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 aquageek
On what scientific basis do you base this?
On the basis that chromosomes are microscopic groupings of genes in DNA strands internal to cells and as such play no role in the act of moving through the water.
Are you stating the entirety of the difference between male and female athletes are gonads?
Obviously not. I am saying that chomosomes act indirectly, primarily through hormones and their effect on tissues and growth.
It doesn't take a sophisticated medical test to figure someone 6'0" with long arms and legs but lacking only gonads is at a clear advantage.
But that is true whether the 6'0" person has XX or XY chromosomes. This is not the logical way to approach the issue. If you want to know whether chromosomes are the key issue you should consider the case of the infant that has sex reassignment surgury practically at birth. These people are indistinguishable from people with XX chromosomes, in the pool or out. The logical conclusion is that chromosomes are not the issue. The real issue is the changes brought on, primarily via hormones, at puberty and thereafter. Which, unsurprisingly, is why an international panel of medical experts recommended that all persons whose reassignment occured prior to puberty be treated as their assigned gender while people who underwent reassignment after puberty be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The policy is bunk. It assumes the only differences between the two sexes are a bra, a jock strap and hefty doses of hormones.
Just like the previous characterization of the policy:
"a policy that allows males/females to now swim as the opposite only becuase of shots, clothing and a legal document saying John is now Jane."
was incorrect because it neglected both surgery and the case-by-case evaluation, this characterization is completely untrue. The policy makes no such assumption:
...
In particular, a male puberty would mean an influence of testosterone, which could, in theory, be of importance even after a reassignment to female gender.
...
The present recommendation is the result of an updating of the IAAF guidelines by a panel of experts and to which clear requirements have been added with respect to eligibility for competition under the new gender following sex reassignment after puberty. The most debated aspects have been: (A) For how long will the hormonal influence of the earlier puberty be of importance? (B) Will the testosterone influence on the muscular strength during male puberty ever disappear? (C) For how long should the treatment with female hormones last in order to be considered sufficient? (D) How can one make sure that the required treatment with female hormone does really take place? All those questions were addressed by the panel, which also sought advice from further outside experts, before the enclosed recommendations were agreed upon.
Originally posted by aquageek
And yet, oddly enough, the policy says nothing about the fact the person is still a biological male/female.
The chromosomes are still male/female. A dress and hormone shots don't change your sex.
I find it insulting that there is a policy that allows males/females to now swim as the opposite only becuase of shots, clothing and a legal document saying John is now Jane.
Aquageek, did you miss the part where it said:
"-Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy"
Originally posted by LindsayNB
it is clear that our basic differences are rooted in differences in personal values,
This has nothing to do with values. The fact is that by having surgery to remove/add/enhance body parts, living as the opposite sex, filing a form with the government declaring you are now a M when you were a F (or vice versa) and taking shots of hormones you do not change your sex biologically.
What clearly is a value statement is to ignore basic biology (and some might argue religion) and declare men to be women or women to be men based solely on the fluctuating and fickle societal norms of the day. Just because current society accepts a man is now a woman in no way means that person is actually a woman at all. There seems to be a great deal of confusion that one's sex is a choice.
Be it resolved that we can have a long & contentious thread without Ion's participation. All in favor vote 'Aye'; the 'ayes's have it- let's put this one to rest. Next topic, Tom?
Originally posted by gull80
The point is that one's sex is determined by one's chromosomes. A pseudohermaphrodite has XX or XY chromosomes but does not exhibit the typical female or male characteristics due to a disorder of sexual development/differentiation. This is a medical condition quite distinct from "gender dysphoria" and should properly be considered separately (which the IOC seems to have done). To ignore the distinction and conclude that genetics are of secondary importance is inconsistent and misguided.
We seem to be in agreement that XX vs XY is not always the determining factor, it is just a question of what other factors should be considered. I don't think this forum is intended for discussing the nature of gender dysphoria and whether it is analogous to the case of, for example, a pseudohermaphrodite and so, while I am tempted to argue about the inconsistant part, it is clear that our basic differences are rooted in differences in personal values, the discussion of which is not the purpose of this board. I think I have covered all the points of logic, sometimes a couple of times, so I'll leave it at that until I see something fundamentally new posted.
Cheers,
Lindsay
This has absolutely nothing to do with a difference in personal values. Besides, you have no more knowledge of my values than I do of yours (although perhaps you have made assumptions on the basis of my posts). Clearly there is a difference in perspective and perhaps scientific background, but I fail to see where values enter the picture.
As for what is appropriate on this forum, the subject of the thread was the decsion by the IOC to allow transsexuals to compete against members of their "reassigned" sex. The distinction between a pseudohermaphrodite and a "gender dysphoric" individual is germaine to the discussion and apparently entered into the decision-making of the IOC.
The existence of pseudohermaphrodites does not invalidate the definition of gender on the basis of XX and XY chromosomes. Quite the contrary, that definition factors into the decision as to how to raise these indivduals after the diagnosis has been made.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
A person who has sex reassignment surgury at birth for instance, and there are a lot of these...
In the first place, there are not a lot of these (where do you get your information?), and second what we're really debating are the "gender dysphoric" individuals who decide as adults to undergo the procedure (rather than pseudohermaphrodites).
As for minimzing the role of chromosomes ("Chromosomes play no role in the act of moving through water"), read On Human Nature by Edward O. Wlison, a professor at Harvard.
Values could enter the equation if one was considering the relative merits of two different sets of rules. One person might say that the most important thing is to preserve the meaning of the word sex as meaning XX or XY chromosomes. Another person might say that the most important thing is to respect the transexual's desire to be treated according to their assigned gender. Another person might say the important consideration is whether the transexual has a demonstrable physical advantage outside the normal variation for women.
One could argue that how a person ranks different issues in importance will be determined by their values and that therefore values play a role in the discussion.
Originally posted by gull80
In the first place, there are not a lot of these (where do you get your information?),
Mea culpa for using a subjective term like "a lot", in any case the number is irrelevant to the logic of the argument.
and second what we're really debating are the "gender dysphoric" individuals who decide as adults to undergo the procedure (rather than pseudohermaphrodites).
As I've said before, the argument that whether a person has XX or XY chromosomes is the one and only factor that ought to be considered is saying that a person whose sex is reassigned at birth, and has not undergone any of the typical male developmental changes that lead to male advantages in post-adolescent swimmers but still has XY chomosomes, should none the less swim according to their chromosomes. This is logically inconsistant with the claim that females should not have to compete with males due to their disadvantage as the person whose sex was reassigned at birth has the same disadvantages. I therefore assert that chomosomes are not of themselves a sufficient basis for the decision.
The IOC policy uses case-by-case evaluation to determine which sex a post-pubescent transexual competitor should compete in. Either one objects to the post-pubescent qualification or one believes that there should be an absolute rule rather than a case-by-case evaluation to determine whether an advantage actually exists. This argument says that actual advantage is irrelevant, undermining the rational for the original male/female distinction.
As for minimzing the role of chromosomes ("Chromosomes play no role in the act of moving through water"), read On Human Nature by Edward O. Wlison, a professor at Harvard.
Wilson deals with the effect of genes on human nature, what I asserted was that the genes themselves do not directly (i.e. physically) help you swim (microscopic strands of DNA internal to cells that they are) but indirectly through the changes they cause in the body. The outcrop of this logic is that it is better to base decisions directly on whether the advantage actually developed. One could argue that the advantages endowed by XY chromosomes extend into the mental realm, but I'm certainly not going to!
The point is that one's sex is determined by one's chromosomes. A pseudohermaphrodite has XX or XY chromosomes but does not exhibit the typical female or male characteristics due to a disorder of sexual development/differentiation. This is a medical condition quite distinct from "gender dysphoria" and should properly be considered separately (which the IOC seems to have done). To ignore the distinction and conclude that genetics are of secondary importance is inconsistent and misguided.
