The Growing Disadvantage: Women's Fight for Fairness in Sports

The debate over transgender athletes in women's sports has become a focal point for discussions on fairness, equality, and the integrity of competition. The controversy gained widespread attention with the case of Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer from the University of Pennsylvania, whose victories over biologically female competitors have sparked intense criticism and concern.

Female athletes from various universities, including Princeton, have expressed frustration, arguing that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports undermines the hard-won gains of female athletes over the past fifty years. These women point to the significant biological differences between men and women, differences that persist even after a year of hormone suppression therapy, which is currently required for transgender women to compete in female categories!

Scientific studies support these concerns, showing that despite hormone therapy, transgender women retain physical advantages over biological women, such as larger muscle mass, greater lung capacity, and longer limbs. Quoting Dr. Michael J. Joyner, a doctor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., “There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it”. “Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.” These advantages have allowed athletes like Thomas to rapidly rise in rankings, surpassing their performance levels prior to transitioning. For example, in the men’s category, Ms. Thomas had ranked 32nd in the 1,650-yard freestyle; she managed to climb up to rank eight and won races that season by huge margins of 38 seconds! She had ranked 554th in the men’s 200-yard freestyle; she tied for fifth place in this race in the women’s 2022 N.C.A.A championship. The icing on the cake – Ms. Thomas ranked 65th in the men’s 500-yard freestyle but won the title as a female.

The issue extends beyond swimming, with similar debates occurring in other sports like rugby, cycling, and weightlifting. Critics, including tennis legend Martina Navratilova, argue that allowing transgender women to compete against biological women is inherently unfair and poses safety risks in contact sports. Navratilova has been vocal in her stance, stating that biological realities cannot be ignored in the pursuit of inclusivity.

The debate is further complicated by political and social factors. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue that transgender women have the right to compete in women’s sports, framing opposition as transphobic. However, this has created a culture of fear among female athletes, who worry about being labeled bigots for speaking out against what they see as an unfair disadvantage.

Some propose creating separate categories for transgender athletes or implementing handicaps to level the playing field. However, these solutions are controversial and have been met with resistance from transgender rights activists, who argue that such measures would be stigmatizing and discriminatory.

At the same time, sports organizations like the International Olympics Committee (IOC) face mounting pressure to address these concerns.

Imane Khelif's victory at the 2024 Paris Olympics has been highly contentious, with many critics arguing that her participation in the women's boxing category was unfair. These concerns stem primarily from her previous disqualification by the International Boxing Association (IBA) in 2023 due to issues surrounding her gender eligibility. The IBA's decision to ban her from the World Championships raised significant doubts about her eligibility to compete as a woman. The specifics of the IBA's testing procedures were not fully disclosed, but the ban implied that Khelif did not meet the standard criteria traditionally required for female athletes.

Critics argue that her participation in the Olympics, despite these earlier disqualifications, highlights the inconsistencies in how gender eligibility is determined across different sporting organizations. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed her to compete mainly based on legal technicalities like she is stated as a woman in her passport! Many rightly viewed this as undermining the integrity of women’s sports. Detractors claim that Khelif's physical advantages, which may be tied to her gender eligibility issues, gave her an unfair edge over her competitors. This controversy has sparked broader debates about the fairness of allowing athletes with questionable gender eligibility to compete in women’s categories.

These criticisms have been amplified by instances where Khelif's performances were notably dominant, such as her unanimous win against Yang Liu. Many believe these outcomes reflect the inherent physical advantages she possesses, which they argue are not mitigated by current regulations. The controversy surrounding Khelif’s Olympic gold has led to renewed calls for more stringent and transparent gender eligibility criteria to ensure fair competition in women’s sports.

The inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports raises difficult questions about the balance between fairness and inclusivity. While the number of transgender athletes in elite sports is small, their impact on competition is worryingly disproportionate, leading many to call for a re-evaluation of current policies.

The history of women’s sports is one of struggle and hard-fought victories. Title IX, passed in 1972, marked a significant milestone in the fight for gender equality in sports, leading to a dramatic increase in female participation at all levels of competition. Today, women athletes continue to break barriers and achieve new heights, but the inclusion of transgender women in their categories threatens to roll back these gains.

In conclusion, the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports is a complex and contentious one. It is very important to protect the integrity of women’s sports and ensure that female athletes have a fair chance to compete. As this debate continues, sports organizations must find a balanced solution that upholds the principles of fairness, safety, and equality for all athletes. Creating separate categories for men, women, and transgender athletes could be a viable way to achieve this balance, allowing everyone to compete on a level playing field.

#women #Sports #swimming #imanekhelif #Olympics #olympics2024 #transgender #fairness #equality #hormones #testosterone #FairPlay #WomenInSports #EqualityInSports #ProtectWomensSports #SportsDebate #GenderEquality #AthleteRights #SportsFairness #TitleIX #BiologyInSports #TransInSports #LevelPlayingField #SportsJustice #AthleteAdvocacy #SportEthics #women #sports #womensrights 

 

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

This year marks the Indian presidency of the G20. India plans to use this to create a unified global health accelerator whereby the world is united in its health preparedness to tackle global emergencies efficiently.

One of the first tweets that I have seen from the government rightfully focussed on antimicrobial resistance and creating an awareness about it in the form of a quiz. Since this is such an important topic, I am writing this article to put down some thoughts on AMR, causes and effective ways of dealing with it. 

What is antimicrobial resistance (AMR)? 

AMR happens when microbes of any kind (bacterial, viral or fungal) develop mechanisms that help them to evolve, thereby resisting the effects of the antimicrobial medicine used against them. That means they can't be easily destroyed and treating them in a patient becomes very hard or sometimes impossible, leading unfortunately to death!

Main cause of AMR?

Mainly overuse or misuse of antimicrobials by individuals for themselves, in farming and livestock rearing are all causes. 

Another major cause is improper disposal of:

• Unused antimicrobials
• Water and waste segregation that does not focus on the leaching of medicines into the environment

Why is AMR a cause for concern?

From data in 2019, about 700,000 people die of infections caused due to resistant pathogens every year world over.

In addition to this, the pollution of our environment and water due to improper disposal of unused antimicrobials is also another big problem, leading to further AMR being developed by all kind of microbes leading to creation of 'superbugs'. 

What corrective measures/awareness is required in an individual capacity?

1. Antibiotics should only be consumed when absolutely required and prescribed by a doctor. They should also be taken in the right way, the right dosage and completion of a full course, as not doing this could also lead to AMR. 
2. Disposal of antimicrobial drugs - Please read more about the individual drug and manufacturer's recommendations. Some have take-back policies, some have collection sites to receive drugs back, mail-back programs, or recommended safe options to discard at home. 

However, not all countries have these options and many governments do not require pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for the proper disposal of unused/expired medicines. 

Need of the hour?

Humankind now needs governments, with their policies in place and pharma companies, with their moral & ethical responsibility to step up and do the needful. 

In India for example, The Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) Rules, 2016 categorises expired drugs rightfully as 'domestic hazardous waste' and mandates that they be segregated, stored in separate bins and disposed in line with the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 that mandate that the drugs be incinerated at high temperatures.

Unfortunately, due to poor enforcement of the MSWM policies, there is poor management of hazardous waste, including unused/expired drugs & antimicrobials in the country. Waste segregation is an important area for the country where there is a lot of improvement, but policies have to be made clear and their implementation tight to bring everything together to fruition. 

Shared responsibility:

This responsibility for safe discarding of medicines however cannot begin and end with governments alone. Pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers and distributers of medicines, hospitals and any other relevant industry partners should step up and this should be considered a legal responsibility. Very importantly, this properly defined method/flow of medicines will also prevent illegal secondary trade of controlled use medicines.

Other important government stakeholders like pollution control boards, drug regulation boards and other important groups in society are also going to play a vital role in proper implementation of responsibility on the ground! Transparent and well-defined policies and procedures will be vital if this is to be successful.

The above issues are true of many developed and most developing countries, and one would hope that the efforts of the G20 in unifying healthcare response also tastes success in implementing certain universal policies such as safe disposal of antimicrobials to safeguard our environment.

#G20 #G20health #antimicrobials #antimicrobialresistance #antibiotics #antibioticresistance #AMR #governments #policies #law #legal #responsibility #sustainability #socialresponsibility #India #water #land #environment #pollution #waste #wastesegregation #pharmaceuticals #health #implementation #management

From Darkness to (moon)Light - India's Services Sector in Need of Enlightenment

"A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world." - Oscar Wilde

What is Moonlighting? 

Very simply put, people taking up extra work other than their full-time job, which is traditionally expected to be 9 to 5, without informing their current employer, is called moonlighting. 

Recently this whole discussion came to the fore in India when Wipro's chairman Rishad Premji tweeted "There is a lot of chatter about people moonlighting in the tech industry. This is cheating - plain and simple."

Following this, last week, Wipro also sacked 300 employees stating the same reason, further explaining that they also worked for Wipro's competitors. Following suit, TCS, Infosys and IBM have also warned their employees that moonlighting is unethical and will lead to disciplinary action or even termination. 

However, Tech Mahindra CEO, C P Gurnani, recently said that it is required to change with the times and also said, "I welcome disruption in the ways we work". 

India's Union minister of State for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, yesterday joined this debate by tweeting in support of employees moonlighting if they wish to use their skills and time to expand their work, which will also help the country with talent deficit. He has strongly recommended companies to embrace this change and not to suppress talent & the very intention to innovate.

Satya Nadella, the CEO of Micrsoft, went one step further and coined a new term "Productivity Paranoia", which is companies feeling their employees are not being their productive best, leading to unwelcome activities such as spying on the employees. Microsoft firmly believes that employee surveillance is just wrong and in today's hybrid work models, to bridge the gap between what employers and employees want is of utmost importance. Employers should in fact be more concerned about employee burn-out as worktime and 'other' time have completely blurred following the imposed WFH culture due to the pandemic.

It is my opinion that people must have the freedom to work on what they want in their own time (i.e. time not paid for by an employer). Most companies do have 'Non-disclosure' agreements (NDAs) and ‘Non-compete’ clauses (NCCs) in work contracts which employees commit to, which should cover any ethical concerns. Employees on the other hand could avoid conscientiously working for a direct competitor and should definitely not engage in unethical practices which will only spoil it for everyone as seen in the case of Wipro. 

Of concern, however, is in the loose definition of 'competitor'. Big conglomerates could even consider a start-up as competition and thus stop employees from utilising their private time to work pretty much anywhere within a sector which would otherwise benefit from access to their skills. This could be the primary reason for employees to leave other work undisclosed. 

It should be deemed unethical for companies to have a blanket contract that prohibits employees from taking up any other paid work. Not only is this treatment of employees as bonded labour antediluvian, but it is also plain unconscionable and does not fit in a digitally mobile world, especially post COVID! Employees must stand up for their rights, including that of privacy, and reject such contracts. NDAs and NCCs, on the other hand, need to be rational and clearly articulate a company’s terms, which must be explained to prospective/current employees, giving them a fair chance to accept, come clean, or reject the terms. Such mechanism can help mitigate perceived threats of moonlighting and develop an atmosphere of trust in which employees are self-motivated to ensure ethical conduct and can feel safe disclosing their other commitments. 

 More than policies and policing, it is a company’s culture which will define whether moonlighting becomes a threat or an engine of positive transformation for both employer and the employee.