Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
It's called a level playing field. If she is technically a man then she shouldn't compete. Was it worth it? I bet all the runners who have no chance to win if she runs would say it was.
|
But she is not a man. She hath no penis, she has a vag. She has no uteris, she has testies (inside). She has no Adams apple. She was raised a woman her whole life. Testicles do not make you a better athlete. If you were yourself but had a uteris, that would not make you a woman. It would not have prevented you from playing football. I doubt that they would let you in the ladies room under those circumstances, but you would not have been banned from playing gender speciffic sports. Why should it be any different for her?
As far as I am concerned it is a genetic blessing to be born with that ability no matter how it was bestowed. The truth is that every great athlete has some ability that set them apart from the rest of us. In her case we may have been able to pin point it to an increased ammount testosterone that is naturally produced by her body. What about Woods, Federer, Stewart, Brady, Moss, Brown? Lets perform genetic testing on all of them to try and determine why they are so damn good. If we find something substantial then maybe we should keep them from competing with the common athlete because it is just not fair to the rest of them.