I read in today's Globe and Mail that the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a lawsuit against the Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) demanding that a women's ski jump event be included in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. The court found that VANOC was obliged to follow the dictates of the International Olympic Committee, and that the IOC, being based in Switzerland, was not bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The IOC claimed to be following its own technical rules for which sports are included in the Olympics, but the judge in the case did go on to disagree, saying that because there were no similar criteria for inclusion of men's ski jump, that the IOC was engaging in discrimination based on gender.
I had a feeling this is how things would go, since the suit against VANOC was misdirected. It was always the IOC that was responsible. But now I hope that because of how the judge ruled, including saying that the IOC was indeed being sexist, that by 2014 we will no longer have a situation in which there is that one last winter Olympic event in which women do not participate. I look forward to seeing justice done before the games in Sochi, Russia, and seeing both men and women flying off the ski jump hill.
Sports aren't just for men. Every other winter Olympic sport has a corresponding women's event. Women engage in sports at all levels. Much legislative blood was spilled in the United States to ensure that girls in school had access to the same funds, equipment, and facilities as boys for sports. Sports are for everyone who wants to participate.
Now, not everyone does, and that's their choice. But from time to time I read comments from trans women that they never liked sports as a kid, as though this were some sign of their innate femaleness. It's not. It means they didn't like sports, same as many boys as well as girls. A lot of kids prefer other activities or even reading a good book, and most of them are cisgender.
I happened to like sports when I was younger. I played Little League baseball, and later warmed the bench on the Junior Varsity team in high school. I was on the golf team, matched against the worst player from the opposing school. I played a slow backfield position on the soccer team. See a pattern? It wasn't that I didn't like sports. I just wasn't very good at them. And that had nothing to do with my innate femaleness either. I just wasn't very sportif, a French word that means "athletic."
Plenty of women are sportive. See, that's the feminine form. I knew girls in high school who played field hockey, basketball, whatever was available then. I hope there are many more possibilities now. I don't think a person has to participate in sports to be well-rounded, but for those who want to participate, whether in an individual sport like tennis or a team sport like soccer, participation can be an enriching experience.
So please, none of this crap about trans women hating sports. Sports are not a guy thing. If you don't like sports, you don't, and that's fine. But many women do, and we're women, right? And indeed, there are trans women who fight for the right to participate in women's sporting events, and I support them.
There are all kinds of women in the world and, one hopes, all kinds of trans women. Including some who are sportive.
More Beautiful You
57 minutes ago
3 comments:
Here here!!
As a kid, I did hate team and competitive sports. It took me til I was an adult to realize why - I couldn't see. My vision was 20/200 or worse in each eye at first grade, and remained uncorrected until 6th grade, and even then, I never wore my glasses playing sports.
I did want to play sports, and be good at them - but I didn't think I was capable. And I did have the erroneous idea that girls hated sports too - but I got over that when I met athletic girls in high school.
Let's make sure everyone who wants to play is allowed to play. Let's make sure that obstacles are recognized and fixed effectively for each kid.
Did the ruling actually state that VANOC and the IOC were "outside the charter", or did it simply find that the IOC's technical requirements did not violate the Charter?
As I had come to understand things, the IOC's position arises from the current state of women's ski jumping at the world level.
I may be mistaken, but the criteria apply across all sports that the IOC considers, and as such would also not be considered in violation of the Charter - at least on the grounds in the lawsuit, unless it could be shown that the rules were being applied more rigidly in this case than in other comparable situations.
@Jill: Removing obstacles. I like that. Works for lots of people!
@MgS: I have only the Globe article to go on at this point. "In the end, however, [Judge Fenlon] agreed that only the IOC has the power to determine Olympic events, and the IOC is outside the Charter's jurisdiction." According to the article, the judge said that because men's ski jumping was grandfathered -- no criteria for inclusion -- the criteria for inclusion were not equal for men's and women's events, and thus the IOC was discriminatory.
Post a Comment