http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-43044082 Apparently it has been ruled that a transgender woman can play Australian rules football alongside women. You have to wonder how this can be so, given that this person has had the benefit of 25 years of testosterone that her fellow competitors did not have access to. The physiological benefits of this hormone are beyond doubt, this is why testosterone levels are monitored by anti-doping agencies in elite sport, and testosterone doping is banned. Regardless of current levels of testosterone, things like bone density would still have residual benefits. I think this is a crazy decision, and potentially dangerous.
Agreed. Even in sports which are less strength based the gulf between men and women due to physical difference is pretty big, so in something like Aussie Rules it will be ridiculous, and as you say potentially dangerous.
The lengths people will go to for a competitive advantage.... how very dare she have been born in the wrong body.
I have no issue with gender reassignment - she should absolutely be recognised as a woman and treated with dignity and respect. But I would draw the line at allowing her to compete in a sport where she has a fundamental advantage that places her way above everyone else, and could be dangerous for the other competitors given the nature of the sport she plays.
If we could have a woman play for the Reds who would it be? Serena Williams as a midfield enforcer...Pamela Anderson if we are playing with 2 up front
I was thinking about similar the other day. How long before there is a third category at the Olympics? For example, the men's 100m, the women's 100m and the 'gender neutral' or 'transgender' 100m. In the latter category, it will be very difficult to find an even playing field. It would almost certainly have to involve sub-categories as per the Paralympians, who are graded by level of disability. So will there be a "neutral-but-born-male" category, and a "neutral-but-born-female" category and one for years in chosen role, and age etc ..... gonna be interesting.
Well, seeing as gender is a lot more than just the old definition of XX (female) and XY (male). There are also XX male, XY female, X, XYY, XXY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX and possibly others rarer still - although many with these chromosomal variants will have other developmental or congenital problems. Perhaps this should be the basis of the Olympics and other competitive sports.
If we're to prevent a woman in the wrong body to partake in sport because of potential physical advantage, then surely you have to prevent genetically born women, or men from taking part in sport if they are too disadvantaged genetically, or advantaged. That's a pretty grim dark place that would take humanity.
No, because whilst those people may be statistical outliers they are at least on the same physical spectrum as their competitors.
She's a woman and is legally recognised as such. To prevent her to compete would be obvious discrimination.
No it wouldnt. The discrimination isnt because she is a woman but because she had years of the benefit of male hormones and grew up into a mans body. The fact that she had had her bits altered doesnt change that fact. Sport is an exceptional case when it comes to discrimination. If she was doing my job she should be treated in the same way as any other woman or man - but there is a reason that Men and Women complete separately in most sports and accidentally she has gained an unfair advantage. You wouldnt say discrimination was unfair if a Man wanted to play in a womans team - the same applies here.
I'm pretty sure they will have consulted lawyers in making this ruling, which in itself suggests failure to allow her to compete would be discriminatory. She's always been a she. It's actually that simple in this context.