Jul 31, 2008 09:42PM GMT
Question
•
Sports - Olympics
Do trans-sexual olympic athletes have an unfair advantage?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008...."Transsexuals, who have had a sex change from male to female, can compete in women's events in the Olympics, as long they wait two years after the operation."
Loading...-
raves +1 posted Aug 07, 2008 05:22PM GMT
Answered Yes, they have an unfair advantage and should compete in their birth-sex
Men and women are different at a genetic level. You can change your body parts through surgery and hormone therapy, but you can't change you genes. Fact, men are physically stronger in general, they are genetically designed to be stronger. That is not to say that there are not strong women out there because of course there are! -
raves +1 posted Aug 07, 2008 01:53AM GMT
Answered Yes, they have an unfair advantage and should compete in their birth-sex
what will they think of next? wait, what if the female transsexual is still taking female hormones or the male transsexual is taking male hormones... what are the rules on those kinds of substances? -
raves +1 posted Aug 01, 2008 05:19AM GMT
Answered Yes, they have an unfair advantage and should compete in their birth-sex
At the end of the day, they are still going to develop a body physic that is male dominated. It would be unfair to the women, as men tend to develop traditionally bigger builds, and a more lean frame. Women stil carry more fat then men, even in their peak conditions.. -
raves +2 posted Jul 31, 2008 10:39PM GMT
Answered Yes, they have an unfair advantage and should compete in their birth-sex
I think it is unfair that trans-sexuals get to compete in a gender event. Just because a man-turned woman, looks like a woman, It still doesn't mean that they still do not have the strength of a man, and if a woman-turned man that is participating in a male event doesn't mean that just because they look a like a man, they have the strength or atheletic capacity of a man. I frankly think they shouldn't participate if it is going to be that way. -
raves +3 posted Jul 31, 2008 10:28PM GMT
Answered No, gender is an illusion
Well, the limited choices here are of course going to prohibit a lot of people from responding... but I thought I would pick the closest to accurate and then leave a comment.
In my opinion, the gender separation in the Olympics is an insult to humanity to start with... but I do understand where it comes from.
Now, just consider this... hypothetical scenario:
Given six people...
One born male, with a natural supply of the body chemistry he needs to become very muscular.
One born atomically female who later grew male parts naturally rather than developing into a "woman" so to speak.
One born anotomically male externally but with unusually low levels of male hormones and a brain that is sufficiently anotomically female as to be recognized as such on a PET or CAT scan, (which leaves one wondering when the DOG scan is going to hit the market), who goes through surgery and hormone therapy to change his body to something that more people will accept as "female" which he feels he has been all along.
One born female who without the help of injections or pills grown a masculine body in every way except for the reproductive organs (both internal and external) and ends up being an overly muscular woman with a beard.
One born female in every sense who decide...Well, the limited choices here are of course going to prohibit a lot of people from responding... but I thought I would pick the closest to accurate and then leave a comment.
In my opinion, the gender separation in the Olympics is an insult to humanity to start with... but I do understand where it comes from.
Now, just consider this... hypothetical scenario:
Given six people...
One born male, with a natural supply of the body chemistry he needs to become very muscular.
One born atomically female who later grew male parts naturally rather than developing into a "woman" so to speak.
One born anotomically male externally but with unusually low levels of male hormones and a brain that is sufficiently anotomically female as to be recognized as such on a PET or CAT scan, (which leaves one wondering when the DOG scan is going to hit the market), who goes through surgery and hormone therapy to change his body to something that more people will accept as "female" which he feels he has been all along.
One born female who without the help of injections or pills grown a masculine body in every way except for the reproductive organs (both internal and external) and ends up being an overly muscular woman with a beard.
One born female in every sense who decides to go through what ever it takes to become physically a mucsular male body builder because she is tired of being seen as weak.
And one born a normal male who in high school starts taking injections of steroids in massive doses knowing that it will shorten his lifespan but accepting that as the easiest way to become more muscular.
If each of them decided at the age of 18 to start training for olympic weight lifting, they could probably never compete with those who started before the age of five anyway, but if they somehow managed to train hard enough and make it to the olympics as a competator... who would it be fair for each of them to compete against? How about against each other... as opposed to against other males or against other females. How about against other athletes?
Should a hermaphrodite be kept out of the olympics completely or placed in a special gender category? Should men who have a Y chomosome and two X chromosomes and grow female-like breasts have their own gender category? Should sissy boys and girly-girls be in one category while tom-boys and he-men are placed in another? The only easy answer to this question has to stem on what makes the olympics important. If it is indead a test of who is the best, then gender should not be an issue. If it is a test of who is the most goddess-like or the most god-like, as it was back when the games originated, then gender should be everything, and if it's all about selling tickets, marketing, merchandising and the like... then what ever makes the most profit.(less) -
raves +1 Aug 07, 2008 05:28PM GMTYou know, I actually know a "girl" that was born with both genetalia and had female reproductive organs. However, at a genetic and chromosome level, she was male. when she was a baby, they decided to remove the male genetalia. So anyway, she grew up as a girl, then recently decided that she was male. She is going through surgery in the next few months to have her breasts removed and have a hyseterectomy. When she began taking testosterone she actually started to grow a penis, and testicals have started to develope. I didn't even know this was possible!
-
raves +1 Aug 08, 2008 06:38PM GMT (edited)Yep... it happens.
The idea of "genetically male" or "genetically female" is actually a bit of a fallacy. When a pattern was noticed of men having an "XY" chromosome pair and women having an "XX" chromosome pair, it was decided that this pattern was a genetic marker for gender. The fact is, the genes involved are not restricted to the pattern that was noticed way back then and are actually much more complex than was understood to be the case at that time. The so-called "Y" chromosome is actually a variation of the so-called "X" chromosome, and genes can cross over from one of them to the other, so it is even "possible" to have "XX" males and "XY" females. Although to my knowledge no viable examples have been noted, it is also "possible" that an "XY" female and an "XY" male could produce a "YY" male, and that such a male could with the help of an "XY" female produce a viable "YY" female offspring. The delema seems to be in the fact that the "Y" chromosome is missing some of the needed genes that the "X" chromosome carries which seem to be needed to grow a human being... or any other animal what has a similar "X" and "Y" chromosome scenario. Such missing genes could evolve independently in the "Y" chromosome, although this is very unlikely, or they could cross over from the "X"...Yep... it happens.
The idea of "genetically male" or "genetically female" is actually a bit of a fallacy. When a pattern was noticed of men having an "XY" chromosome pair and women having an "XX" chromosome pair, it was decided that this pattern was a genetic marker for gender. The fact is, the genes involved are not restricted to the pattern that was noticed way back then and are actually much more complex than was understood to be the case at that time. The so-called "Y" chromosome is actually a variation of the so-called "X" chromosome, and genes can cross over from one of them to the other, so it is even "possible" to have "XX" males and "XY" females. Although to my knowledge no viable examples have been noted, it is also "possible" that an "XY" female and an "XY" male could produce a "YY" male, and that such a male could with the help of an "XY" female produce a viable "YY" female offspring. The delema seems to be in the fact that the "Y" chromosome is missing some of the needed genes that the "X" chromosome carries which seem to be needed to grow a human being... or any other animal what has a similar "X" and "Y" chromosome scenario. Such missing genes could evolve independently in the "Y" chromosome, although this is very unlikely, or they could cross over from the "X" chromosome, which will of course in most cases produce a choromosome that would look like and therefore be identified visually as an "X" chromosome.
(less) -
raves Aug 16, 2008 03:55PM GMTHow's it going so far? ;)
Really, it's not all that complicated. The problem is we were taught wrong at a young age and need to unlearn concepts like the idea that male and female are absolute and opposite. They are neither, nor is there only one definition for either one. -
raves Sep 04, 2008 06:37PM GMTThis is what happens when common sense is mistaken for fact. It's a bit like people thinking that the opposite of voting for someone is voting for someone else... which is a bit like saying that the opposite of driving North into a garage is to drive into a garage in some other direction.
-
raves +2
Answered Yes, they have an unfair advantage and should compete in their birth-sex
If they believe the sexes are truly equal, they should have no problem competing in the sex of their birth.