c _ jK'ftrtc rv
CveM ■ ;<?h.
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL.
New Olympic
transgender
policy creates
inequity issue
The International Olympic Committee ruling this week
that transgender athletes will be allowed to compete in the
Olympics — starting at this year's games in Athens, Greece
— has garnered mixed reactions within the sporting com
munity.
As it should. The decision, while not hasty on the part of
the board, requires some analysis to root out the pros and
cons of what may seem like a no-brainer.
First, some background: Traditionally, cases of gender
change have been few and far between in the Olympics
and considered on a case-by-case basis, IOC Medical Com
mission Chairman Arne Ljungqvist told CNN.
Now that the amount of people receiving gender reas
signment has increased, however, Ljungqvist said it was
necessary to make a universal set of rules on the subject.
But the hitch was the timing of gender reassignment.
Critics of allowing athletes who have had a sex change be
fore puberty — which was the recommendation of the In
ternational Association of Athletics Federations in 1990 —
argued that testosterone levels before puberty would still
affect performance after a male-to-female sex reassign
ment. This would thus give a physical advantage to a small
segment of competitors, critics argued.
Indeed, it's hard to disagree that clear discrepancies exist
between male and female performance in certain sports.
Take track for instance. A look at male and female track
competitors at Oregon, courtesy of the Oregon media
guide, shows distinct differences between male and female
performance. The fastest time for the 100-meter dash at
Hayward Field, for instance, is 9.9 seconds for men and
10.9 seconds for women. Moreover, the world record time
for the 100 meters is 9.78 seconds for men and 10.4 for
women. The world record for javelin? A whopping 323.1
feet for men and 234.8 feet for women. The list goes on.
So clearly the unfair advantage concerns are valid. And
while it's important in today's society to promote equality,
even in competitive sports, any factors that may give an un
fair advantage in such an important event as the Olympics
should be rejected.
But therein lies the can of worms. If a supposed male
surgically receives female body parts, claiming he is a fe
male trapped in a man's body, would that make the per
son a female according to Olympics standards? Would
that then count as an unfair advantage or just simple biol
ogy?
The board clarified a few of these problems with a strict
set of guidelines for allowing athletes who had sex reas
signment after puberty to compete. For instance, a man or
woman couldn't simply claim he or she was the other gen
der; instead, the athlete must have completed "surgical
changes ... including external genitalia changes and re
moval of gonads."
Furthermore the athlete's gender must be legally recog
nized, and the athlete must have undergone hormone
therapy "long enough to minimize any gender-related ad
vantages in sports competitions, a period that must be at
least two years after gonadectomy."
Beyond the importance of equality and the perceived
competitive disadvantages, the real test of the new policy
will take place when it actually becomes an issue at the
Olympics. As it stands now, the decision has received lit
tle media attention. We would just hope that any impend
ing controversy doesn't mar the spirit of the games.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt
Editor in Chief
Jan Tobias Montry
Managing Editor
Travis Wilise
Editorial Editor
Jennifer Sudick
Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Lessons in
DEMOCRACY
As Americans right and die to bring
democracy to the Middle East — at least
that's what they tell us we're doing over
there — I think America's leaders and
the American people should pay more
attention to the world's largest democ
racy: India. We just might learn a thing
or two.
Last week the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party suffered a
shocking defeat at the hands of the
Congress party, led by Italian-born So
nia Gandhi. Most pundits predicted
the incumbent, Prime Minister Atal Bi
hari Vajpayee, would coast to an easy
victory. They did not figure on the
large turnout of poor voters who have
become disillusioned by the economic
policies of the BJP.
In many ways the voters in India faced
a similar decision to the one we will be
facing in November. They had to decide
between the religious fundamentalism
of the BJP and the secularism of the
Congress party.
We, too, will have to decide between a
George W. Bush government that bases
its abortion, gay marriage and church
state separation policies on religious
emotion rather than sound science, and
a John Kerry government that will em
brace secularism and rationalism.
The Indian people had to decide
whether to vote for a nuclear bomb
fetishist like Vajpayee, who after only
seven weeks in office tested five nuclear
devices under the deserts of Rajasthan
and setoff a nuclear arms race with Pak
istan, or to vote for the party that will
fight to end nuclear proliferation.
America has to vote either for an in
cumbent hellbent on developing usable
nuclear weapons or a candidate deter
mined to stop these programs.
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
The Indian people had to decide be
tween the measured economic policies
of the Congress party and the reckless
globalization and privatization of the
BJP, which has resulted in the enrich
ment of a few but the continued impov
erishment of the masses.
Kerry is advocating tax cuts for the
middle class and a balanced budget
while Bush has given us tax cuts for the
rich, unemployment, jobs shipped over
seas and a massive federal debt.
The people of India have spoken. I
can only hope that the American people
show the same wisdom and kick our
Christian-nationalist administration out
of the White House.
There is a second lesson we can learn
from India. On Tuesday, Sonia Gandhi
told the Congress party that she would
not be India's next prime minister.
"The post of prime minister has not
been my aim," she said. "I was always
certain that if ever I found myself in the
position I am in today, 1 would follow
my inner voice. I humbly decline the
post."
Sonia Gandhi turned down the high
est office in India in order to bring an
end to the debate about whether a for
eign-born citizen should lead the coun
try. She was born in an Italian village to
a Roman Catholic family 57 years ago.
She is the widow of past Indian Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was assassi
nated in 1991. The debate over Gandhi's
nationality was violently dividing the
subcontinent and sending the stock
market into a nosedive.
"My responsibility at this critical time
is to provide India with a secular govern
ment that is strong and stable," Gandhi
said. "Power in itself has never attracted
me, nor has position been my goal."
Through her selfless act she has unit
ed India. Those on all sides of the polit
ical and religious divide are praising her
for her decision. The Indian markets
have rebounded. A relative calm has
been restored.
Our politicians could learn from So
nia Gandhi. We are more divided and
polarized in this country than any time
in recent history. We are at a critical
time. The United States needs uniting.
But can you imagine Bush saying he
humbly declines the office of the presi
dency for the good of the country? Can
you imagine a Republican like John Mc
Cain joining the Kerry ticket as vice pres
ident in order to unite the red and blue
across this nation?
No. Our politicians are too boastful
for that. They are power hungry and in
terested more in keeping their jobs than
doing the will of the people. I don't
know if we have many Sonia Gandhis
left in public service, not here, not
around the world.
Contact the columnist
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.