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 laineybug
A Chinese curse goes:
May you live in interesting times.
I've never thought of that as a curse, but then again, my parents had a hard time keeping me alive as a kid since I would do almost anything "because I thought it would be interesting to do." I find watching the things going on in society today to be along the same lines, except they don't cause me to have to visit the ER too often.
And I still want to know what the "S." stands for as your first name... I think it would be "interesting" to know.
-LBJ
Originally posted by breastroker
There are several problems with the arguments presented so far so let me clarify what I have seen.
1) There are many countries where Olympic athletes make millions of dollars, Euros etc. This includes swimmers. Just because Americans and English (GB) don't make significant money to justify a sex change doesn't mean the financial incentive is not there.
There are two ways that Olympic athletes make money: sponsorships and state incentives. Do we really foresee sponsors offering big money to a transexual athlete? How many states will want to be seen winning Olympic events using transexual athletes? Countries that have used performance enhancing technologies in the past have always done so covertly, the idea was to deceive the world into thinking their athletes were superior. Will wins by transexual athletes serve the state's propaganda purposes?
2) Even in Masters swimming I have seen men who were using steriods. Ever 5 years these men would gain 25 pounds of muscles, pimples on their backs, tearing of their muscles, all sorts of steroid symptoms. There is no money in Masters swimming (at least none I know of) so this steroid use was done for other weird reasons. Younger swimmers would do ANYTHING to win a Olympic Gold Medal.
You might find it interesting to find out how many of these men who are taking drugs that make them muscular and buff would be willing to have their genitals removed, breasts added, and undergo two years of feminizing hormone treatment. It seems to me that being turned into a female is a considerably more immediate consideration than adverse health effects somewhere down the line. Before we can accept that young males will do ANYTHING for an Olympic Gold we have to establish what their motivations are, it certainly isn't just to possess the physical medal, I strongly suspect that undergoing a sex change would directly contradict basically all the motivations young men have for wanting to go to the Olympics. On top of that, winning a medal as a transexual would certainly be a completely different experience, knowing that most of the world looked down on you rather than admired you.
3) Just like women using steroids, the strength advantage would last for many years. With some world class swimmers now swimming in 4 Olympics, this could give a lifetime advantage to transsexuals.
It is possible but certainly open to question that a male to female transexual would have an advantage. Even if you take it as a given, the question remains, why would it be a bad thing for a transexual to win a medal? We've already had the "because I don't like/approve of transexuals" expressed, but that is hardly valid basis for policy. We ban performance enhancing drugs because they have adverse health effects not because they enhance performance, otherwise we would ban vitamins, ordinary supplements, and healthy living.
4) What is to say a state sponsored program of genetically altered or surgically altered athletes start dominating sports events? First Germany, then China, it can happen again. How about webbed feet and fingers? Gills?
Despite the above this is completely irrelevant to this discussion, the IOC did not create a blanket "any medical procedure is ok" policy. Interestingly, I believe webbed digits do occur naturally sometimes, if this were to happen in an otherwise talented individual should that individual be banned? Does the Olympics really come down to a test of who was born with the best genes? Certainly you have very little hope of medaling in the Olympics if you weren't born with a very rare set of genes, is that "fair"?
Originally posted by Conniekat8
We all need to back off the streotypes, and deal with the people on a more personal level, get to know them before you judge them.
Medically, gender is not always as clear cut as public at large would like to think.
There's no 'order' in nature, it's a self guided chaos, much like fractals are.
It's not about passing judgment on someone who's "different," nor is it about political correctness. It's about a very basic concept--gender and what defines male vs. female.
Medically gender is straightforward. Yes there are specific medical conditions where an individual does not develop the appropriate physical characteristics for their sexual genotype, but that's not what we're talking about here.
And finally, there is incredible order throughout nature--which is why scientists can believe in God. Chaos theory does not suggest that the universe is without order.
Originally posted by swimr4life
gull80, I couldn't have said it better myself!! Transgenderism is a choice. Even though I don't think it is "OK", it is an individual's choice to go through the surgery. To each his/her own. BUT, the fact remains that they are still genetically the same sex they were before the surgery!! I think sex in competition should be based on what you are GENETICALLY!
Call me politically "incorrect" if you want but, just as transgenders have their right to their opinions, I have every right to mine. I am not homophobic or transgenderphobic. I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE LIKE ME BEING MADE TO FEEL OPINIONPHOBIC........afraid to voice my opinion because I might offend someone! Yes, I'm traditional and old-fashioned. It doesn't mean that I should be made ashamed of my view and opinions. The silent majority should be able to voice their opinions too!
Beth, there is a difference between expressing your opinion in a sensitive way, and being offensive like Sparx. Unfortunately, many good and sensitive people like yourself get labled "homophobic" because of people like Sparx. Stereotyping is exactly what people like me get so mad about but, ironically, we quickly apply stereotypes to anyone who disagrees with us; the cycle never ends and a healthy dialogue never developes. So respectfully I submit to you that I appreciate your concern on this issue but I disagree.
Originally posted by swimr4life
I respectfully disagree. Performance enhancing drugs DO truly effect performance. It is CHEATING. Swimming regularly, eating a healthy diet, taking vitamins are not cheating. Comparing vitamins to steroids is not a valid point.
She was comparing not vitamins to steroids - she was CONTRASTING vitamins to steroids. Her point was that vitamins are NOT like steroids because they have no adverse health effect. The reason that steroids are banned is because of the health effects. If the IOC allowed steroid use, anyone who was not willing to (permanently) harm their body would be at a disadvantage.
Originally posted by gull80
Unfortunately we seem to be living in frightening times.
"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. " - Woody Allen
Every generation thinks that they live in bad times, just as every generation thinks that their children are hopelessly lost. Every generation is correct. But somehow, it all seems to continue and that is what is so fascinating.
-LBJ
Originally posted by breastroker
1) There are many countries where Olympic athletes make millions of dollars, Euros etc. This includes swimmers. Just because Americans and English (GB) don't make significant money to justify a sex change doesn't mean the financial incentive is not there.
SO just to be clear, Wayne, what you are suggesting is that it is all right for the United States (and to some extent GB) to dictate moral issues to the rest of the world? You said so yourself, this DOES NOT EFFECT the USA: So why do you care?
Originally posted by breastroker
2) Even in Masters swimming I have seen men who were using steriods. Ever 5 years these men would gain 25 pounds of muscles, pimples on their backs, tearing of their muscles, all sorts of steroid symptoms. There is no money in Masters swimming (at least none I know of) so this steroid use was done for other weird reasons. Younger swimmers would do ANYTHING to win a Olympic Gold Medal.
You say this as if it's the absolute truth. Have you actually witnessed someone taking steroids? Know someone that has told you they are using steroids?
Interesting thread! I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this, so I've cooked up some test cases as a mental exercise. We'll start easy.
A woman happens to have an unusually muscular build, narrow hips, long legs and (say) 6'2" height, all without surgery or injected substances. I can think of no reason to exclude such a woman from women's events, and every reason to include her.
A person is born with double jointed knees and ankles, naturally webbed hands and feet, and a dorsal fin. In addition trains hard, etc. becoming a world class swimmer. I see no reason to exclude him or her from competition. The unusual physical traits are just part of that person, and thus constitute a fair advantage.
A boy by birth is accidentally mutilated during a circumcision, is subsequently given a sex-change, with the attendant hormoal supplements, lives life as a female, becomes a world class swimmer. Who among us would exclude her from competing in women's events? Not I.
A person got into a neck accident, damaged the thyroid, therafter needing hormone injections and cosmetic surgery. Gender not at issue. I would have no trouble permitting the person to compete (within the uncontested gender classification), despite the surgery and injections. Can a transsexual make a parallel argument? E.g., biochemical accident during fetal development caused incorrect sex organs, sex change was cosmetic, hormones restored normalcy? I would not be convinced by the case.
A world class male swimmer one day declares that he is really a woman, dresses like a woman, and lives life outwardly like a woman. Some schools of thought would recognize such a declaration as valid, but it clearly would not be justified to let this person compete for women's gold medals. What if s/he subsequently gets the female hormones but the surgery is delayed for valid medical reasons - should s/he be permitted to compete as a woman (i.e., is the IOC going to be checking everybody's plumbing from now on?), or banned because of the hormone injections? I am inclined to exclude this person from women's events, but the lines are getting blurred.
Maybe this is one of those situations where reasonable people of good faith can make principled arguments for either side, and where the best we can do is find a compromise that will please no one 100%, and that will not conform entirely to one ideal or another, but will give us a way of moving forward. The IOC's decision is one way to do this. So is declaring that you are what your chromosomes say you are (except I don't know what to do about the XXY's).
Does anyone see a clear way through this?
