[extropy-chat] Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back burner

David Lubkin extropy at unreasonable.com
Mon Mar 1 17:09:03 UTC 2004


>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-02/29/content_1337113.htm
>Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back burner
>2004-02-29 11:27:33
>
>ATHENS, Feb. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- A decision to allow transsexuals to take 
>part in the Olympic Games was put off on Saturday as the IOC executive 
>board failed to reach consensus.
>
>The decision-making body of the International Olympic Committee had 
>discussed the emotive subject at a meeting in the Greek capital but had 
>failed to make much progress.
>
>"The discussion was a difficult discussion for (IOC medical director) 
>Patrick Schamasch and myself who tried to explain a very difficult medical 
>problem," said IOC president Jacques Rogge.
>
>The rule would cover both male-to-female and female-to-male cases.
>
>Some contend that transsexual athletes have a physical advantage against 
>other women, because men are believed to 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.
>
>"Even for me it is complicated," Rogge said, "It is much more complicated 
>for someone with no medical training."

Interesting question. The Olympics currently bans any alteration of body 
function through surgery or medication, and being a transsexual would seem 
to qualify.

The answer for now and the next few decades, I think, is to have two 
categories -- altered and unaltered. In the altered category, allow any 
changes of any kind to anyone. Eventually, there would be a follow-up 
debate over whether someone has been altered to the point that they are 
more robot than human, and must compete in the Robot Olympics.

One complicating issue is that there's probably an exemption for medically 
necessary surgery or medication, and then the debate becomes whether 
gender-alteration is medically necessary.

The question of "medically necessary" is a gaping hole in IOC rules.

If treatment for asthma, say, gives runners higher oxygen utilization, they 
will have a competitive advantage over healthy athletes. Also, this will 
encourage healthy runners to fake or induce medical conditions in order to 
obtain the treatment.

If there is no exclusion for medical necessity, athletes will be forced to 
choose between their health (or lives) and their life ambition of competing 
in the Olympics.

Also, look at the name of the IOC medical director. Those of you of Jewish 
legacy may be amused.


-- David Lubkin.





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list