Once again Michelle Dumaresq won the Canadian DH Championship. This is the 2nd year s/he has done it. Most of the racers I compete with and my self believe that the class you race in should be decided by chromosomes and not just what type of equipment you have between your legs.

Photos and race report here ; Velo News

I am mixed. This has been discussed a lot on ridemonkey and even got her responding.

On a personal level it doesn't bother me and I would gladly ride and or be friends with her. I hold not discrimination in that form against her. However professionally I am not confident of certain things. After 10 years, yes you do loose some of the mass. But you spent 20 years as a man with man strength and men growth (muscular, lungs and heart) This has to be an advantage in power and strength (and maybe even mentality)...would I remove her ability to race because of my concerns...I am afraid I am not a smart enough person to make that decision. I do know I feel for the girls she is beating. On a national level there doesn't seem to be anyone she can beat and on a WC level she was placing top 10 pretty quickly (which I guess means there isn't that much of an advantage)...

Arg...see its just too confusing.

I guess I don't know the whole story.

Are you asking if we think she should be able to race in the men's class?

NEVERMIND. I had a revelation as I was typing this. Michelle is the individual that had a sex change right? (hence your s/he comment).

That is a tough one. I am a molecular biologist/ biochemist, so I tend to agree with the notion that your physical gender is dictated by your genes; however, your social gender is determined by whatever you choose to do with yourself. So the question is, are the classes based on physical or social gender?

I am inclined to think that the classes were based on physical gender. Based on teh assumption that testosterone will enhance your performance, and therefore individuals with less (Physical women) would not perform as well. If this is the case than I would say that she should compete in the men's class, and judging by her times in your link, she would not be competitive.

I am admittedly ignorant of the details of her transformation into a woman, or her genetic makeup, or of the history of her career in the racing scene. I do think it is a pretty interesting issue though.

I should check out that other forum to see what she had to say for herself.

Okay, I am new to this situation, but as I understand he had a sex change, correct me if I am wrong??? So where do you draw the line? What makes her a woman able to be in a female’s class? If I have long hair, am I a female? If I have long hair and wear a bra, am I a female? No! Even if I have what is called a sex change, I am still genetically a male. In my opinion, the line is drawn at birth with genetics. You would never have her/him racing in the Olympics as a female, so why in these competitions?

I think if you were born a man then you race in the men's class. If you were born a woman you race in the womans class. I dont really know much about her but by reading the posts above she is 30 years old and was a man the first 20 years. So, like Maelstrom said, she had 20 years to have mens muscle/heart/lungs etc..I dont know, its kind of like if somebody in the NBA got sick of not being the best in the league so they got a sex change so they could play in the wnba. Now, I am not saying she did this to be good in womens downhill, but you should know what I am getting at :)

Actually the IOC has cleared transexuals so they may now compeat in the Olympics. You can read the story here.
Transexuals cleared for Olympics

:beer:

If she was originally a man, then she should race with men....since she was a man by birth, and only a woman by surgery. Given she may have some female traits now, but really, he still has the body frame of a man, and quite possibly the muscles of a man...

He/She/It shouldn't be allowed to compete with the females in the first place, if you were born a male, then that individual should race with the males.

Living as a woman, and taking female hormones would put Michelle Dumaresq at a severe disadvantage if she were to compete against men.

Having been born and reared as a man may give her an advantage when competing against women.

Should she be barred from all competition because she had the surgery? Or should she only compete agaiinst people who can beat her?

There was never an issue about Michelle Dumaresq competing as a woman until she started to win.

I think the issues here are pretty complex. The fact that most of us have deeply negative gut reactions to the very thought of sexual reassignment surgery only confuses issues more.

The science behind it for some history. 10 years on female hormones will remove almost all muscular advantage given as a man at birth. However

1 - Does it affect lung capacity (a big difference)
2 - The mental factor. This may come accross as insulting but womans dh is pretty dull. The reason being is in the non pro classes and even some pros don't go fast enough or hard enough to catch lots of air required to be REALLY fast. Excluding some very elite few. This mental factor is still with Michelle giving her a pretty good advantage in the 'taking chances' category.
3 - Size factor...she is still a big girl. Bigger than most. Weight? Other things like that. Maybe muscular distribution is 'relative' but is it equal.

Lots of questions and way to indepth to really get into. I haveno negative reactions to her personally. But it does seems a little unfair on the surface. 20years as a man and 10 years as a woman...Iam sure there is some advantage...

He/she is not a transsexual, he is a man. Transsexuals are born that way, and they have a combination of both sexes as a birth defect. I am very sympathetic towards transsexuals since it is neither their fault nor choice, but Michelle is a man. Also, are any of the drugs that he has to take against the CNMBC rules?

Actually you are wrong. Hermaphrodites are individuals born with both sets of parts. She is in fact a transsexual.

So on a slightly lighter note.. who here likes nachos with cheese?

Quote-
Living as a woman, and taking female hormones would put Michelle Dumaresq at a severe disadvantage if she were to compete against men.
end quote-

Isn't that a choice she is making? I know that there are serious emotional and personal issues surrounding the decision to change your sex, and I do not pretend to understand the kind of personal struggle someone goes through shen they make that decision. However, when it comes down to it she did make that decision. Nowhere does it say that we have a right to make a living riding a bicycle.

Quote-
Should she be barred from all competition because she had the surgery? Or should she only compete agaiinst people who can beat her?
-end quote-

Why not. Isn't that what every other athlete is doing? Should she compete only against people she can beat because of a biological advantage. This is a bit murky, because when it comes down to it all athletic competition involves people winning who have biologcial advantages. My personal opinion is that the traditional Men's classes are essentially open classes where the fastest or best athletes compete, and the women's classes are to provide athletes with an obvious biological disadvantage (naturally lower testosterone levels) a forum to compete.


Quote-
There was never an issue about Michelle Dumaresq competing as a woman until she started to win.
-end quote-

I do not know the history, but I would be surprised if this were true. I would think that there are women she races against who were pretty upset about it right from the start.

Quote-
I think the issues here are pretty complex. The fact that most of us have deeply negative gut reactions to the very thought of sexual reassignment surgery only confuses issues more.-end quote-

I agree with you. This is pretty complex. I am dissapointed at some people's reaction to the story. However, I think the issues get at the essential nature of sport. There is always a winner and a looser, and the winner is usually the person who has trained hard AND who has the better genes to carry them past everyone else who has trained just as hard (and maybe some luck). We as a society have determined that men are more competitive than women at sport (mainly because they have different genes not better genes), so separate classes were created so these two halves of our society could have equal opportunity to compete (a good thing).

Should she be able to compete with women? Personally I think it is suspect, but obviously people more knowledgeable than I think otherwise. She obviously would not make such a massive life change just to be a competitive downhill racer; however, she does have a significantly different genetic makeup than everyone she is competing against. Not better genes, but different genes. All I can say is I hope she rides like hell and enjoys the ride as long as she has it.

Are there any women who compete in these races (or other races) on this forum?

What do you think?

So thats a "no" on liking the nachos for you?

:D

I love nachos with cheese, preferably with several magic hat, long trail, or harpoons after a ride. Before I was done writing the post you had posted your nacho question. :lol:

There used to be this little beach bar down here that would have a guy come in and play acoustic guitar on Saturdays. Very Cool little beach bar.

They had these awesome Crabmeat nachos.

Also, shrimp pita pizzas. An order of each and a pitcher of beer and life was good!

L8R

Ha Ha. Why is everyone skirting the issue? (yes, intended)

Are we venturing too far from the cozy "I'm okay, you're okay" nest of political correctness to feel comfortable calling this dude a fraud? Come on, people, this is the internet! Tell us what you really think!

Anyone got some more pics? :D

If you insist!

I am only able to eat soft solids right now because of having all four wisdom teeth removed, and I always have nachos on friday, guess that isn't happening this week.:(

LOL - good one. :)

I don't know her personal story, but I respect her making a choice that is not easily understood or accepted. If you think someone has an unfair advantage, maybe you should ride your bike a little more than your keyboard. Someone who trains harder or is tougher has an "unfair advantage" over a lot of us. Toughness, training, and winning have nothing to do with a penis or lack thereof. You can talk all you want about biological advantages, but I can find a host of women who can smoke the male keyboard jockeys here.

No argument here.

Unfortunately, that's not the issue. To my knowledge, none of us fat losers have ever won a national championship nor taken second to someone with an artificially engineered biological advantage.

It has nothing to do with an advantage of US...

Pro vs pro I have never seen a time posted by a women in the top 5. Anne Caroline COULD place top 10 sometimes on some courses (in her prime she was consistently placing top 10 in the men I beleive) but generally times posted are in the bottom of the male order. Now compared to me, hell ya. But I am not a pro trying to make a living or being competetive. This debate has nothing to do with regular people, but with the girls in the pro circuit trying to make a living and having it taken away but someone with possible genetic advantages.

I'm simply not convinced there is an advantage. Maybe, you're right. If so, what is the degree of advantage? I want some proof that even 5% of her victory (or losses) has to do with the fact that she was once a man. Does she train more? Is she more willing to win? I can imagine she's a hell of a lot tougher than most if she had the nerve to change her life as she did.

This thread reminds me of all of Lance's detractors talking about doping: who knows what the real truth is, but it's a LOT easier to find ways someone else cheated than to find the reasons we failed. I don't expect any of "us fat losers" will ever even take second to someone who has cheated given people's propensity to find excuses why they didn't win. Champions make their point on the trail, track, and road. Those who are second-best cry about it afterwards.

As a female, I'm not sure how to feel about it. My instinct is to say it's unfair because of genetics or whatever, but my ethics tell me to just ride harder and train smarter. I think that it may be good for women's cycling-s/he may force the other competitors to step up their games.

I'm not sure how the change would affect muscle/fat distribution/strength. My husband gets in shape much quicker than I do; he also loses weight much easier, but that may not be this person's case. I don't know.

BTW-I like nachos, a lot.

In person her mass and size are abvious. Especially in her legs. Spending 20 years as a man and 10 taking drugs does not remove the physical advantage of a man imo. A lot of her mass might be gone but that initial testosterone and puberty would be an advantage.

Doesn't even compare to doping. Doping is something that 'could' have happened (I believe all pros dope up so the point is moot from me) this happened and is true for sure. Thinking logically all that muscle wouldn't just fall off, the bone mass wouldn't just disapear, the enlarged lungs would not just be gone...

Thats for sure. And really on the WC scale she has not done exceptionally well. Only on the national level she has destroyed the competition. WC she is placing top 5ish I think. (only first year thoguh)

A lot of competitors dropped out initially but now I think they are stepping it up :)

Quite frankly, I'm not making a comparison. My POINT is people need to stop looking for reasons why they lost and get on their damn bike and win.