Did women's long drive winner shaft the competition? Things to think about during golf's off-season.
Add comments
Recently, a former SWAT team cop from Los Angeles won the golf RE/MAX World Long Drive Championship. The nearest competitor lost by only a few yards in windy conditions and, where some of the challengers didn’t seem to mind the outcome, a few had problems with it. Why, you may ask?
By the way, I am not talking about newly crowned RE/MAX long drive champion Jamie Sadlowski, who, with his 160-pound frame, defeated guys almost twice his size with great timing and a convincing hockey-esque style slap shot. Instead, this blog focuses on the controversy surrounding 55-year-old Lana Lawless, a 175-pound transgender who once weighed in at 245-pounds and was considered by law enforcement peers to have a very “tough and mean exterior” as Lawless admits. Lawless took women’s RE/MAX honors this year after a narrow defeat at last year’s semifinals.
Clubhead speed, not power alone, made the difference in the case of Sadlowski who carried his drive 400 yards. Lawless claims that her muscles have atrophied with the help of drugs that stem the flow of testosterone and that she is, for all intents and purposes, more woman than man. Sure she had drives of over 300 yards but she only bested her nearest opponent, 21-year old former long drive champion Phyllis Meti, by four yards.
About three years ago the Ladies Golf Union, which oversees that British Open, allowed transgenders to compete and Mianne Bagger took them up on their offer, becoming the first transgender since Renee Richards to play a professional sport. Looking at Bagger’s 2008 stats, she appears to be a solid player with no advantage over the other players in the field but instead seems to fit right in to the middle of the pack.
The question is then, is there a definitive advantage of transgenders over “real” women and should transgenders be allowed to compete against their “peers"?
Three-time world champion Sean “The Beast” Fister said, “It’s not an apples-to-apples deal. Men and women are different.” Former women’s world long drive champion Lee Brandon added, “if a woman has the knees, hands and feet of a man, she has genetic real estate that is more gifted.”
Fox Sports polled the internet asking if it is fair for women who used to be men to compete as women and, out of almost 90,000 respondents, the answer was an overwhelming “No".
Where the average person may have trouble accepting transgenders into the fold, the media has said, “Vive la difference!” with ABC-TV leading the way featuring characters in both “Ugly Betty” and “All My Children". Of course transgenders don’t have to physically compete in this platform so the question of athleticism still remains but, as long as proper procedures and guidelines are followed to ensure that transgenders do not have an unfair advantage, I think they should be allowed to compete. However, for those men who cannot adequately compete alongside their own gender and choose to make the switch solely for one-upmanship over the fairer sex, think again. Is the mandatory onsite testing really worth it?
I guess we won’t be seeing “Philomena” Mickelson on the LPGA Tour any time soon!
This week on the Golf for Beginners show we not only talk about transgenders making their way onto the sports scene but also offer some great golf tips courtesy of Butch Harmon.
There is still time to get your golfer a gift! Check out our Holiday golf gift-giving guide!
Send your golf questions and comments to golfforbeginners@worldgolf.com.
Subscribe to our weekly podcast through this RSS feed: http://feeds.worldgolf.com/stacy_solomon or through iTunes.
Click Here to receive our archived podcasts and 100’s of easy golf tips free!
Check us out on MySpace!
“Shiny Tech” courtesy of Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)”
This podcast is supported by San Diego Golf Central, 866-825-4094.
Photo Credit: © House of Forged-Whiteshaft, FoxSports.com
| « Tiger Woods' billion-dollar record, Daly down-under, winter golf drills | Nicklaus builds a golf town, will Tiger Woods erect a city? Also, playing in the zone. » |
Comment feed for this post
Post-op or not, even if a man can the ball farther than his female counterpart, golf is also about finesse and the short game (100 yards and in).
I can play my husband Barry on the same tee and we are usually battling it out on the 18th hole.
Of course that is the average decent golfer. Lawless played to a 1+ handicap which means all aspects of the game were in order.
How does her previous career or previous weight affect how she plays _now?_ The answer is it matters about as much as the price of tea in China. Sure her arms are a little large, but I bet dollars to doughnuts that an analysis would show those biceps are about as dense as the cotton in the top of an aspirin bottle. It takes years for muscle tissue to compact itself as you transition from male to female, long after the torque of the previous physique is long gone. So it's all bark, no bite - just like this article.
What is happening here is the possibility of other transgenders joining the ranks and changing the future of sports as we know it.
It's all about the ability to compete...isn't it? Don't we all want our voices heard?
Would there really be an article if she had been another runner-up? I doubt it. Every time a transperson wins something though there's always a slew of articles trying to attach an asterisk to their win. I guess if you're not trans you just wouldn't get it.
Lawless is a post-op woman. Do you know what that means? It means she does not have testicles! As a result she has practically no testosterone in her body. Natal women, like the runner-up in the competition you're talking about, have MUCH, MUCH more testosterone than Lawless has. In other words Lawless is at a DISADVANTAGE hormonally. It's a fact!
Also since she is post-op she doesn't require any medication to block testosterone. As I said that testosterone is almost non-existent since she doesn't have testicles! It's a fact!
She's been on hormone replacement therapy for several years and her muscles have atrophied. That's what happens when a formerly male body is put on estrogen. It's a fact!
The International Olympic Committee studied this issue extensively for years and came to a conclusion that fully transitioned athletes who are 2 or more years post op can compete. They found that transsexual women had NO advantage over natal women. It's a fact!
You fail to mention that transsexual women have been competing in various sports for decades and there have been very few wins for them. It's a fact! Maybe because it would undermine your PREJUDICE? Instead of spewing your discriminatory views why don't you try reporting THE FACTS?
By the way, I met Renee Richards some years ago -- at a driving range, of all places.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html#anchor107763
It's based on SCIENCE. That section also has lots of links to the actual SCIENTIFIC studies.
For your information transsexual people do not change genders. We change our bodies to match our gender. We were born with a brain-body mismatch. If you read from the link above you will learn the difference between sex and gender. Researchers have proven gender identity is inborn and unchangeable, that is why we transition.
It's only insane to you because you don't know the truth, you haven't read the science. If you did you would know that transsexuality is a naturally occurring birth condition. And like anyone else that has a birth condition, we have a right to fix that birth condition.
First of all, you don't know who I am. I know more about this subject than you could imagine. And I will preface my comments by saying that while I will be blunt, it shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of you personally. I just consider you deluded.
In reality, I not only know about the "science," I have transcended it. I also know that the science is not as you have presented it.
Obviously, you have vested interest in believing the politically-correct line. But your problem lies not in your body, but your mind. As for science, it has proven no such thing. What you provide as evidence is simply a tendentious presentation.
I also am well aware of the purported distinction between "sex" and "gender," but I don't accept it. I don't have to embrace some new category just because some radical psycho-babblers originated it a few decades ago and claim it is valid. The social sciences are driven as much by politics as they are by science, and, as all wise people know, you can find a scientific "study" to back up most any position. (As to the credibility of social science, note that a couple of decades ago psychologists were espousing the notion of "gender neutrality." I'm talking about idiots like Dr. John Money.)
Having said all this, I'm under no illusions. I don't believe that I can disabuse you of your misguided notions. You are a person with a severe mental problem who insists he only has a physical one. You are a person who believes that your feelings can be the arbiters of reality. You are a person who won't acknowledge the real issue.
I understand this. After all, it's infinitely easier to change your body than your mind, especially since we really understand so little about the mind. But all you're doing is curing a headache by cutting off the head.
What's really sad is that we live in a society that is content to let deeply troubled people turn themselves into freaks.
By the way I'm a successful medical profession. Maybe you have even been one of my patients. I am not deluded, that would be you clinging to your old judgmental biases. I'm a success, productive citizen that pays taxes just like you. And maybe that's what really irks you, the fact that I exist. Because I turn your BELIEFS on their head. You are simply wrong.
Calling me names won't deter me. I really don't care what the secular left has to say about my character.
By the way, you can crow about how successful you are, but your writing speaks volumes. Perhaps you were in a tizzy and descended into an irrational state of mind that impaired your function.
Oh, you can be assured that I've never been to you for treatment. I can tell the difference, and, while I consider you a child of God, I would never place myself in the care of someone who has exhibited such a dislocation from reality.
You say you're in the medical profession; you're not Richards, are you? I doubt you are, but I just thought I'd ask.
By the way, it's ironic that you would tell me to embrace the truth when you don't even believe in it.
Maybe xrk9854 gave himself such a handle because he is confused as to what he is now.
He could be a robot right out of "Star Wars."
I wonder if he now sings soprano or baritone.
How about they way old xrk coined the word "transphobe"?
On the NASCAR circuit that might mean "fear of transmissions."
No doubt that he is an Obama voter.
Alex USMC 1969-73
You make a good point. Perhaps that handle is a reflection of his deeper self. And, yes, there is a direct relationship between the probability that one will originate a neologism describing a new "victim group" and the probability that one will vote for leftist demagogues who spout empty rhetoric about dope and the mange.