The International Olympic Committee has received new recommendations for guidelines it’s expected to adopt, opening the door for more trans athletes to compete internationally, reports outsports.com. The recommendations address allowing competition by transgender athletes who have had gender reassignment surgery, as well as those who have not yet had surgery, or have chosen not to do so although their gender identity is at odds with their genitalia.
This may not pose much of an issue for competitions in which transmen compete against cisgender men, but it is likely to raise issues for transwomen whose bodies have been developmentally male. Nevertheless, the recommendations state:
To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights. …
Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
• The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
• 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).
• The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Regardless of testosterone levels, the first time a pre-op transwoman takes a medal competing against cisgender women—think about a younger Caitlyn Jenner in a women’s track and field event—it’s going to get ugly.
7 Comments for “Pre-Op Trans Olympians, What Could Go Wrong?”
posted by Houndentenor on
No, it’s not going to “get ugly.” This is hardly ever going to come up at all. This idea that men are going to be willing to live as women and go on enough hormone therapy to pass these tests just to compete in the Olympics is absurd.
posted by Jorge on
Regardless of testosterone levels, the first time a pre-op transwoman takes a medal competing against cisgender women—think about a younger Caitlyn Jenner in a women’s track and field event—it’s going to get ugly.
(I still think transgender male and transgender female should mean the opposite of what they are defined to mean.)
I agree with Houndentenor. The speak now or forever hold your peace moment will be earlier.
Hormones, eh?
I suppose requiring hormone treatment is a little more apt in ensuring fair competition than requiring gender reassignment surgery, but 1) I think the same rules should apply to both sexes, and 2) I fundamentally do not agree with this statement: “It is necessary to ensure insofar as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition.” Not necessary. Purely optional and elective. That’s why there’s a “growing” recognition of the importance of gender autonomy. It’s not a universal belief, it’s an elective belief. You can side with the west or you can side with the rest, your choice.
So believe it and be proud of it. The IOC is trying to pretend this is not a social or a political issue so as to avoid a discussion about it. Discussion creates angry people, and it thinks it knows what the end result of a discussion would be, so it has gone with that end result.
posted by JohnInCA on
The IOC has allowed trans* folk to compete for years. This is only relaxing the restrictions because of gains in our understanding of sex/gender and biology.
Strangely, the avalanche of male athletes transitioning just for an edge in competition (that the science says isn’t really there after enough hormone therapy) never materialized.
I doubt it will materialize now.
So the hand-wringing in advance of any problem seems awfully suspicious. If an avalanche of transwomen athletes suddenly appear, maybe there will be cause to start treating them specially. But insisting we must before there’s any evidence that we must doesn’t pass the smell test.
posted by Houndentenor on
This reminds me of the other conversation we’re having on the same site about lbgt rights in Israel.
Does Stephen actually give a crap about trans rights or any brouhaha at the IOC or is this just a cheap way of taking a swipe and trans rights activists? This is like the anti-gay right wingers who suddenly use gay rights violations in the Muslim countries to attack Muslims. I tend to call them out directly and ask them to join Sec of State Clinton (this was a while ago obviously) in calling for equal rights for lbgt people worldwide. That so far has shut them up. They don’t care about gay people in Iran and elsewhere. It’s just a cheap shot to make as a distraction from something else. How pathetic and low.
posted by Jorge on
Does Stephen actually give a crap about trans rights or any brouhaha at the IOC or is this just a cheap way of taking a swipe and trans rights activists?
Do you mean to suggest it means something different than when he takes swipes at gay rights activists? *Swipe!* Perhaps he is wrong for the exact same reason.
A lack of precision about the objection lets you move the goalposts later. Therefore it’s important to draw a line. If the IOC already has “rules” and “values” and they’re talking about keeping and making them better, then one has to accept there’s not much to do in dissent from their original rules and values.
I tend to call them out directly and ask them to join Sec of State Clinton (this was a while ago obviously) in calling for equal rights for lbgt people worldwide. That so far has shut them up.
A shame. That’s the kind of question that should force a very long answer.
Especially considering she once stood by her man on the Defense of Marriage Act. Remember, I considered her to have been pro-GLBT at the time.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have been a vocal critic of the Clinton’s fair-weather friendship with the gay community for a very long time. But, I also have no problem applauding someone when they do something positive, even if I have criticized them for other actions. In this particularly case I was referring to her speech at the UN. I don’t remember any conservatives lining up in support of gay rights around the world so it’s disingenuous to use the lack of rights there as a talking point on other issues. Again, I favor universal human rights. For everyone. Everywhere. No exceptions. Religion, culture, history and the other bullshit excuses are not valid arguments to explain why there are still so many human rights abuses tolerated around the world.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I’m not a blind loyalist to any presidential candidate.
However, President Clinton gay rights policy was, like him, centrist in its possibilities and limitations.
In the 1990s, this meant some support for equal opportunity protections and hate crime law and decent funding for HIV/AIDS….and a less overtly hostile federal court system.
Only a handful of hardcore liberals and some third political party types expressed support for marriage equality.