waiting for your definition of "fair" or alternately your definition of "unfair advantage" or "level playing field" that makes competition between any two men or any two women, regardless of physical characteristics, fair while making competition between any man and woman, even of similar physical characteristics, or characteristics that favor the woman, unfair.
Lindsay, life is not fair....it's just life....and if any of us think it is fair...well, let me simply take you to a children's hospital.
Competition between two men or competition between two women is just that….it is competition. In any competition, someone will win and someone will lose. By definition, having someone lose could be debated until the cows come home or frogs begin to fly, with respect to “what is fair”.
I am not going to waste anymore of my time and energies debating my navel on issues that common sense dictates are fair. Athletic competition between men and women does not meet my understanding of the word fair, and to debate otherwise is akin to whizzing in the ocean to raise the tide.
It is a known fact that woman and men are built different. Have you ever done the chair test. If you lean against a wall with your head against it, lift the chair, and then try and stand up straight. Most men can not stand up. Why? Because mens equalibriam(or whatever the word is) is different from a womans. Men are more built to do heavy work while a woman is built to have babies. As a woman I hate admitting that a man is stronger but you just can't argue a fact. Yes some stronger woman can beat some men, but if you put the strongest woman against the strongest man the man would win. That being said I will say that a man may be stronger in body but a woman is stronger in mind.
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
I am not going to waste anymore of my time and energies debating my navel on issues that common sense dictates are fair. Athletic competition between men and women does not meet my understanding of the word fair, and to debate otherwise is akin to whizzing in the ocean to raise the tide.
Tom, life is not fair....it's just life....and if any of us think it is fair...well, let me simply take you to a children's hospital. :D
