Archive for the 'Healthcare Resources' Category

NCAA Transgender Policy “Forced Androgen Reduction” with no supporting facts, science or evidence to support their policy.

Met with great sadness and concern for athlete safety,  the NCAA’s announcement of September 13th, 2011 regarding policy development around the projected assumption of “inclusionary” practices and protocol for transgendered male and female athletes in US intercollegiate and high school sport. Many academics were taken back, how a policy of such a large institution such as the NCAA could ever develop and write a policy with NO FACTS let alone NO SUPPORTING SCIENCE OR EVIDENCE.  All to familiar as this is exactly what the International Olympic Committee [IOC] did in 2003 in development of the Stockholm Consensus regarding transitioned women in participation and in International and Olympic sporting events. Which misled sport, sport organizations and media around the world. Leading to projected ignorance, which has led to the most humiliating and catastrophic circumstances for so many women in international sport. Never actually testing one single  transitioned high performance athlete.

This is NOT an LGB – T issue, nor is it a transgender issue, gender is everyone’s issue. The very fact the NCAA has developed and published such a policy, targeting a specific “type” of woman and or man, isolating them speaks volume how little the NCAA understands, let alone those hired to consult them.

Androgens are a hormone property of both women and men. It is not just a male hormone. Women’s ovaries are males testicles, where the majority of testosterone is developed for both (sexes). Do to the influx of the Y chromosome after 10-12 weeks of gustation, as we ALL start off as female the Y chromosome signals a rise in the production of testosterone, thus creating common male sex characteristics. Important to note, we as human-beings require testosterone as the very foundation of our bodily functions. As science illustrates, like men, high performance female athletes have elevated testosterone levels min. 4-6 times greater then non-athletic women. This is caused by years of training, as recovery signals the pituitary gland to the ovaries, to produce more androgens to assist in body recovery and muscle development. A similar response by the hypothalamus occurs signaling higher production of the  natural human growth hormone [HGH] too.
__________________________________________________________________________________

NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms
Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.
Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Go To Full Article: “Click Here”
__________________________________________________________________________________

Most importantly and keeping this simple, the World Anti-Doping Agency[WADA] in the anti-doping testing program does NOT test for female and or male natural developing serum bio-testosterone levels and or HGH levels. All they test for is irregularities in levels, and for synthetic androgen and or HGH compounds in the blood.

WADA could NOT tell you what the serum bio-testosterone levels for women is, thus too if they could though testosterone is available in a person(s) individual body higher or lower then their competing athlete and colleagues, the androgen receptors is unique in each person, and use it more or less from one and other. A number, it they did have that measurement, it depends on the individual athletes body and how it uses it.

Like the men, we too take advantage of women’s higher then normal levels, which is part and parcel of their physiology traits together that make them exceptional.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The NCAA Press Release States:

A trans male (female to male) student-athlete who has received a medical exception for treatment with testosterone for gender transition may compete on a men’s team but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing the team status to a mixed team. A mixed team is eligible only for men’s championships.

A trans female (male to female) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for gender transition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of documented testosterone-suppression treatment.
__________________________________________________________________________________

When knowing the facts, these statements are IMPOSSIBLE and in-fact UNTRUE. Moreover, why anyone would suppress anyone’s androgen levels in the first place is ridiculous, as there are dozens of reasons why athletes male and female athletes out perform one athlete over an other. Usain Bolt, Mike Phelps and Serena Williams are great examples of this who dominate their competitors. Very little to do with androgen levels, but part of a combination excessive physiological and biological variables. Not pinning their performances to just one hormone – ANDROGENS.

Furthermore, which I(we) found interesting was that the NCAA feels androgens are the problem and determining factor of (male performance over women).  Which leads to the bigger question when you suggest you want to suppress a students levels of androgens, as we explained above and is critical to this discussion, you have NO CLUE WHAT LEVEL/NUMBER YOU WOULD SUPPRESS AN ATHLETES ANDROGEN LEVELS? As well, could not give either for what purpose and or reason? Too ensure like the IOC has done, they are unable to compete in their chosen sport, let alone well and to their very best ability? Moreover,  impossible to regulate such a process, of which leading international organizations such as WADA are just starting to do through the TUE and Passport system, and with the right expertise.

What the NCAA needs to understand, you are forcing a young person into “forced menopause.”

Low testosterone levels parallels symptoms that would be seen with individuals (women and men) who suffer from Hypogondism which are distinguishingly different from an normal aging adult going though gradual menopause over a 20 year period. The effects are;
- Weight Gain – Metabolism issues
- Losing Muscle – decreased endurance and becoming weak
- Fatigue – (Muscular, respiratory and psychological)
- Muscle Atrophe – Unable to develop muscle, let alone retain muscle
- Amemia – Red blood cell count decreases – less ability to carry oxygen to large muscle groups. Body actually suffocates during high performance activity
- Depression and Anxiety
- Poor Memory
*Treated through Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT)

The NCAA is setting themselves up for Human Rights issues, let alone how scientifically and socially unethical this policy is. For the very purpose of sport participation, without any facts/science willing to suppress a young person(s) androgen levels into oblivion (of which you have no safe markers) to fit into a man-made system which not one person fits into, with no knowledge, and or understanding the physical and physiological impact to an individual athlete.

For reasons above is reckless and medically and socially unethical. I can give over a dozen international examples of outcomes onto women athletes causing, global humiliation, poverty and attempted suicide do to poor, misinformed and unnecessary gender policies.

Policies like gender testing (1967), the Stockholm Consensus (2003), hyperandrogenism regulations (2011) and the most recent NCAA policy  are developed tools of oppression towards women specifically and not designed on fact and or science supported, but speculation and have only led to profound catastrophic circumstances for so many athletes around the world over (4) decades. Creating tools/policies to control women’s gender and athletic development and performances, where for men, there are NO MAN-MADE IMPOSED LIMITS OR BARRIERS BASED ON ONES SEX.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN?  HOW MANY WOMEN HAVE TO BE HURT OR EVEN KILLED BEFORE THIS IS STOPPED?

Getting educated and moving away from de-criminatory and exclusionary practices (which the NCAA calls inclusion) and development of such polices as recently
the NCAA has done and as many experts greatly surprised with ALL the NCAA’s resources available, once educated and understand the the truths, there
was never a need for policy, but more time spent on education and part of the greater issues of diversity of which each one of us are part of ONE TEAM.

Gender in sport is EVERYONE’S ISSUE!

Published September 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________

September 12, 2011 - NCLR Applauds New NCAA Inclusion Policy through “FORCED MEDICALIZATON” suggesting it Benefits Transgender Student Athletes in Intercollegiate and High School Sport Athletes.

The National Center For Lesbian Rights applauds the NCAA for their “inclusion” policy of which they were contracted to guide the NCAA around the issues of gender variant young women and men in intercollegiate and high school sport in the United States. Without evidence, approved a policy which forces young college and high school students, who have varying degrees of “gender variance” to seek “forced medicalization” of their bodies to which their gender naturally identifies, to “PLAY A GAME/SPORT” to be seen as socially acceptable, either one of the distinct two binaries, male or female. Of which, not one living human being fits let alone athlete.

This is outrageous,  and to force a child/young adult  through forced medicalization based on problems with social science, and if proper applied science and research was actually done, there is no issue for a gender variant youth to participate in their given sport of which they identify.

“We are using policy to force change nature to meet a man-made binary, rather than changing the man-made binary to meet nature’s design.”

This is a social ethics problem, the NCAA has failed horribly. The document speaks to men being superior to women physically. Not so. Thus asking much bigger question of ALL women, and how women are seen in sport and society.  This just reflects the current social problems and women’s barriers to participation.

This announcement by the NCLR and NCAA is very sad. Certainly not accurate and or reflective of sport, sport science and where sport is going as it pertains to gender.  This is a step backwards, and only reinforcing male/female narrow stereotypes and is not inclusive, in-fact forced exclusion.  Telling young gender variant women and men of varying degrees, which is common and natural, “forced medicalization” must take place if you wish to participate and “PLAY A GAME”. Along with that, we will make you jump through hoops and out yourself to do it. Moreover keeping in mind, as they mention one all privately and in confidence. Though completely unnecessary and inaccurate this policy, historically there has never been ONE incident where an athlete he/she has ever been protected and or privacy respected. It is impossible the NCAA and NCLR cannot provide privacy.

I worry greatly for a child ever getting into a situation where these institutions  can ever use such horrific policies.  Already vulnerable and terrified, this does not protect the athlete, but the NCAA.  This policy sets the NCAA up for a massive human rights case by a child/young adult ever having to go through such a process to play their sport.  Not with standing, the catastrophic impact to the individual athlete.

What were they thinking – We are forcing young people through policy to change their bodies to which they identify, to meet a man-made binary to play a game, to “fit in” within a binary code know-one fits. Instead of thinking outside the box, changing sport and sport policy” we are forcing nature to change to fit dated policy (which only reinforces the male stereo-type and division between two sexes),  forcing young people back into the very box they have spent their entire lives fighting to get out of.

That is the NCAA’s and NCLR’s vision of inclusion. How about starting over, and work on education and ‘Best Practices’ and not policy. You can’t create policy if you don’t have the right information.

An all time low for the NCAA, sport and diversity/inclusion.  A policy to be proud of NCLR. This is not an inclusive policy, in-fact completely exclusionary.

NCLR Press Release September 12, 2011 “Click Here”

NCAA Press Release September 13, 2011“Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________
(6) Key Supporting References -
__________________________________________________________________________________
NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Transgender Student-Athletes and Sex-Segregated Sport: Developing Policies of Inclusion for Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Athletics

Erin Buzuvis
Western New England College School of Law – July 20, 2010

Download Complete Research Document “PDF” CLICK HERE

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Lancet 2005; 366: S38 María José Martínez-Patiño
Personal Account A woman tried and tested

“As I was about to enter the January, 1986, national championships, I was
told to feign an injury and to withdraw from racing quietly, graciously, and
permanently. I refused. When I crossed the line first in the 60m hurdles, my
story was leaked to the press. I was expelled from our athletes’ residence, my
sports scholarship was revoked, and my running times were erased from my
country’s athletics records. I felt ashamed and embarrassed. I lost friends, my
fiancé, hope, and energy. But I knew that I was a woman, and that my genetic
difference gave me no unfair physical advantage. I could hardly pretend to be
a man; I have breasts and a vagina. I never cheated. I fought my
disqualification.”

Download Full Review “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

An approach to the biological, historical and psychological repercussions of gender verification in top level competitions

Martínez-Patiño et al. / Gender verification in top level competitions JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE – VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 | 2010 |

MARÍA JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ-PATIÑO1, COVADONGA MATEOS-PADORNO2, AURORA MARTÍNEZ-VIDAL3, ANA MARÍA SÁNCHEZ MOSQUERA1, JOSÉ LUIS GARCÍA SOIDÁN1, MARÍA DEL PINO DÍAZ PEREIRA3, CARLOS FRANCISCO TOURIÑO GONZÁLEZ1
1Faculty of Science Education and Sport, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
2Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas, Campus Universitario de Tafira, Spain
3Special Didactics Department. Faculty of Science Education. University of Vigo. Orense, Spain

Download Complete Review “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Published September 2011

The Gazette – Savinova edges Semenya for 800m title
Agence France-Presse September 4, 2011 8:12 AM

Mariya Savinova of Russia (L) celebrates winning the women’s 800 metres final with second-placed Caster Semenya of South Africa at the IAAF World Athletics Championships in Daegu September 4, 2011.
Photograph by: Kim Kyung-Hoon, Reuters

Daegu, South Korea, Sept 4, 2011 (AFP) – Russian Mariya Savinova rained on Caster Semenya’s parade on Sunday, nipping past the controversial South African for world gold in the women’s 800m. Reigning world indoor and European champion Savinova timed her run to perfection, coming from near the back of the pack at 600m to clinch the victory in 1min 55.87sec.

Read Full Article: “Click Here”
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMMENT:
Today’s results illustrates the IOC’s historic threat to womens sports.

Congratulations to both Mariya and Caster…. These results speak loud and strengthens the resolve as the “projected” controversy around gender testing, Stockholm Consensus and the new Hyperandrogenism Rule is not an athlete problem, but solely the IOC and IAAF problem, in-fact who are the “controversy”. A social science problem at the highest level of international sport on how WOMEN ARE SEEN AS ATHLETES AND THEIR ABILITIES TO PERFORM WELL.

Important to note, Mariya’s finishing time today in Daegu today was 1:55.87, which she ran at  last years Worlds 2010 1:57.56. Caster’s winning time at 2009 World’s in Berlin 1:55.45. Caster’s second place time today was clocked at 1:57.42.

Three more women running sub 1:58.00 today…. Savinova 2009 Worlds time, 1:58.68, almost (3) seconds slower than what she ran today. Moreover, looking at the 2009, 2010 and 2011 results, a significant improvement by overall women’s speed which is absolutely fantastic! The women’s 800m contingency was in a lull for many years -

*Important to note Mariya dominated the 2011 season in the 800m. Fabulous to see these incredible women run, breathing new life and interest in the 800m event, which has been stagnant for a very long-time.

Are the IOC and IAAF now going to find a fault in Mariya’s gifted physiology and design a policy around her ability to compete, and disable her and take away from her ability to run well?  I am waiting to see the policy that comes out on Usain Bolt (“Lightening Bolt” policy for men who run to fast), and his complete and expected domination and paid millions to do so, over every 100m and 200m male runner in the field, to find fault to slow him down to create fairness with other male competitors in the top elite men. Bolt marketed by BOTH the IAAF and IOC earning millions of dollars as a major financial draw at the box office ticket sales,and putting a heartbeat of public and financial interest back into Athletics over the last several years.

It seems though, women don’t qualify  and are not deemed in the same genre or pursuit as men, when we do incredible world class performances, in-fact penalized for it.  The big question is “Why?”.

In the end and reflecting to sport leaders and international colleagues, I am very pleased with the women’s results and the scale of improvement in the women’s 800m.

Today you don’t see the IAAF/IOC running out “forcing” and invasive and illegal gender test on Mariya as she was the ONLY woman that ran into 1:55.00 (she looks feminine enough that’s why…), as in 2009 Caster was forced into a situation for an outstanding performance of which has become common place with Usain Bolt. Of which when he does not perform, we question “what’s going on with him making a big deal out of a false start that no other athlete had a problem with on the 100m final start-line”, expecting him to perform. As Usain said in an interview with the CBC in Daegu just after his 200m win, “I came today to do it for the fans… to show them I am the best.”

When a women does it, she becomes a controversy – thus is gender tested, which proves nothing and seen as a “tool of oppression”. Where women now feeling fear to perform well as a woman, you will be gender tested, a highlighting threat put upon women’s performance. Thus projects, “if you do not look feminine enough and perform well, we’ll get you…”

Why is it men get that chance and women do not? When women do it, they are then punished so inhumanely for it. Raped psychologically and physically (without consent or knowledge), humiliated globally, and many time leading to attempted suicide, alienation and poverty. If that is not enough, sport and media together making as if the athlete deserves it and in-fact have a right to do it. Ironically there is no repercussions to those who have created such hideous harm.

Todays results clearly illustrates the situation well. The suggested “CONTROVERSY” that has been weighing over young Caster that she has had to wear and so many athletes in the past is NOT THE ATHLETES, BUT THE IOC AND FALSE POLICIES such as gender testing, Stockholm Consensus and now Hyperandrogenism Rule which have been purposely designed to oppress and mislead international sport around women’s performance,  which has only led to the most CATASTROPHIC IMPACT to women, women’s sport in modern sport history. Used as “tools of oppression” not to protect women, but to control and oppress women from performing well in their given sport. Solely do to projected ignorance and human rights violations by the IOC towards women.

Caster like all the other women impacted by gender testing over 4 decades, gender was never in question… The IOC/IAAF done in such an adhoc manner, spent 11 months trying to figure out if they did the right thing or not. Had nothing to do with in-fact with Caster, other than her having to wear their mistakes so publicly and affecting her eligibility to compete in 2010. It had all to do about them.

99% of what was reported in the media was untrue…

The IOC is the “CONTROVERSY” and the biggest threat to women’s development and participation in sport at all levels, not Caster and or any other female athletes, as Mariya handily proved today and the other female runners in the field closely behind Mariya and Caster. The IOC is the problem, FULL STOP…

The courage it has taken Caster and many other women who have fallen to these practices and harmful policies, are profound. A courage only deserving of an Olympic gold medal, that is inconceivable, and the passion for sport and the will to be included and be your very best. Something the IOC and IAAF, have faltered over the last many years deceiving and misleading the public, media and international sports system of the truths and true impact these horrific polices and practices, have catastrophically ruined so many women’s lives.

Well Done Ladies…. WOMEN ARE GREAT ATHLETES TOO IOC!!
__________________________________________________________________________________

(5) Key Supporting References -

NOTICE
The Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] in Lausanne Switzerland, has approved jurisdiction to enable us to file legal case: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women’s Gender in International Sport” to be issued by Kristen Worley (Canada) Cycling and Mianne Bagger (Denmark) Golf  v/International Olympic Committee [IOC].

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

AthletesCAN (CANADA) Canadian Olympian Nikki Dryden – Featured Article: “Hey International Olympic Committee – Your words are not enough”

The following article was written by Nikki Dryden, retired national team athlete and two-time Olympian.

For Full Article on the AthletesCAN website “Click Here”

Also can be found on the Women in Sport International Blog “Click Here”

Published September 2011

The Telegraph – Oscar Pistorius reaches first major able-bodied final as South Africa qualify for 4×400 metres relay at World Athletics Championships

Simon Hart, in Daegu. September 1st, 2011

Double-amputee Oscar Pistorius continues to make history at the World Championships in Daegu after reaching his first major able-bodied final as the lead-off man in South Africa’s 4×400 metres relay team.

For Full Article “Click Here”
Published September 1st, 2011

NCAA Inclusion Summit

Challenges, Champions and Collaborative Strategies
Moving toward a more inclusive culture

Monday, September 19, 2011

Hyatt Regency Indianapolis
One South Capitol Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Bringing together influential leaders within both the higher education community and advocacy groups to engage in a deliberative dialogue to identify measurable action-oriented outcomes and strategies to advance an inclusive culture in intercollegiate athletics and higher education.

NCAA Diversity, Inclusion, and Gender Equity Framework

As a core value, the NCAA believes in and is committed to diversity, inclusion and gender equity among its student-athletes, coaches and administrators. We seek to establish and maintain an inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds. Diversity and inclusion improves the learning environment for all student-athletes, and enhances excellence within the Association.

The NCAA will provide or enable programming and education which sustains foundations of a diverse and inclusive culture across dimensions of diversity including, but not limited to age, race, sex, class, national origin, creed, educational background, disability, gender expression, geographical location, income, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation and work experiences. Programming and education will also strive to support equitable laws and practices, increase opportunities for individuals from historically underrepresented groups to participate in intercollegiate athletics at all levels, and enhance hiring practices for all athletics personnel to facilitate more inclusive leadership in intercollegiate athletics.

For Further Information “Click Here”

Published August 2011

AthletesCAN (CANADA) Canadian Olympian Nikki Dryden – Featured Article: “Hey International Olympic Committee – Your words are not enough”

The following article was written by Nikki Dryden, retired national team athlete and two-time Olympian.

“Sport, unlike anything else, brings the world together, has the power to change lives for the better, and is truly universal. “It has an almost unmatched role to play in promoting understanding, healing wounds, mobilizing support for social causes, and breaking down barriers”, says former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who believes that sport has the power to breakdown “myths and prejudices.” He also notes that athletes as well as sports organizations are critical in “unifying societies torn apart by conflict, tackling prejudices…and in breaking down gender inequality.”

Yet here we are in 2011 and women are not equal in the world of Olympic sport…not even close, and all 110 members of the International Olympic Committee (only 17% of whom are women) must be held accountable. Action, not words, must be demanded by athletes and coaches of the world, fans of Olympic sport, and corporate sponsors who lend their name to the Olympic movement. Without true gender equity in sport, the Olympic Games and the Olympic movement makes a mockery of women and their contributions to the world of sport.

On Friday, once again, Ms. Anita DeFrantz head of the Women’s Commission at the International Olympic Committee (IOC) named the three countries that have yet to send women athletes to the Olympic Games: Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar. But we have heard this before. She said it in 2010 too – but at the 2010 Olympic Games 19 countries sent men-only Olympic teams to Vancouver.

The list of inequities does not end there. In addition to the many nation-states who do not send women athletes, there still exists unequal sports and events for women athletes at the Olympic Games, there are an unequal numbers of women participants, an unenforceable sex harassment and abuse policy, and discrimination in gender testing. Add into the mix a disturbing lack of women on executive sporting bodies and in the coaching ranks, and what you have is an IOC and Olympic Movement that does not care about women in reality, but pretends to do so in theory.”

For Full Article on the AthletesCAN website “Click Here”

Also can be found on the Women in Sport International Blog “Click Here”

Published July 2011

NOTICE
The Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] in Lausanne Switzerland, has approved jurisdiction to enable us to file legal case: “Human Rights and the Oppression of Women’s Gender in International Sport” to be issued by Kristen Worley (Canada) Cycling and Mianne Bagger (Denmark) Golf  v/International Olympic Committee [IOC].
__________________________________________________________________________________

Three (3) Key Recent References:

Volume 9 Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report
Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination
Author: Shawn Crincoli – Associate Professor of Law

Touro College, New York, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Volume 9 Issue 4 – April 2011 World Sports Law Report
IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof
Author: Andy Brown [WSLR], UK.
For Full Article “Click Here”

NYTimes – April 24th, 2011 – Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms

Author: Prof. Alice Dreger, clinical medical humanities and bioethics.

Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
For Full Article “Click Here”

Published July 2011

Volume 9  Issue 6 – June 2011 World Sports Law Report

Eligibility: The IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations and discrimination

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) recently released rules and guidelines designed to prevent women with elevated androgen levels from competing, which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is also planning to adopt. Shawn Crincoli, an Associate Professor of Law at Touro Law Center, explains why the rules and guidelines are highly likely to violate non-discrimination laws in a number of jurisdictions.

There is no basis for the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)’s confidence in the legal validity of its newly issued hyperandrongenism rules regulating the eligibility of women in sports1. Contrary to IAAF claims that the new rules are ‘challenge proof ’2, the hyperandrogenism regulations (HA regulations) pathologise healthy female bodies and label them as excessively androgenic – or in other words, as too masculine – and are hardly immune to challenge. There is a high likelihood that the HA regulations violate the nondiscrimination laws of a number of jurisdictions. Furthermore, there is no basis in law for the IAAF’s suggestion that failing to regulate the overproduction of androgens would open the federation up to legal attack from other female athletes, nor that such regulation is necessary to guarantee the fairness of competition for all female participants. The IAAF’s assertion that the HA regulations have been supported by ‘lawyers and human rights experts’ and thus are ‘challenge proof’ ring hollow, given the IAAF’s prior exclusion of atypical athletes, whether the differences stemmed from sex, gender or disability – a history that no independent judicial arbiter would ignore.

The primary failure is that the new rules treat men and women differently from one another without demonstrating an acceptable rationale supporting the regulation of androgens in women, but not men. This unequal treatment is the hallmark of discrimination based on sex. Second, even if one were to accept that permissible sex segregation of sport also justifies differential treatment, the HA regulations seek to discriminate against specific women on account of their naturally occurring physiology by labelling their endocrinological make-up as insufficiently female. To do so is not only an affront to the biological diversity represented in the female population; it is also an imposition of an artificial standard on women to meet a particular sex stereotype, which in some jurisdictions is a recognised sub-category of discrimination prohibited by law.

The HA regulations pathologise only women
The HA regulations have been issued to regulate women but not men. All bodies produce hormones and all bodies produce sex hormones. Androgenic hormones – the best known of which is testosterone – are produced by both male and female bodied athletes, albeit in different amounts and proportions. Despite the fact that both male and female athletes produce androgens, the HA regulations dictate that only women who produce androgens at a level deemed to be excessive are ineligible to compete with other women. There is no such adopted set of rules with respect to men who produce higher levels of androgens than other men. Indeed, there isn’t even a concept of excessiveness or having ‘too much’ when it comes to men naturally producing androgens3.

If naturally producing excessive androgens creates an unfair competitive advantage for an athlete or presents a safety issue, then the HA regulations should be adopted to govern both male and female athletes. It is telling that no such rule has been forthcoming to deem men with excessive androgens as ineligible, nor even to label men who naturally produce higher levels of testosterone as having a medical condition of hyperandrogenism. The IAAF and IOC have failed to explain why atypically high levels of androgens are acceptable within men’s sport and not acceptable within women’s sport. Equality and non-discrimination laws dictate that when distinctions based on sex are made, the burden falls on the regulating body to justify a bona fide rationale for the disparate treatment. Neither the federation nor the IOC has issued any evidence demonstrating why women with high levels of androgens should not be allowed to compete with other women, even though men with high levels of androgens may compete with other men. Merely referencing that androgens have performance enhancing effects and attributing the existence of women’s sport classification to testosterone distribution levels hardly meets this burden of proof.

The HA regulations attempt to redefine what is female
The HA regulations aim to create two classes of women: females with ‘acceptable’ levels of androgens and females with ‘unacceptable’ levels. There is no basis for this classification other than based on sex stereotypes of how many ‘male hormones’ a woman may produce before her ability to participate in sport as a woman is questioned. The rules condition eligibility on a woman possessing ‘androgen levels below the male range (measured by testosterone levels in serum)’, demonstrating that the critical determining factor is to eliminate those women who are deemed to be too much like men. The HA regulations also carve out an exception for women with medical conditions that create androgen insensitivity, because they too meet the criteria the IAAF seeks to impose: a ban on women with too much bio-available testosterone.

Androgens, despite being medically categorised as male sex hormones, are naturally occurring hormones in the female body. There is tremendous diversity in the individual amount of these hormones within the general population. A woman with lower levels of androgens or higher levels of oestrogen (female sex hormones) is not ‘more’ woman than a woman with higher levels of androgens or lower levels of oestrogen. It is rare, but not unheard of, for some women to produce more androgens then some men do.

Elite athletes do not represent the population mean in terms of biology or physiology in many respects, and some of these differences can translate to measurable advantages or disadvantages in sport. There is no such thing as a correct biological amount of androgens for a female to be a woman; there is only data that show the statistical distribution of androgens that can be produced by the female body, just as there is a population distribution of height, VO2 max4, and so forth. Accordingly, a female-bodied athlete cannot produce ‘excessive’ androgens. She can only produce an amount that is a statistical outlier, just as there are statistical outliers in other physiological categories. The federation and IOC, though, do not seek to declare athletes ineligible based on being outliers who are too tall, possess too much muscle tissue of a particular type, or have excessive lung capacity, even if these differences represent significant advantages in sport.

The IAAF’s HA regulations aim to create an artificial baseline at which a woman has too many male sex hormones to be allowed to compete with women. Since other forms of naturally occurring statistical outlier advantages are unregulated, it is clear that the regulations are another attempt to define what is female – and what is not female enough – for inclusion in women’s sport. It relies on the sex stereotype that while it is okay for women to be taller or have greater lung capacity, it is not okay for females to have ‘too much’ testosterone, based on a comparison to the average level of androgens naturally occurring in the male population.

Equality laws do not allow for this back door effort to classify some females as excessively masculine so as to be excluded from opportunities afforded to other women. It is only stereotype, not medical reality, which suggests there is something wrong or improper in a woman who possesses high levels of testosterone; and it is only stereotype, not medical reality, that would aim to define too much testosterone in women by reference to how much a man produces. Just as one may not treat men and women unequally, some jurisdictions have non-discrimination laws prohibiting policies that regulate men and women based on sex stereotypes or that condition opportunity for women based on whether they meet a particular standard of femininity.

The HA regulations may be challenged ‘as applied’
It stands to follow that an individual athlete may have a stronger ‘as applied’ case, in the event that enforcement of the rules are not even-handed and with due process. The new rules require athletes to undergo hyperandrogenism testing as a condition of their participation in sport, and the IAAF suggests that the Athlete Biological Passport system can help ensure privacy through the process. Yet as the IAAF and IOC recognise, the biological passport system is not currently in use and likely will not be for several years. Nor is the WADA testing system set up to accurately detect or sanction naturally occurring hormones.

The HA regulations list multiple routes in which an athlete may be referred as a case to an Expert Medical Panel. However, there is no one test identified which triggers the application of the HA regulations and there are no safeguards or guarantees that the application of these rules will be done in a manner than protects the athlete’s privacy and dignity rights. One method of triggering an HA investigation is ‘confidential information that is received by the IAAF Medical Delegate or IAAF Medical Manager’. In short, there is nothing in the newly issued regulations to prevent the so-called witch-hunt that can occur when a female athlete is challenged by competitors as looking or seeming too masculine. Thus, depending on enforcement, there is a chance that a female athlete could demonstrate discriminatory enforcement of the HA regulations as well.

No legal issue stems from an absence of HA regulations
The IAAF has attempted to justify the HA regulations as a necessary step in preventing legal attack from other female athletes. There is no legitimacy to this claim. It is hard to imagine the basis for a legal challenge that the IAAF or IOC failed to exclude an individual athlete. Such a challenge would have no more chance of success than if female athletes sought to have competition limited to only women under 182cm or with a VO2 max under 55 ml/kg/min.

The fact that the IAAF and IOC were concerned about the complaints of other female athletes actually cuts against these bodies should an athlete challenge the HA regulations. The inclusion of the fear of being legally attacked by other athletes as motivation or justification for the rules serves as evidence that the IAAF and IOC are wilfully complicit in a majoritarian effort to suppress and eliminate an atypical minority – or even an atypical individual – from participation in sport.

HA regulations yet another effort to ‘sex test’ women
It would be incomplete to offer an analysis of the legal landscape surrounding these eligibility rules without placing them in the larger context of IAAF and IOC policies and decision-making. Any judicial body exploring the validity of the HA regulations would also investigate where the rules came from, how female athletes have been regulated by the IAAF and the IOC previously and how the historical context of sex testing and eligibility for women has occurred.

The lex sportiva of the atypical athlete is rife with examples suggesting that the IAAF and the IOC have erred on the side of exclusion. The IAAF and the IOC have a history of running roughshod over basic human rights of athletes, particularly when forced to handle complicated questions of sex, gender or disability. Without touching upon the substance of the rulings, gross violations of procedure marred the handling of the eligibility of both South African track athletes Oscar Pistorius and Caster Semenya.

Accordingly, the IAAF’s promulgation of the HA regulations must be taken in the context of the federation forcing women to undergo the humiliation of sex testing in various forms.

While much of high performance sport separates men and women into separate classifications, the reality is that human biology is not organised quite so neatly. Already struggling with how to treat and categorise athletes who do not fit the sex binary due to intersexual conditions, disorders of sex development (DSD) or gender identity disorders, the IAAF has added fuel to the fire with the new HA regulations. The regulations are a transparent effort to short circuit the difficult process of deciding participation in women’s sport by resorting to endocrinology alone, particularly androgen production, as the determining line for deciding that a female is ‘too manly’ to compete in sport.

The IAAF’s decision to move away from its deeply problematic prior policies, including its Gender Verification Policy and the Stockholm Consensus, is to be commended. The IAAF’s desperation to shoehorn female eligibility into a hormone-based approach is not. The HA regulations seemingly resolve one issue – how to regulate male-to-female transsexual athletes consistent with laws that protect against gender identity discrimination – by trading inclusion on one instance against the exclusion of females with intersexual conditions, DSD or other atypical hormone profiles. Furthermore, the IAAF justifies this newly found reason for exclusion by rooting the very existence of women’s sport classifications in an explanation based on androgen production, a controversial and broadly generalised rhetorical move, one that seemingly grants the IAAF the ability to continue to police and pathologise women’s bodies in the name of ‘protecting’ women’s sport.

The IAAF Council has commented that its regulations should be seen as a ‘living document that will be subject to review’. The IAAF would be wise to rescind the HA regulations as an unprecedented and discriminatory policy before a judge or arbitrator forces the federation to do so. Furthermore, rather than adopting the HA regulations wholesale, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ought to denounce and distance itself from the HA regulations, which history will only view as yet another step in organised sport’s efforts to control women’s bodies and police the femininity of women in sport.

Shawn Crincoli
Associate Professor of Law
Touro College
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Islip, NY
scrincoli@tourolaw.edu

Download Full Article “Click Here”

Published June 2011

A Brilliant Lecture – Dr. Alice Dreger: Is anatomy destiny?

Alice Dreger works with people at the edge of anatomy, such as conjoined twins and intersexed people. In her observation, it’s often a fuzzy line between male and female, among other anatomical distinctions. Which brings up a huge question: Why do we let our anatomy determine our fate?

Alice Dreger studies history and anatomy, and acts as a patient advocate.

Alice Dreger is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University in Chicago. She describes her focus as “social justice work in medicine and science” through research, writing, speaking and advocacy.

Goto Full Lecture: “Click Here”

_________________________________________

NY Times ESSAY – Sports
Redefining the Sexes in Unequal Terms
April 23, 2011

Published June 12th, 2011

PLAY THE GAME 2011 Programme Committee confirms today, Inclusion First Foundation presentation “Little Difference, Huge Impact: The Gender Challenge to Sport” – October 3-6th. Cologne Germany.

This could not have been received at a better time.  I received confirmation early this morning from the organizers from Play The Game in Denmark, that I have been approved by the Programme Committee to present on behalf of our new foundation.

Play The Game  Conference 2011 - “Bringing change to the heart of sport.”

For the seventh time Play the Game will gather stakeholders in sport to join the discussion on essential issues in world sport at the world communication conference Play the Game 2011 – bringing change to the heart of sport.

The conference offers a unique forum for dialogue on sport. Over 13 years and six world conferences, Play the Game has become the only international forum where leading stakeholders meet face-to-face in free and fact-based debates about the most important challenges to modern sport.

For Further Details about Play the Game: “Click Here”

For Further Details about Inclusion First Foundation: “Click Here”

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Published June 10th, 1011
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume 9 Issue 4 April 2011

IAAF: hyperandrogenism rules are challenge proof

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is confident that its rules on the eligibility of females with hyperandrogenism will withstand legal challenge when they are published on 1 May. Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition involving excessive production of hormones (androgens) such as testosterone.

Guidelines published by the International Olympic Committee on 5 April and the IAAF rules allow a female with hyperandrogenism to compete in women’s events ‘provided that she has androgen levels below the male range (measured by testosterone levels in serum)’. “We have received good feedback from lawyers and human rights experts”, said an IAAF spokesperson. “It is the only way to deal with this issue from a medical point of view. If we don’t have rules on this, we will also face legal challenge from other female athletes.”

Kristen Worley, founder of the Coalition of Athletes for Inclusion in Sport, questioned basing eligibility rules on androgen levels. “It flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the tremendous hormonal variability among humans”, she said. “This sets up many other young people for the devastating treatment that Caster Semenya experienced.”

Both the IAAF and IOC also dismissed concerns that by making an athlete who fails a hyperandrogenism test ineligible, they are posing a threat to their privacy. ‘A female athlete who declines, fails or refuses to comply with the eligibility determination process under the regulations shall not be eligible to compete in women’s competition’, read a 14 April IAAF release. Both the IAAF and IOC said there had been similar cases in the past that had been kept private. “Early detection for example under the Athlete Biological Passport will eliminate this issue”, said an IAAF spokesperson.

The IOC’s hyperandrogenism rules are scheduled for approval at the 123rd IOC Session in Durban, 1-9 July. “Once all athletes have their own biological passports, a case would be identified by abnormal hormone levels”, said an IOC spokesperson. “Since it may take some years for biological passports to become fully applicable, we will rely on the following mechanisms to trigger an androgen investigation: (i) the athlete may have symptoms that make her consult her team doctor; (ii) a pre-participation health examination may reveal there is a problem; (iii) a suspicion may arise in the doping control station; or (iv) a doping control analysis may reveal an abnormal hormone pattern”.

Goto Full Publication “Click Here”

Published May 2011

Oscar Pistorius the new A*Men Cologne –  Represented as a modern day hero.

Brilliant and ground breaking! This is the positive messaging of change and inclusion we are working towards.

Just Fabulous!

Removing the boundaries of diversity. The possibilities are unlimited, doing it together.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Goto – YouTube Advertisement – “Click Here“
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Published May 16, 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________________
A Brilliant Canadian Production!! – “It Gets Better Canada” – LGBT Celebrity Canadians share their stories for the It Gets Better Project

Nearly 30 Canadian celebrities have taken part in Canada’s version of ‘It Gets Better.’ It’s a half-hour video (launching November 2nd in Toronto) and fundraiser for Ontario’s LGBT Youthline. One of the celebrities in the film, Rick Mercer, will be on the show tonight to discuss this great campaign.

“It Gets Better Canada” UTube Video – “Click Here”

Many LGBT youth can’t picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can’t imagine a future for themselves. So let’s show them what our lives are like, let’s show them what the future may hold in store for them.

Growing up isn’t easy. Many young people face daily tormenting and bullying, leading them to feel like they have nowhere to turn. This is especially true for LGBT kids and teens, who often hide their sexuality for fear of bullying. Without other openly gay adults and mentors in their lives, they can’t imagine what their future may hold. In many instances, gay and lesbian adolescents are taunted — even tortured — simply for being themselves.

Justin Aaberg. Billy Lucas. Cody Barker. Asher Brown. Seth Walsh. Raymond Chase. Tyler Clementi. They were tragic examples of youth who could not believe that it does actually get better.

While many of these teens couldn’t see a positive future for themselves, we can. The It Gets Better Project was created to show young LGBT people the levels of happiness, potential, and positivity their lives will reach – if they can just get through their teen years. The It Gets Better Project wants to remind teenagers in the LGBT community that they are not alone — and it WILL get better.

Goto “It Gets Better Project” website for more information “Click Here”

Learn more about the LGBT Youthline “Click Here”

Published May 15th, 2011

Canada captures two gold medals at Para-cycling World Cup

CANADIAN CYCLING ASSOCIATION
2011.05.05

CANADA CAPTURES TWO GOLD MEDALS AT PARA-CYCLING ROAD WORLD CUP IN AUSTRALIA
The women tandem of Robbi Weldon and Lyne Bessette, as well as Jaye Milley take top honours in road race

(Sydney, AUS – May 5, 2011) The Canadian Para-Cycling Team won three medals on the second day of the 2011 UCI Para-Cyling Road World Cup in Sydney, Australia, including two gold medals. The women’s tandem composed of Robbi Weldon and Lyne Bessette, as well as Jaye Miley both won the gold medal in the road race of their respective categories while the Canadian handcycling relay team took the bronze medal.

Jaye Milley of Calgary, Alberta dominated the road race in the C1 category, completing the 53.7-km course in a lightning fast time of 1:40.44, beating his closest competitor, Austria’s Andreas Kirkl, by more than eight minutes.

Milley, who has been on the National Team for less than a year, is learning rapidly and is becoming an athlete to watch for on the start line. Milley won the bronze medal in the Kilo time trial at the 2011 UCI Para-Cyling Track World Championships in Montichiari, Italy, this past March.

The women’s tandem race, won by the Canadian duo comprised of Paralympian Robbi Weldon of Thunder Bay, Ontario and Olympian Lyne Bessette of Knowlton, Quebec, was much different. In a thrilling three-tandem sprint to the finish line, it’s the Canadians that edged by just one second the tandem of Jayne Parsons and Sonia Waddell of New Zealand, second, and the British duo of Lora Turnham and Fiona Duncan, third.

Goto to Full Press Release “Click Here”

Published May 6th, 2011