Archive for the 'Amazing Women in Sport' Category

New York Times
Olympian Arrogance

By JULES BOYKOFF and ALAN TOMLINSON
Published: July 4, 2012

WHILE Europe roils in economic turmoil, London is preparing for a lavish jamboree of international good will: in a few weeks, the city will host the 2012 Summer Olympics.

But behind the spectacle of athletic prowess and global harmony, brass-knuckle politics and brute economics reign. At this nexus sits the International Olympic Committee, which promotes the games and decides where they will be held. Though the I.O.C. has been periodically tarnished by scandal — usually involving the bribing and illegitimate wooing of delegates — those embarrassments divert us from a deeper problem: the organization is elitist, domineering and crassly commercial at its core.

The I.O.C., which champions itself as a democratic “catalyst for collaboration between all parties of the Olympic family,” is nonetheless run by a privileged sliver of the global 1 percent. This has always been the case: when Baron Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympics in the 1890s, he assembled a hodgepodge of princes, barons, counts and lords to coordinate the games. Eventually the I.O.C. opened its hallowed halls to wealthy business leaders and former Olympians. Not until 1981 were women allowed in.

Even today, royalty make up a disproportionate share of the body; among the 105 I.O.C. members are the likes of Princess Nora of Liechtenstein, Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark and Prince Nawaf Faisal Fahd Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. The United States has only three representatives, two of them former Olympic athletes.

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published July 2012

TED talks partner series – Aimee Mullins: The opportunity of adversity

The thesaurus might equate “disabled” with synonyms like “useless” and “mutilated,” but ground-breaking runner Aimee Mullins is out to redefine the word. Defying these associations, she shows how adversity — in her case, being born without shinbones — actually opens the door for human potential.

A record-breaker at the Paralympic Games in 1996, Aimee Mullins has built a career as a model, actor and advocate for women, sports and the next generation of prosthetics.

“There’s an important difference and distinction between the objective medical fact of my being an amputee and the subjective societal opinion of whether or not I’m disabled. Truthfully, the only real and consistent disability I’ve had to confront is the world ever thinking that I could be described by those definitions.” (Aimee Mullins)

Listen to Amiee’s presentation  - “Click Here”

Published July, 2012

Reuters: Battle of the sexes rages on at Olympic

By Belinda Goldsmith
July 5th, 2012

Women boxers have claimed an early victory at the 2012 Olympics by knocking out the last all-male sport but the battle for sex equality at the Games rages on, and not just among women — male synchronized swimmers are also demanding equal rights.

London marks the first Olympics where women will compete in all 26 sports on offer, a major change from Stockholm 100 years ago when women could only participate in five of 110 events.

Campaigners for gender equality acknowledge there has been progress but stress the battle is far from over and the Games must symbolise, reflect and celebrate the dominant beliefs and values of society.

At the London Olympics, running from July 27 until Aug. 12, women are competing in 30 fewer events than men.

A total of 162 gold medals are up for grabs for male competitors while women can win only 132. At the 2008 Beijing Games there were 165 gold medals for men and 127 for women.

Annie Sugier, spokeswoman for the French coordination for the European Women’s Lobby, said several women’s groups were planning to hold a demonstration in London on July 25 to put seven demands to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding discrimination and segregation.

“The objective of the Olympics is to build a better world through sport but the reality is that we still have all the stereotypes, discrimination, and prostitution around the Games,” Sugier told Reuters.

“The Olympics is the right place to enforce change as there is just one law for all. You have the instruments to enforce equality and equality is justice.”

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published July 2012

Anti-doping regulatory testing practices puts reality on female testosterone levels, does not support IOC Hyperandrogenism Rule.

Illustrates and reveals the IOC is using “selective discrimination” for the use of consumerism to preserve the “vision of femininity”.

With the London Olympics rolling just around the corner in the next few weeks, there has been great anticipation the last several weeks of the concerns of the International Olympic Committee’s [IOC] most recent gender evaluation testing of female athletes, with their focus on female natural serum testosterone levels. This is an effort to shed some light on the facts to articulate correctly, that in-fact what the IOC is actually has nothing to do with “fairness” and or “competitive performance” of a given athlete, that in-fact as many scholars including myself have brought to light, that this is all about consumerism, preserving “femininity” over celebrating excellence and human performance in women as we do with men.
____________________________
Canadian Centre of Ethics in Sport [CCES]
CCES Anti-doping Control email response June 29th, 2011.

“…fluctuations in these hormones may be indicative of the use of Prohibited Substances and/or Methods. It may also serve as a screening tool to perform more detailed analysis of a sample for specific substances (e.g. synthetic testosterone). The laboratory would “only” report an adverse analytical finding (ie. positive test) if the presence of an exogenous (synthetic) form of a Prohibited Substance was detected.”
____________________________

Natural serum testosterone levels are measured not for the purpose “elevated natural secreted levels”, but for the purpose as markers to “register fluctuation” in doping control to that would indicate possibly intervention and or use of a synthetic testosterone by the athlete.

Measurement of an athlete natural levels are measured “solely” as a tool/reference marker, a base regulator that could show an adverse analytical finding of testosterone. As noted by doping control, ONLY then becomes reported of an athletes testosterone levels show an exogenous presence.

So women with natural occurring higher levels of testosterone, is NEVER reported unless an exogenous presence. (This is really important to the puzzle).

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) of which naturally impacts 18% or higher in female athletes (1 in 5 women), then stays under the radar their higher levels of natural production of testosterone. Though we measure natural serum levels, ONLY used as tail tail markers for testing purposes to show and possible irregularity and variance levels indicating a synthetic origin.

As the IOC has tried to address the Hyperandrogenism Rule as an issue of Intersex which it is NOT that either in an effort to confuse the public, that this is an issue of “Atypical bodies” in sport and that this rule is designed in an effort of “fairness in women’s sport”.

With the research and analytical findings, does not hold water. Hyperandrogenism and PCOS are neither a “Intersex type” though there are over a (100) different types (many person(s) living with an intersex type many times live their entire lives not even knowing they have it), neither as the IOC has expressed, hyperandrogenism or PCOS are in-fact, an intersex let alone a gender issue at all, but used as a tool to confuse, and “project as an attack on women’s sport”, and the concept of women being strong bodied and or strong featured, means that someone is physically cross sexed, is un-factual based on science and untrue.

PCOS, develops in 1/5 women from ages 8 to 45, do too cysts developing on their ovaries causing excessive excretion of androgens into their system. Hyperandrogenism, though similar on how it occurs and develops in women to that of PCOS, only 1/25000 are effected – that the difference is during pubescent development, the elevated androgen can commonly create “outward stronger features in a women’s presentation” though still feminine and ALL 100 % woman.

I hear from many of my girl friends in high performance (HP) cycling, though not unique to cycling in Canada and the United States, that they know, being clinically diagnosed by their physician having excessive testosterone levels. There are many many reasons up and above PCOS and Hyperandrogenism why women develop higher natural serum testosterone levels, it is in-fact common. Testosterone is a “male sex development” hormone, but an “everybody sex hormone”. Human-beings can not live without it and has nothing to with being either male or female on how you identify.

As noted – Important to the IOC’s focus on Hyperandrogenism and testosterone that 1/25000 women are effected by clinically by Hyperandrogenism, where 1/5 women develop PCOS.

The analytical findings and science, validates that Caster was targeted and this is ALL about preserving the “vision of femininity” in sport and has absolutely NOTHING to with either intersex and or performance/fairness as the International Olympic Committee wishes the public to believe.

We know just based statistically, that at a min. 18% of women competing in London in 3 weeks under the radar, and can be certain that the number is much higher, as experts say this is just the women who know and have been clinically diagnosed with PCOS and had symptoms that caused them to seek more information from their practitioner. Noted by doping control and confirmed, if for the IOC, testosterone really is an issue in women, anti-doping is clearly doing nothing about it.

Conclusion, clearly demonstrated based on the facts, specific women are being targeted solely based on what they look like and that they appear feminine enough for commercial purposes. For most women, this is an all to common struggle, but the IOC reconfirms that status and “keeping women in their feminine looking box” seen as sex objects first, athletes second solely for the purpose of commercialism, having absolutely NOTHING to do with either “Intersex and or competitive performance and or fairness in women’s sport.”

If the IOC was being “truthful” about their concerns of women’s natural serum testosterone levels it would have been reflected in anti-doping and passport system.  Which we can conclusively acknowledge is NOT being done.

This is all about “selective discrimination” for the sole purpose of consumerism of women bodies.

As a consequence, “real women” are getting hurt bye it!

Published July 2012

MEET SARAH ROBLES, AMERICA’S STRONGEST WOMAN AND BODY IMAGE ACTIVIST

by Kellie Foxx-Gonzalez

July 3rd, 2012

Sarah Robles isn’t your average athlete — for starters, on a good day she can lift 568 pounds, the equivalent of an adult male lion. At 23-years-old, she’s the highest ranked weightlifter in the United States, and is probably the country’s best shot at winning an Olympic weightlifting medal at the upcoming London Olympics. Unfortunately, she’s also impoverished – receiving only $400/month from U.S.A Weightlifting, she struggles to pay for food, often relying upon the kindness of her community to fuel her 4,000 calorie lifting diet. The cause of her struggle? Robles, who is 5 feet, 10.5 inches tall and 275 pounds, doesn’t qualify as conventionally attractive enough to net sponsorships and endorsement deals.

Endorsements are largely how Olympians bring in cash for their sport — take star-swimmer Michael Phelps, for example, who signed a $1 million deal to be a spokesman for Mazda in China. Companies can also compensate athletes with free goods, such as nutritional products and supplements. Robles’ only product sponsorship thus far is with PowerBar. She told BuzzFeed: “You can get that sponsorship if you’re a super-built guy or a girl who looks good in a bikini. But not if you’re a girl who’s built like a guy,” she says.

Robles’ body composition had always caused her emotional hardship. From a young age she was incredibly self-conscious about her body type, and her fears about herself would only be slightly allayed when she started sports and realized that her large frame would prove to be an advantage. “I still have bad thoughts about myself, but I’ve learned that you have to love yourself the way you are,” Robles says. “I may look like this, but I’m in the Olympics because of the way I am.”

Goto Full Article – “Click Here”

Published July 2012

The Guardian

The IOC’s superwoman complex: how flawed sex-testing discriminates
Behind the IOC’s new policy on male-female testosterone levels is plain bias about what a female athlete should look like.

By Rebecca Jordan-Young and Katrina Karkazis
July 2nd, 2012


Last week, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) quietly dropped what may prove to be a bomb in the middle of the already explosive question of who can compete in women’s events in the 2012 London summer Games. The new sex-testing policy threatens to ban women whose bodies produce high levels of testosterone, what medicine calls hyperandrogenism.

In the interests of fairness, men with lower than normal levels will also be banned, or will be required to compete in the women’s divisions. The IOC has not yet clarified whether they will need to comply with women’s outfits.

OK, so we made up the part about men. But it would, indeed, make sense – that is, if anything in this policy made sense. The problem is that it doesn’t.

The new policy was expected, although the IOC has gone even further than last year’s policy adopted by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in scrutinizing and harassing women who, as all experts agree, have not cheated, and whose athletic performances are clearly within the range of their peer female athletes.

It’s downright chilling that instead of discouraging the abuse of hyperandrogenism charges to harass women athletes, the IOC has actually called for the National Olympic Committees to “actively investigate any perceived deviation in sex characteristics” (pdf) among female athletes. (The accompanying bland suggestion that sanctions “may” be imposed on anyone found to ask for an investigation of an athlete in bad faith is not reassuring.)

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published July 2012

The New York Times

Sex-Verification Policy Is Criticized as a Failure
By JULIET MACUR
Published: June 25, 2012

The International Olympic Committee’s new policy regarding who is eligible to compete as a female athlete is a veiled sex-verification test that fails in its objective to protect the integrity of women’s events at the Games, critics of the regulations said Monday.

Kevin B. Wamsley, a professor of sport history at the University of Western Ontario who has written about the issue of sex testing in sports, called the new policy a farce.

He said the policy was not an improvement on the invasive sex-verification testing to which Caster Semenya, the South African runner, was subjected in 2009 after winning the world championships in the 800 meters.

“No matter what they call it, it’s still a sex test that’s all about judgments and so much more about social values than science,” said Wamsley, the former director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies. “They don’t need this test, and I think they should get rid of it.”

Goto Full Article – “Click Here”

Published June 2012

NY Times Publisher – Promotes IOC oppression tools policies of women’s endocrine systems at the cost of commercialism – selling “femininity”.

New York Times Article:
I.O.C. Adopts Policy for Deciding Whether an Athlete Can Compete as a Woman
Published June 24th, 2012

Jason Stallman NY Times Publisher, in todays article written by Juliet Macur, has sold out to ALL Women in promoting the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) policy release on Hyperandrogenism on June 24th, 2012 prior to the London Olympics next month.  Stallman well aware of the science and expertise from Canada, United States and Europe, who with strong science – overwhelmingly, oppose and suggest “the science does not match the policies and is based on folklore”, and that, we are raping and violating women for no reason other then to the selling out to commercialism, and that the issues being perpetuated by the IOC’s well oiled propaganda machine,  primary focus is to protect “femininity”. Not to be confused with women’s sport.  As experts conclude, the IOC’s continued dark (50) year history trying to regulate “fairness” as a facade and purposely misguide the public, to focus on what their real aspirations are, is to what sells, NOT women’s sport, but “femininity”. The IOC a corporation and business that relies on brand to fund the games, under the illusion of sport, competitive excellence and inclusion.

This is done on purpose, as it relates to commercialism and what sells best, and will drive profits.  Truthfully the IOC doesn’t care about sport, it is a vehicle to a means end.  It is about “POWER AND MONEY”. So what drives those numbers up on the positive side of the balance sheet, are MENS SPORT AND FEMININITY.  Selling to their target consumer which is primarily men.  Women’s sport, women’s excellence and celebration thereof, is barely existent, and a consumer facade.  Thus all to well known, the degree of the global challenge for women and women’s sports organizations to grow and develop.  WE are continually oppressed.

Gender verification of women of the last (50) years, created by Prof. Arne Ljungqvist and Co-fathered by Dr. Myron Genel (Yale) have been behind the scenes challenged by top experts, and now clearly by the experts, as it pertains to gender verification, Stockholm Consensus and most recently the IOC Regualtions on female Hyperandrogenism, “the polices don’t match the science”.

In-fact and imporant to note, neither Ljungqvist, Genel, Villain (UCLA) and or Bermon (IAAF) have ever tested one athlete, let alone spoken with the athletes grossly impacted around by these human rights violation, causing physical/social rape, humiliation and even suicide.

Experts around the world are saying these men are a “FRAUD” and the science is there clearly to prove it without a doubt, and they know it. The IOC, has perpetuated this years knowingly the science has been clearly presented, and it is they trying to avoid “HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, HUMILIATION AND RAPE CHARGES” OF FEMALE ATHLETES.”

The policy presented by the IOC on June 24th, 2012 is a propaganda tool, using “testosterone” which is an everyone hormone, and ALL high performance athletes female and or male, have excessive natural serum testosterone levels.  There are multiple coming together regarding human physiology, that creates human excellence in a given sport. testosterone being one of over a dozen.  Moreover, which the purposely does not explain, every female and or male have androgen receptors, of which regulate and absorb at different rate testosterone in a person body.  Many women and men athletes, have an “insensitivity” no matter their level of testosterone production from their ovaries or testicles. The IOC and IAAF have purposely misguided sport and public, putting value number of testosterone level ml/ of 100 max for women. This cannot be done, as the athletes uptake through their receptors could be insensitive and or highly sensitive and it depends on the individual athlete.  The female athlete could have 250 ml/ but if she is insensitive or low receptors, it would not matter if she had 25ml/ and or 300ml.  it is how the body utilizes it and it cannot be controlled let alone evaluated.

The IOC has done this purposely, and know this to be true, they do “not want to see strong featured women” in sport as we are socially accepting of this of men, of which we do not oppress.

This entire issue is not about women excellence and or performance, even as far women sport. It is what sells as the box office, and will draw most money and financial income for the Olympic games, which is “FEMININITY”, NOT Women’s Sport.

This is a social science exercise and nothing to do with physiology, science and or gender.  The IOC has done this on purpose and as they have only learn time and time again, as Olympic history has shown, the falling of so many women who have been sort hurt and violated, and continue to be, at the cost of commercialism and sexism of women’s bodies, and femininity.

What Jason Stallman has done though this NY Times article, only to further confirm the IOC’s false ideology, stereotypes and threat to ALL women, but as well further as he used “Casters” image and name as the “poster child” of the issues. From a journalistic view is illegal, continuing to condemn, demean her for being a great woman. Showcasing his own ignorance  and the power of the “illusion and box” ALL women suffer from trying to fit into the “socially accepted man-made box”, only reinforced by the International Olympic Committee for the sole purpose of “commercialism” as the science and and expertise does not support the IOC’s recent and past policies as it pertains to women’s gender of which we do not regulate mens gender.

The IOC ‘s release on June 24th, 2012, is symbolic and tragedy of the man-made barriers created by men for women, in the vision of men, of women’s bodies, abilities and attaching as a priority sexuality and femininity over women’s ability to compete well and celebrate our excellence as we do men. The IOC is prepared at ALL cost to oppress that, and physically oppress women physically an their endocrine systems to ensure this does not happen, and women are unable to compete at the same level as men, requiring them to develop and become strong bodied, to be the every best they can be in their given sport.

This will continue at any cost, until the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is legally challenged, as they know is forth coming. It is unfortunate, as a  society and sports system, that these issues cannot be done in any other way, which speaks to the much bigger issues of the business of the IOC and and their role and influence and particpation in the future development of sport.

There should be a panel of Olympic women, elected by women only to evaluate male masculinity and competitive performance, to assure that male athletes conform to the rigid man-made stereotypes assuring they are not to feminine in the eyes of the IOC, and meet the model needed for accepted consumerism on the playing field.

THE IOC CREATING UNWARRANTED  OPPRESSION, GENDER “WITCH HUNTS” AND VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN…

This insanity must stop!

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published June 24th, 2012

New York Times
Sex Verification: You Say You’re a Woman? That Should Be Enough

By Rebecca Jordan-Young & Katrina Karkazis
Published June 17th, 2012

The International Olympic Committee’s new policy governing sex verification is expected to ban women with naturally high testosterone levels, a condition known as hyperandrogenism, from women’s competitions, claiming they have an unfair advantage. I.O.C. officials portray this as a reasonable compromise in a difficult situation, arguing that the rules may be imperfect, but that sports are rule-based — and that the rules should be clear.

We agree that sports need clear rules, but we also believe that the rules should be fair and as rational as possible. The new policy, if it is based on testosterone levels, is neither.

So what is a better solution?

First, at the very least, female athletes should be allowed to compete throughout any investigation. Suspending them from competition once questions are raised violates their confidentiality and imposes sanctions before relevant information has been gathered.

Second, when it comes to sex, sports authorities should acknowledge that while science can offer evidence, it cannot dictate what evidence we should use. Scientifically, there is no clear or objective way to draw a bright line between male and female.

Goto Full Article – “Click Here”

Published June 2012

New York Times
Gender Testing for Athletes Remains a Tough Call

By Eric Vilain
June 18th, 2012

Is LeBron James too tall and too fast to play basketball?

In times of extreme political correctness infiltrating almost every societal topic, sport stands out as an oddity. It captures the passion of billions of people around the world, yet it is grotesquely unequal. There are no remedial programs for ungifted athletes.

Yet when it comes to women in sports, everyone frets about equality.

This was particularly true in the outrage over the case of Caster Semenya, the South African athlete who won the 800 meters at the world championships in Berlin in 2009 and was accused of holding an unfair advantage because she was thought to compete unjustly in a women’s event. When men are more talented than others, it is an expression of the beauty of sports. But when women outcompete others, suspicions about eligibility and arguments for a level playing field often arise.

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published June  2012

London 2012 Olympics: is measuring athletes’ ‘femaleness’ ever acceptable?

By Sam Murphy
June 14th, 2012

Sport is not a level playing field. If some athletes have ‘better’ hormones, then surely that’s the same as having better genes

London 2012 Olympics: is measuring athletes’ ‘femaleness’ ever acceptable?

Sport is not a level playing field. If some athletes have ‘better’ hormones, then surely that’s the same as having better genes

It’s a stressful time for any Olympic contender right now, as they focus on peaking at the right time, steering clear of injuries and preparing mentally for the ultimate contest. But some female athletes have an extra thing to worry about: gender authentication.

You may remember the furore surrounding the South African 800m runner Caster Semenya when, in 2009, she who won the world championships in Berlin by a huge 2-second margin. Even before the medals had been handed out, Semenya’s authenticity as a woman was being questioned and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) confirmed that gender verification tests were being undertaken. While Semenya’s case was being reviewed by the IAAF she was banned from competition, but did not escape the glare of media speculation (one headline asked “Woman, man or a little bit of both?”). Although the IAAF never made its findings public, it was widely reported that Semenya had both male and female sex organs and testosterone levels three times higher than typically found in a woman. Semenya got to keep her medal and, after an 11-month hiatus, the right to continue competing against other women. Through her legal representatives, she stated at the time: “I have been subjected to unwarranted and invasive scrutiny of the most intimate and private details of my being.”

Go to Full Article - “Click Here”

Published June, 2012

The Times of India – AFI to wait for medical report on Pramanik case

June 14th, 2012

NEW DELHI: Athletics Federation of India on Thursday said that it won’t do anything now and wait for the medical report and police investigation on the allegation by a Kolkata woman that 2006 Asian Games gold medallist Pinki Pramanik was a “male” before taking any action.

AFI Secretary C K Valson said that the federation would wait for the result of medical report of Pramanik and would inform the IAAF if she turns out to be a male as alleged in a complaint lodged by a woman in Kolkata.

He, however, added that the IAAF rules were not clear on whether the medals Pramanik had won in national and international events would be stripped off or not.

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Published June 2012

Proposed testosterone testing of some female olympians challenged by Stanford scientists

By Tracie White
Standford Medical Center

STANFORD, Calif. — Proposed Olympic policies for testing the testosterone levels of select female athletes could discriminate against women who may not meet traditional notions of femininity and distort the scientific evidence on the relationship between testosterone, sex and athletic performance, says a Stanford University School of Medicine bioethicist and her colleagues.

They also warn that the proposed policies would not only be unfair, but also could lead to female athletes being coerced into unnecessary and potentially harmful medical treatment in order to continue competing. The critique was published online today in The American Journal of Bioethics.

The testing policies, adopted a year ago by the International Association of Athletics Federations and now under consideration by the International Olympic Committee, call for using testosterone levels to decide whether an athlete is “feminine” enough to compete as a woman. The problem, the authors explain, is that there is insufficient evidence to set a benchmark for a normal testosterone levels in elite female athletes, let alone persuasive research showing that testosterone levels are a good predictor of athletic performance.

“What makes sex testing so complicated is that there is no one marker in the body we can use to say, ‘This is a man,’ or, ‘This is a woman,’” said first author of the paper Katrina Karkazis, PhD, a medical anthropologist and senior research scholar at Stanford’s Center for Biomedical Ethics. “These new policies try to get around that complexity by singling out testosterone levels as the most important aspect of athletic advantage. But what causes athletic advantage is equally complex and cannot be reduced to testosterone levels.”

Goto Full Article - “Click Here”

Podcast - “Click Here”

Published June 14th, 2012

Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes