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 Tom Ellison
Let's cut to the chase here...The word YOUR makes that a slam...As in, YOUR...... being the USA.
tjburk, LindsayNB is M not F...as listed in his USMS info section....
Why couldn't YOUR mean England?
You decided that YOUR = USA instead of seeing it as a generic YOUR because the host of the conversation is USMS. That correct?
If that's correct then at least I understand where you're comming from. I don't agree with your thinking but at least I understand.
Ok, please shine the flash light in my ear here….USMS is in the USA, I’d say MOST of us live in the USA, I live in the USA, what other perspective could I possibly view this from but the USA? When addressing a forum in the USA, mostly writing to people who live in the USA, ….well golly gee, I guess I thought he was referring to the USA….Gosh, that is about as much of a leap as stepping off the curb….no big jump there to connect the dots.
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Ok, please shine the flash light in my ear here….USMS is in the USA, I’d say MOST of us live in the USA, I live in the USA, what other perspective could I possibly view this from but the USA? When addressing a forum in the USA, mostly writing to people who live in the USA, and even referring to the USA….well golly gee, I guess I thought he was referring to the USA….Gosh, that is about as much of a leap as stepping off the curb….no big jump there to connect the dots.
Just a difference of perspective. I read it and thought that he/she was trying to make a generic point. You read it and thought he/she was pointing directly to the USA. Different interpretations of the same thing. Happens all the time.
I honestly didn't see what you referred to. I see it now and while I don't agree, I understand.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
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.
I think you need to define faines, as you see it, before you can logically continue the discussion that you're carrying on, and then discuss it within the defined parameters. If not, and you attempt to discuss fairness on a philosophical level, people are not necessarily respond on a philosophical level.
To discuss the fairness in competition, then you need to discuss it within the universally accepted parameters of fair sports competition.
If you want to doiscuss fairness, on a philosophical level,then you need to define a new set of parameters.
Seems to me that people are misunderstanding you, because there are several pretty complex concepots that you have in your discussions, and they could be defined a tad more clearly.
If you really want get into fairness on the philosophical level, take it to it's ultimate level, where noon but the pair of identical twins should be allowed to compete against each other, to make the playing field as perfectly level as nature would allow. Or someone competing against themselves and their recent results.
Anything less than that needs a set of parameters assigned to it, and agreed upon by all parties involved. Then you can sit and discuss if those parameters are as 'fair' as you want the competition to be.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
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?
You asked how so....
Well, you picked a rather confrontational and sensitive subject to start with, and then you choose terms like sexism and discimination that coloquially tend to carry a lot of negative connotations, and you don't calrify that perhaps you're thinking on a philosophical level, most people tend to take the meanings of those words in their every day use.
And Ya gotta admit that you don't hear 'dicrimination' and 'sexism' in the positive context very often nowdays, so without a heavy disclaimer and explanation, most people will continue the patters they're used to, and see those words in their negative connotations.
Perhaps people are misunderstanding what you are trying to say?
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Howard, it is ok my friend....that is why they make Buicks and Chevy's....;)
I am perfectly happy with the way things are.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
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?
I can't recall their names of ft he top of my head, but I know there has been more than one top level athlete that has done this. I know one is a race car driver, who still has a ton of lucrative contracts and a very successful carreer.
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?
As many as will not want to get entangled with ACLU and the legalities of discimination based on sex. Being that sports industry's target market are young people, and that market segments is not as concerned with moralities as perhaps a 60-80 year old group, I'd say, there would be quite a few sponsorships, especially with the right marketing campaign.
So, no, I don't think youer argument is all that realistic.
There is the satisfaction of being the best you can be - oops, the surgery and hormone treatment has actually made you slower....
Your argument here leaps to troo many conclusions based on vague assumptions. I can't really address it as something realistic.
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?.
I t hink this is a huge leap of judgement here and a very loose assumption of what the world may or may not think. The assumption here is representative of your value system. I can't say that your personal value system is representative of the majority in the world.
