What sport is not about. <<Shudder!>>

Now you know how everyone else in this thread feels, trying to deal with the level of “logic” you have brought to this discussion.

What is the difference, in your mind, between “practically a man” and “a full man”?

She is not a full man, nor is she part man. She is a woman; she identifies as a woman; she has (as far as any of us knows) an XX chromosome arrangement and female genitalia. She is, as you suggest, a woman on steroids, but this just makes her a woman on steroids, not “practically a man” or “a full man” or any other silly thing that you have said.

Even if those steroids have given her outward characteristics that are often associated with masculinity in our society, she is still not a man.

Bullshit.

If you were only concerned about the steroids, then your OP would have focused on the issue of steroids, not on the appearance of this one athlete. You could have made a perfectly clear and coherent argument about the unfairness or the dangers of steroid use without any reference whatsoever to Tammy Thomas’s appearance or her alleged status as part man. Steroids can be very physiologically harmful, yet you focus only on outward appearances, and not on the more substantive issues of how they affect a person’s health.

I get the feeling that you’ll get your chance before long, when you get dragged to the Pit.

This is priceless!

Remind me again, who was it who said the following:

???

Was that you? I believe it was. Tell me again, who started the whole debate about “sexual appearance”?

Wikipedia article on Masculinization:
Virilization - Wikipedia

Complete non-sequitur.

No-one in this thread has denied that such changes can occur. What we have been objecting to is your inaccurate terminology to describe the results of this process. Nowhere in that article does it say that a woman who undergoes virilization becomes a man, or becomes indistinguishable from a man.

I’m leaving.

Chasing Dreams, welcome to the land of the PC-Po’ on The Dope.

It isn’t particularly mature, but most reasonable people will agree that Ms. Thomas is no dream-boat in the looks department. And almost no one aspires to her aesthetic. So what’s wrong with pointing to her as an example of what can go wrong when people choose to dope?

I read the NY Times article when it came out and it is just depressing. At some point after getting caught, any doper frankly just has to suck it up and say, "I’m never going to race again and I don’t want to be waiting tables at Denny’s for the rest of my life either

Anyway, where do you race and what category?

Heh, I have the perfect Cold War-era joke for this thread. I got it from, IIRC, a Polish film, but I don’t remember the title. Anyway, it goes like this:

Two female swimmers in the East German Olympic program are in conversation, when one says, “I think I’ll have to stop taking our ‘special medicine’.”

“Oh? Why?” says the other.

“Well, I’m starting to grow hair.”

“Where? On your face?”

“No…” says the first.

“On your chest?”

“No…”

“Then, where?”

“On my balls.”


All joking aside, I’m with the OP on this one, even though his playing on the name thing wasn’t the smoothest take on the subject. His tone may be a tad jejune, but his thread serves as an alarmist wake-up call to those who might be ignorant or dismissive of the hazards of steroids and HGH.

I only wish more obvious steroid and HGH cases, both male and female, were singled out for public ridicule and censure – for the Cro-Magnon-ish brows, the prognathous jawlines, and the cranial gigantism of the HGH abusers; and for the steroid abusers, their adult-onset prediliction for acne, their “'roid rage,” their shrunken testes and testicular cancer risk, their increased hirsuteness, and, yes, for the female steroid cheats, a certain blurring of the ol’ gender lines in their general, clothed, appearance. These athletes’ freakish aspects are unnatural and are the direct result of their unethical and generally illegal willingness to cheat. They cheated their sports and the record books; they cheated their competitors; they cheated Mother Nature; and in their greed for what a chemical firm once called “better living through chemistry,” they cheated themselves and mortgaged their future.

To be clear, I feel the performance-enhancing drugs issue is the only context in which the ridiculing of a person’s gender-appearance ambiguity (along with the other symptoms) is okay – precisely because the freakish aspects in question are the result of such cheating.

This form of ridicule has nothing to do with singling out transgendered people, women with PCO syndrome, women with certain rare chromosomal disorders, or any others on a long laundry list of, shall we say, people with gender-nonconformist appearances, or even striking ugliness. It rather reminds me of the finger-pointing that is occasionally directed at other categories of physical degradation – as exposed in the ongoing freakshow of police arrest photos and paparazzi photos – which also derive from unwise or illegal behavior. In this sad parade we find the long-term cocaine users who’ve completely burned away their nasal septums; persons with eating-disorders who resemble walking skeletons; the malnourished alcoholics of florid nose, bloodshot eyes, and distended abdomen; the emaciated heroin addicts whose bodies look like they’ve been tattooed in Morse Code; and the crackheads and tweakers who just generally look like hell. The sort of alarm and ridicule which sometimes arise in connection with famous individuals who fall into these categories is all about, as the song put it, “the needle and the damage done”.

When the tabloids wax hysterically about, say, Nicole Ritchie’s emaciated appearance, they’re not making fun of starving people in developing nations or sufferers of Crohn’s Disease. They’re making a fuss because the silly twit is famous for being famous and because she’s starved herself to be more glamorous, period. If the hand-wringing “concern” displayed by mass media (or private mockery by teenagers on the internet on, say, MySpace) helps highlight or stigmatize the effects of eating disorders and encourage others to reach out for help, then so much the better. But the eating disorder comparison, while timely and sharing a freakshow aspect with the female bicyclist, is flawed insofar as it’s not a “victimless” crime but a crime-free victimization. Nope, I think our chemically (and physiologically) altered athletes have more in common with the criminal narcotics cases… I’ll bring up one more example.

Re. the cokeheads, there was an internet flurry a year or two back in which recent photos of a minor, washed-up British “actress” (or was she a model or just a socialite party girl?) turned up. These photos revealed a ravaged face whose beauty (and septum) were long gone. The finger-pointing “omigod, look at this ugly freak”-emails and links were, AFAIK, not met with a self-righteous PC blizzard of protests by the small community of persons who’d suffered congenital deformation/absence of, or traumatic mutilation to, their noses. It was rightly understood that this was just another freakshow attraction on the internet: fugly photos of a former B-lister (or C-lister) whose drug habit resulted in a facial deformity. In a cautionary tale that, however inadvertently, might serve to scare straight others currently on her path, the only person being mocked was that woman; the only category stigmatized by association, hard-core coke addicts.

And that sort of finger-pointing, like that in the OP, is fine by me.

Nothing.

But it still doesn’t make her a man.

Thanks, very well stated. Perhaps the OP could have been better and more technically accurate, but it had the gist right.

Cite, please.

Again, cite, please.

Another athlete competing as a female has been found to be male. So please do provide us with pictorial and medical proof that this person is actually a female since obviously at least one man has competed as a woman therefore it is not unheard-of.

Why should i provide a cite?

The athlete in question uses a woman’s name. She is described as a woman by the article in the OP. Every article i’ve found about her in the media described her as a woman. Not even the government and sporting agencies who investigated her steroid use and charged her with perjury are claiming that she’s a man. They all claim that she is a woman who took steroids.

Here is an in-depth article about Thomas and her troubles. It includes quotes from her mother, as well as quite a few other people in Thomas’s personal and professional life.

Absent any specific evidence to the contrary, Tammy Thomas is a woman. Period.

That was very sad. It seems like she’s been using testosterone in addition to steroids, hence the facial hair. It’s even sadder to hear her complaining about how she was treated by USADA. Not only is she ruined, but she hasn’t learned anything, so she’s bitter and broke and well anyway, that was very sad.