Gender, Identity, and Orientation are all distinctly different aspects of one’s ‘sex’ and I figure you’re sure to offend athletes however you go on this. Which just seems pointless. I suspect by and large they just want a fair competition, and fairness isn’t necessarily tethered to any aspect of one’s sex.
It’s nice to see the progress over the years as the complexity of the matter has been further explored, and I recognize the aspect of tradition here. While I certainly respect tradition, there are those I sometimes question the validity of holding on to. Aren’t we kind of adhering to a mindset that we as a society rejected?
Biology certainly drives this. Men and women tend to have a distinct ‘build’ that wouldn’t make for a fair competition in various physical sports. Yet within these broad categories of men and women exists quite a bit of variation.
Just makes me wonder… anyone thinking outside the box with this ‘Olympic Struggle?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-olympic-struggle-over-sex/259321/
]]>
Wtf? This is insane. And it will cause major problems if any woman is disqualified. Since everyone goes through olympic trials to get there, to change the rules of something the women don’t know about and don’t have a chance to comply with is cruel and pointless.
]]>This is terribly messy. There must be a better way to deal with this.
]]>It’s also terribly discriminatory. Men aren’t penalized for having more androgen use. What about men who have less? Should they start competing with the women? Should we just categorize based on androgen? After all, they’ve decided it must be that damn important to be willing to kick out women who happen to be extra sensitive to it. A genetic twist of fate, not an illegal drug meant to give them an unfair advantage. Hell, to be a top athlete your body is already ‘better’ than the average of you couldn’t compete at that level right? What if one of those aspects is androgen utilization? And now we’ll penalize what nature gave them?
]]>