Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday March 07 2014, @03:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the is-it-plaintiff-or-plaintive dept.

GungnirSniper writes:

"CNN reports a 'transgender woman prohibited from competing in a strength competition as a female is suing' CrossFit for sponsoring the competition. The plaintiff, Chloie Jonnson, 'had sexual reassignment surgery in 2006 and has been on female hormone therapy, according to her lawsuit.' She is also 'legally recognized by California as a woman.'

CrossFit maintains that Jonnson was born as a male, so she should compete in the men's division, according to a letter from the company's lawyer to Jonnson's attorney. It also stated that the company had an 'obligation to protect the 'rights' of all competitors and the competition itself.'

'The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women,' according to the letter from CrossFit's lawyer sent in October.

This comes shortly after the Virginia High School League changed its rules to allow transgender students to play sports. Slate has its take on 'arguable concerns of unfair advantage.'

Should the rules take into account the age the person transitioned, hormone levels, or surgical status?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday March 07 2014, @06:16PM

    by JeanCroix (573) on Friday March 07 2014, @06:16PM (#12832)
    Please, please don't let SoylentNews turn into Tumblr.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Friday March 07 2014, @07:26PM

    by LaminatorX (14) <reversethis-{moc ... ta} {xrotanimal}> on Friday March 07 2014, @07:26PM (#12878)

    That's something I thought carefully about before posting this story. The net doesn't need another Tumblr, and that kind of discussion, even for those who enjoy it, is not what we're looking for from this site.

    I put this in Science in hopes of setting an appropriate tone to the discussion, and also to learn what the response would be like. If it were to turn into a Tumbler-esque flame-war, well that would tell us something. If we got a quality discussion, that would tell us something else.

    We're aiming, submissions permitting, to have about 70% solidly-nerd fare, with the remainder being a variety of other topics that our community might nonetheless enjoy discussing once in a while. We've had some hits and some misses on the 30% bracket, but that's how we're learning the community's tastes as we go.

    • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday March 07 2014, @07:48PM

      by JeanCroix (573) on Friday March 07 2014, @07:48PM (#12891)
      Well, I did mean to be at least a little tongue-in-cheek with my post. At least I didn't see any "Die Cis Scum!" type comments, which shows we're managing to keep above the level above Tumblr. Which probably isn't saying much, but still.
      • (Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Friday March 07 2014, @08:11PM

        by LaminatorX (14) <reversethis-{moc ... ta} {xrotanimal}> on Friday March 07 2014, @08:11PM (#12902)

        Another possibility is that we could easily have an annoying mess going on when viewing everything, yet an excellent and worthwhile read at score 3 or so. We've had a few threads like that, and I'm not sure how to gauge them yet in terms of success or failure as an editor. Are those instances of the moderators bailing us out of a bad choice, or is that the system functioning as designed? I'm not sure yet.