Gender Transition Leads to Rule Transition
[Olympic Rings] Photo accessed via the Creative Commons License on January 31, 2016.
If the idea of switching genders came up in conversation ten years ago, it would have caught listeners off-guard. The concept of undergoing surgery to change physical sexuality still baffles people, yet well-known and respected organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have scrambled to draft policies — allowing those who desire to identify with the opposite gender to do so in international competition.
When I heard that the IOC had implemented policy to accommodate transgender athletes I was puzzled, to say the least, at how the committee could possibly see this as fair. In the most historic athletic rivalry known to man, the lines have been blurred between even the most recognizable of human attributes. My first question was this: how has society become so accepting of such changes? Why are members of the IOC going out of their way to ensure that he or she can compete in the competition they so desire? Could it be to avoid critical attacks from the media for not conforming to the new age of gender neutrality and acceptance of personal sexual identity? Quite possibly.
Cynics may cry that this new rule could lead to athletes taking advantage of the system; if a male track runner decides to “identify” with women, and thus undergoes physical surgery to make that identification permanent, he (she?) could compete in the female races with all the athletic ability of a man. The differences between male and female performance are undeniably noticeable. How, then, could a man compete as a women? The IOC is one step ahead of the complaints. In their policy, they specify these rules:
1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.
2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).
2.3. The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months. *
Fear not, female Olympians! Men can only steal your gold medals if they prove that their testosterone levels are low enough as to classify them as “no longer male.” Yes, that was indeed facetious.
The IOC is not the only organization that has chosen to shift policy for this upcoming “trend” in gender transitioning. The Association of Boxing Commissions, British Rowing, Disability Sports Australia, Rugby Football Union (UK), The Football Association (UK), The International of Athletics Federation, and the International Quidditch Association are among the many administrations that have developed procedures to regulate the participation of transgender athletes.
My concern is this: if even the Olympics are adjusting to this rising trend, what’s next? Neutral bathrooms? Gender neutral prom court nominations? Tradition is often the only principle that keeps everyone in their place. I fear that in twenty years nothing will be the same and people will have become so concerned with being “socially accepting” that tradition will be a thing of the past. That the little “male” or “female” on the top of our birth certificates may as well be written in erasable ink.
*http://www.transathlete.com/#!policies-by-organization/c1vyj
People often refer to me as the Captain, due to my daring nature and ability to lead masses of people across storming seas unharmed. And even if people...
Anonymous • Feb 18, 2016 at 11:17 am
Yes, this article begins by speaking about the Olympic Committee and their decisions, but quite frankly, that’s not the argument in the editorial. Comments only focusing on what she says about the athletes is just as ignorant as those not focusing on it at all.
I don’t really pose an opinion on the Olympics. I think we will have to wait to see what happens, because we have no proof whether or not their decision on transgender athletes is a good or bad one.
The fault here is skewing the issue and using it to focus on the development of transgenders in our society. “Even if…What’s next?” This is her point, and this is why commenters are angry, because she basically states “I don’t care if this goes through with the Olympics, but what will happen if it goes any further?” And yet, it already has, and it’s not affecting our personal lives.
If her point was to only talk about how it will not be fair at the Olympics, than she should have only talked about that, but she did not and turned it into a personal editorial reflecting her negative views on things like neutral bathrooms and prom court royalty. That is the problem here, not the debate about the Olympics, which is honestly *not* the point of the article.
Anonymous • Feb 17, 2016 at 9:37 pm
During the 1970s, the East German government systematically doped many of their athletes, particularly the women on the national swim team, giving them anabolic steroids to improve their performance on the international stage. Some of these women developed lower voices and facial hair, among other masculine traits. But they were fast. This shameful stain on the history of sport should shed a little light on the current controversy. No one is saying that individuals who feel they are trans-gender and identify with the opposite gender from which they were born cannot make that transition. But should they be able to compete at the highest level of international sport against that new gender, winning medals and possibly sponsor endorsement deals as the “best in the world” at their sport? Perhaps not.
Anonymous • Feb 17, 2016 at 6:24 pm
A couple of the comments on this editorial may have missed the point, which primarily was to question the fairness (or perhaps the wisdom) of allowing trans-gender athletes to compete as the opposite gender from their physical gender of birth. Given that one of the most famous trans-gender people in this country is Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, this is an important question. If Bruce Jenner had competed against women in the 1976 Olympic Games, he most certainly would have won, seeing as he beat all of the men in his events. (There is no Olympic decathlon for women, so this is merely hypothetical.) But would people have viewed him (if he had competed as Caitlyn) as the greatest athlete of the decade? Probably not … because many people would think he should have competed against other men and not other women. If he had taken the requisite hormonal therapy treatments that reduced his testosterone levels, he/she might have satisfied the IOC’s current requirements. But how would people view those results? Would they universally be viewed as legitimate? No, some people would say it was fine, and others would object. It’s going to be controversial, allowing women (who used to be men) compete against other women (who have always been women). I believe that’s what this editorial really means, at its heart.
Tali Valentine • Feb 17, 2016 at 10:36 am
It’s clearly controversial, which is important. I’m glad these comments were made to give both sides, and I think the issue should be handled carefully and sensitively because talking about transgender individuals isn’t just talking about nameless faces and “them”, its talking about people who have been struggling with feeling “normal” for their whole lives. It’s talking about people who go to this high school. What’s also important is to not stigmatize the argument as two warring sides, liberals verses conservatives. Jenny Beth has some points worth talking about, and so do the people in the comments. To back up the editorial, though, focusing on the two sentences in the conclusion as a personal attack (and not talking about the point of the article, which is the Olympics) is moving out of context. The anonymous comment phrasing their rebuttal as “I hate to break it to you” misses the mark of the editorial’s intention. Calling the editorial narrow minded is short sighted in that editorials are intended to be opinionated, and just because its not yours doesn’t mean its wrong. JB doesn’t hate people who are transgender and this issue is not black and white. I hope that at the end, it all boils down to human life having value and not “liberals versus conservatives” or “enlightened versus ignorant”.
Anonymous • Feb 16, 2016 at 9:39 pm
With all due respect, I find this article to be a little too narrow minded. Although I understand an editorial to support a certain opinion, I’d find that a lot of people do not express the same concerns that you seem to find prominent.
I’d like to direct you toward the concept of gender neutral floors and bathrooms all over college campuses in America already, including my own dorm. And I’ve never heard a peep about it. In fact, this is old news, considering this Huffington Post article from 2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/gender-neutral-bathrooms-colleges_n_5597362.html
Not only this, and I hate to break it to you, but gender-neutral prom court nominations have already made their stay as well: http://www.people.com/article/landon-patterson-transgender-homecoming-queen-high-school
Our society is progressive, and that’s a positive thing. Although it is possible that the wheels set in motion by actions made by those like the IOC won’t function properly for their first test runs, it would almost be more detrimental to not acknowledge this situation at all.
But I digress.
Samwise Wickham • Feb 16, 2016 at 7:26 pm
“My concern is this: if even the Olympics are adjusting to this rising trend, what’s next? Neutral bathrooms? Gender neutral prom court nominations?” First of all.. okay. In what world would going through gender dysphoria, growing up hating/not understanding yourself/why you feel so different, and being ridiculed by the public and often times family and/or friends be a “trend”? Never mind how often trans kids are beat or even killed for being trans, many times by their own parents. Never mind the statistics that show transgender people are much more likely to commit suicide. Or the fact that the United States had the most murders of trans people in 2015 than ever before, and that number is expected to grow this year. The “trend” here is that people are finally becoming more comfortable expressing who they are. Trans people have always been around, but the public never allowed them to feel safe enough to express themselves. Being trans isn’t a fun “trend” to seem cool. Its a trait characterized through psychology and genetics that makes living in the ignorant world of today dangerous.
Oh no not comfort for trans people that doesn’t affect cis (non-transgender) people! A bathroom… for anyone? How will humanity survive? (You probably have a gender neutral bathroom.. in your house! Gasp!) And prom nominations.. already are for male and female students. Male and female students can still carry the traditional titles, with gender-neutral students having another title such as something simple like “Prom Royalty”. The entire group name (Prom Royalty) is gender neutral. It wouldn’t affect anything.
“I fear that in twenty years nothing will be the same” Because progress is a terrifying thing. I fear in twenty years we will still have closed-minded, ignorant people that get mad about restrooms that anyone can go in.
Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly research the topic you are writing about.