May 15, 2008
‘Should an award for female entrepreneurs be given to someone who used to be a man?’
I am on a panel of judges for an award for female entrepreneurs. We have just interviewed the short-listed candidates, most of whom were unimpressive. The most promising of these admitted during interview that she had had a sex change two years ago: until then she was a man.
I feel this disqualifies her as she was not a woman when she founded the business. I also feel that by not putting this relevant fact on the form she was deceiving us. Therefore I am inclined to disqualify her. The other judges on the panel do not agree and say that as the strongest candidate she deserves the award. Which of us is right?
Manager, male, 53
Lucy’s Answer
If you want to be pedantic about it – and it seems that you do – you could start by asking yourself whether she is a woman now. The answer to this is no, she isn’t. However she has had operations so that she can pass off as one and be treated as one. This means, surely, that she is eligible to enter this competition.
The next question is whether it matters that she was a man when she started the business. I don’t think it does. Evidently she wasn’t terribly happy with being one, so I can see no harm in stretching a point.
You say that you give her a black mark for not having been straight about it. I give you a black mark for having had that thought. What did you expect? That she would put full details of all operations she has had on the forms? The point is that she has changed her gender, which is a private matter for her and her doctor.
If you are still unhappy, reassure yourself with the thought that prizes are very silly things and the best person hardly ever wins. At least in this case you won’t be disappointing a brilliant born-woman candidate who deserves it, as you say the other candidates were feeble. This makes me think your prize is particularly silly: when I judged a similar award, there were lots of really good women entrepreneurs on the shortlist.
The others judges have already decided that you are a pedant, a meanie or a bigot. They may wonder, as I do, what principle you are defending: do you fear that, if you let this one through, lots of men will have sex changes just to get one of these awards? Give the award to her and stop worrying about it.
I’m afraid you are in a lose/lose situation (Lucy pls forgive me): if you disqualify her, you will be crucified for gender discrimination; if you don’t, you’ll be crucified because she doesn’t really fit the awards’ requirements. Only solution: resign from the jury and let your collegues (who don’t seem to be so concerned about it) deal with it.
Banker, male, 41
Posted by: Enrico | May 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am | Report this commentIn Canada a few years a woman who had previously been a man won the women’s downhill mountain bike championship. The woman who came second made a great fuss, believing that the person who beat her had had all the advantages of a men’s genes and hormones to build muscles while growing up. As a result the woman who came second was disqualified for unsporting behaviour. The mountain bike community was divided over this issue and probably still is.
I think given our current social climate and attitudes to diversity you should award her the prize. Whether by being born a man originally gave her an advantage to win the prize is a deep and devisive question that you won’t get agreement on. However, she is now a woman and therefore entitled to compete for this prize.
Posted by: James, 25, male, consultant. | May 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am | Report this commentNo. Where do you draw the line? What does a ’sex change’ mean anyway? I think I might claim to have had one and go and earn big money of the Women’s PGA golf tour.
Posted by: Paul | May 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am | Report this commentI think you should award her the prize. If the purpose of the prize is to appreciate the constraints that women have in succeeding in the ‘man’s world’, then for a person who has succeeded having undergone a sex change must surely be admired and respected. She must have had to deal was least as much, if not more, of all the negative comment and general discrimination that women have to deal with. Go on - give her the prize.
Posted by: Rob, IT Manager | May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am | Report this commentGet legal advice if you want to disqualify her.
Posted by: Mark | May 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am | Report this commentThe position of a 53 year old male on a panel to judge female entrepreneurs is precarious to say the least. If I was you I would keep my head down and back the judgement of your peers, who are women I would hope.
I hardly imagine she was deceiving you when she claimed to be a woman on her form. It sounds as if she is a woman and, if she was prepared to have an operation to affirm this, she has felt this way for a long time.
Presumably there is no competition for “Best entrepreneur who has recently had a sex-change operation”, so she entered the competition which is the closest fit - although why anybody male or female would want such an award is beyond me. Real entrepreneurs are creating wealth, not entering competitions. And what would motivate anybody to serve on the jury for such a competition is beyond me.
I suspect you are pulling Lucy’s leg, and mine, and neither your candidate or your dilemma really exist.
Chris, male, 55, VP
Posted by: chris johnson | May 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentThe point is, she’s a woman now so she should therefore be eligible for the award - unless there’s some stipulation in the rules that entrants must have been a woman for a certain period of time before entering… which strikes me as unlikely. Frankly, I think that any advantage you consider her to have had as a man while establishing her business is likely to have been outweighed by the significant turmoil and upset she will have been through during the gender reassignment process. If, on top of that, she has managed to do well in business too then it strikes me that she probably does deserve an award!
Posted by: Andy | May 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am | Report this commentManager, male, 53 - if your query is indeed real (I echo Chris Johnson’s sentiments) then it reeks of prejudice.
Firstly, you display remarkable disdain for the short-listed candidates by referring to them as ‘unimpressive’.
Going on to use the highly subjective words ‘admitted’ and ‘deceiving’ in relation to the one entrepreneur who does seem to meet your terribly high standards reveals a degree of sexism on your part. You then compound this by inferring that this individual had an unfair advantage in the context of this award because she was born male.
If you disqualified her she would probably say that she went through the sex-change process because she had always felt that she was female, just born in a body of the wrong gender, hardly to ‘hoodwink’ some middle-aged bloke into giving her an award.
Incidentally, I have a bit of a problem with all-female awards of this sort anyway. In my opinion they’re a bit patronising and ghetto-ise women’s achievements - shouldn’t people’s achievements stand for themselves regardless of their gender (current or previous), and therefore be recognised and awarded as such?
Posted by: GLH, female, manager | May 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm | Report this commentRecuse yourself from the jury. Opening this can of worms is a waste of your time and energy.
Posted by: Andrew | May 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Report this commentThese awards don’t mean a great deal to start with (personally I tend to hold them against people, rather than congratulate them). Though I would guess that it was set up to highlight that women get a rawer deal in the businessplace than men. If so, then do you reckon a transsexual gets it any easier? Probably not, in which case the individual has overcome those discreetly raised hurdles this award is aimed at highlighting.
Posted by: Mike, 33 | May 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentSounds like a ceremony promoting sexual elitism. Is the entrepreneur in question attractive? If so, you should give her the award and take her to dinner.
Posted by: Brian | May 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this commentWhat is the purpose? Not just to give an award to a woman, but also to recognize how difficult it is as a woman become a successful entrepreneur. It makes a difference to be a woman for a life rather than becoming a woman.
Hence:
Posted by: Holly | May 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm | Report this comment1. give the award to someone else
2. if the panel is still divided, create a special award from this year onwards to the “second best”, ie something to be given to the man-woman, if you think it deserves (the equivalent of a “certain regard” for Cannes film festival)
3. Change the rules of the awards by saying that each contestant need to be born woman.
Good luck
This must be a joke.
Posted by: jin | May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentTo disqualify is no more discriminatory than is the general purpose of the competition in question.
Entrepreneurship is surely to a large extent about initiative and risk-taking, factors which are particularly acute in the founding stages of a business. Sounds like the business was founded by a man.
One would have hoped that such a candidate might have erred on the side of full disclosure when submitting her form.
Posted by: Andrew | May 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm | Report this commentDo we still need awards for successful female entreprennuers? The most important award is success.
Posted by: FPS, male, manager | May 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this commentRead the rules - there must be a definition of who is eligible to enter!
Posted by: John | May 15th, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this commentNo amount of surgery or oestrogen can change a male human into a female human. The person remains an XY chromosome-type, does not acquire a womb and cannot produce eggs. What can be changed is the person’s gender - the way s/he is treated in cultural, social and legal contexts. Hence the technical term Gender Reassignment rather than Sex Change.
Posted by: Greg 43 male ex-GP | May 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentSo, if a male tennis player has a ’sex change’ then wants to compete in women’s tournaments he can’t because men are better at tennis as they tend to be bigger and stronger. The rules protect the physically weaker females. If the implication is that female entrepreneurs need special prizes because they are not as entrepreneurial as males then this candidate should be disqualified.
On the other hand, if the award is a celebration of endeavour on the part of people whom society allows to wear skirts and make-up at work, or have a particular body shape, or who use the nicer of the two bathrooms, she’s the woman!
The whole notion of giving an award based on gender is ridiculous. An award should be given on merit alone regardless of the physical attributes of the candidate.
If the candidate in question is legally a woman and fulfils the criteria set out by the selection committee, refusing her an award would amount to gender discrimination.
If the manager in question has doubts about giving this award, then he/she really lacks the skills and decision making ability of a manager - not to mention the aplomb and broad-mindedness of a successful professional.
Posted by: mtlyorel | May 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm | Report this commentIt depends upon what is being evaluated when issuing the award.
If starting a business is a very important part of the award, then she should be disqualified because she didn’t have the normal issues to go through that a woman does when starting a business
However, these last two or three years have been horrifically difficult for her due to her sex change causing her to have even more obstacles to overcome maintaining her business than the average female entrepreneur. If these latest years have more weight for the issuance of the award, then she deserves the award.
Posted by: KC | May 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm | Report this commentWho in their right mind would have sex change in the world of business. There is no conceivable advantage to being a woman in the testosterone driven world of enterprise where balls are all that count.
Don’t make the award, this person is clearly not bright enough to realise they have shot themselves in the foot.
AmyB, 30-something, stay-at-home-mum
Posted by: amy barton | May 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm | Report this commentWhy do you have the awards in the first place? Isn’t to recognise not just the achievement but the humanity behind that achievement? The fact that the candidate was honest and comfortable enough to reveal her circumstances is reason enough for commendation.
If you still doubt her eligibility, then you do not belong in the judging panel.
Posted by: Irwin,33,teacher | May 16th, 2008 at 1:17 am | Report this commentCan’t you smell a rat?
Look at your candidate’s incentives for applying for this award.
As far as I can tell, there are only two possible reasons that your candidate has applied for an entrepreneurship award specifically for women (as opposed to a non-gender-specific award).
The first is that he/she is looking to fulfil a deep psychological need for either acceptance or reassurance, a need that probably played a part in driving him/her to seek a gender reassignment in the first place.
The second, and the one that should cause you grave concern, is that he/she may in fact be setting the bait for a discrimination case.
I suspect that this is only one of many competitions, societies or scholarships specifically for women that your candidate will attempt to join.
If you do not give him/her the award, you risk being sued, particularly as your decision will have followed the revelation of his/her gender reassignment, despite the fact that he/she is indeed the strongest candidate.
Unfortunately, if you do give him/her the award, you risk turning your award into a farce and may find less women applying in the future.
I suggest extracting yourself from the situation as soon and as quietly as possible.
Alternatively, find a stronger candidate.
Ben, 25, male, Business Analyst
Posted by: Ben | May 16th, 2008 at 2:50 am | Report this commentwhy don`t you give her the award? Are there any special rules that do not allow those who changed sex participate in the competition? You should have discussed this issue with others before everything started and introduced this limitation that such “male females” do not even become candidates. But if now he (or she?) is a woman, why don`t you assess her business skills and professional background?
Posted by: Anna, 23, fmale, markt analyst | May 16th, 2008 at 5:48 am | Report this commentYour female entrepreneur award is, frankly, completely dwarfed by her (presumably successful) personal transition while maintaining a successful business profile (by definition successful, if she has made your shortlist).
However, doesn’t this story and your conundrum tell you something else? Maybe you should not be basing an award on gender at all.
Posted by: Mark, 41, manager | May 16th, 2008 at 8:27 am | Report this commentFor running such a stupid competion you’ve got exactly what you deserved.
Give me the award instead. I’ll wear lipstick if you like.
Posted by: Dave, male, LIFFE local | May 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am | Report this commentYou should give this woman the award. Any man who undergoes gender reassignment must, by definition, have been feeling like a woman and behaving like a woman for years - or maybe even for his/her entire life, irrespective of the body s/he happens to have been born in. So what is the problem?
Posted by: Andrew, 52, male, journalist | May 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentI draw the conclusion that it is irrational to award prizes limited to female entrepreneurs.
Posted by: Ian Slater | May 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this commentDave, male, LIFFE local comes close to getting this right - speaking as a TS woman who runs a business, I now come to recognise myself as having been female for many years.
Also a point to bear in mind is that SRS, Sex Reassignment Surgery, is a major operation physically, and the cultural shift from presenting as male to presenting as female is a major change of lifestyle. If someone can absorb those physical and cultural changes and develop a successful business then they deserve all respect possible.
@KC/Amy - sometimes we don’t have a choice - wish it was that simple.
@John - I disagree. Many would suggest gender is fixed, but perhaps not realised at birth. I consider my gender to be female, and to always have been female, notwithstanding I was born with a male body, genitals and reproductive system. These, the physical parts I can change, the inner person I can’t. In essence gender is between the ears, sex between the legs.
Posted by: Jess 40 Transwoman, MD of small business | May 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm | Report this commentFirstly, to put people straight, women who where formerly biologically men do compete perfectly legitimately in professional and amateur sports alike. The IOC ruled some time ago on the matter and as far as I’m aware all sporting organisations both international an national have now followed their lead. Naturally, there are certain rules which have to be met, in relation to elapsed time between GRS (gender reassignment surgery) and competition and the participant’s body chemistry must match that of a natal female.
In relation to the question posed, I can see no reason why a transsexual woman shouldn’t qualify for the prize. This is an issue of entrepreneurship, not succeeding in a male dominated business environment, and surely no one is suggesting that entrepreneurship is gender specific. Given no transsexual woman would go thorough the huge trauma involved in transition and surgery if for most of her life she hadn’t felt herself a woman in mind if not in body she should be afforded the same privileges afforded to those fortunate enough to have been born in a body which matched their true gender.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm | Report this commentWhat are the rules for the award? Is there a requirement that it goes to a woman who starts and then builds a business, or has shown the entrepreneurial spirit and accomplishments in owning a business? If it’s for starting one, then why is she qualified? She transistioned after that, so she’s not eligible. If the other, she is qualified, and should be considererd.
Another issue is how long since she started and built her business before going through her transistion, and the changes in the business during her transistion. Since going through a transition has a huge impact on a person and business owner, she might be given the award for her entrepreneurial spirit not only keeping but improving her business through her transistion.
Another issue is if she is given the award how would the other women feel about the circumstances of her business? How would giving the award to a recently transistioned woman be received by the women business owners in the community? Business women who have transistioned have won awards on their merit as women, but it could be a issue requiring further explanation in the announcement.
Posted by: Scott | May 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentHello again.
Posted by: Greg 43 male ex-GP | May 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentThis whole discussion is really stimulating!
I wanted to come back to transgender people and sport. The International Olympic Committee has indeed issued recommendations which lean very much towards equality. However they were primarily looking at athletes who were born with rare medical problems which meant that their gender was not clear at birth and which was changed in childhood as a result of surgery. The question of adults, particularly man-to-woman reassignment, is left open to case-by-case scrutiny. Organisers of competitions with nominal prizes might well decide to move with the times. I’d be surprised if any tournaments with huge cash prizes have allowed such athletes to compete, particularly ones where stature and strength are crucial.
To answer Greg. For example, Mianne Bagger, professional golfer, won the right to play not only for herself but for all post op transsexual golfers on the US, British and Australian ladies professional circuits, this includes both the US and UK open ladies championships, big money enough I think you’d agree. There are others in other sports too.
Posted by: Jennifer, 54 female MD | May 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentIn my opinion - the fact that she has gone through a lot and had it harder than a born woman does not in itself qualify her for the competition. It could also be argued that a black disabled businessman had gone through more so should be allowed in. For me the only possible justification for letting her in could be that she IS a woman, not that she has had it as hard as one.
So is she? As the competition rules are likely to be silent on this point I can see two possible ways to decide:
1. You should go with law of the land. Does the government consider her a woman for things like retirement age or maternity leave were she to adopt a newborn? Were she to fall in love with a man would she have a marriage or a civil partnership? When I lived in the UK she wouldn’t have been considered a woman legally, but things may have moved on since then and in that case it would be very risky for your committee to overrule the government and disqualify her (especially if your award is publicly-funded in some way). If it’s still the same as before then you should probably disqualify him/her and state that you would accept entries from transsexuals in the future if and when the government takes a lead.
2. Think about how you understand the following words:
businessman, investor, entrepreneur, manager, owner. Of course they all have some similarities in meaning and some differences. In my opinion entrepreneurship is about creating something from nothing and so the award should be focussed on the start-up phase during which the candidate was pre-op. Does that disqualify her? We heard from Jess that sex is the outward biological signs that people see whereas gender is between the ears. You then have to ask yourself if your committee has created this award for women because it believes they have a disadvantage in terms of how society sees them in which case disqualify her. If, on the other hand, your committee has created the award because it believes women have a disadvantage in terms of what they have between their ears then she’s qualified to win. If, on the third hand, the reason is because women have difficulties balancing family and work, but you haven’t made this explicitly one of the conditions for winning then you shouldn’t be surprised to find the strongest candidate is a non-mother who doesn’t have this disadvantage.
I agree with some others that prizes for business are silly in themselves though and for women’s business more so. Perhaps the certificate can be hung up on the wall as a consolation for someone whose actual annual accounts are not good enough to put up on the wall.
Posted by: Richard, language school director, Slovakia, 30 | May 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Report this commentDear Lucy,
Frankly in this day and age in a Western-style economy, the idea of having a special award for female entrepreneurs seems rather ridiculous. The case in point highlights the inherent ridiculous nature of this sexual discrimination. Perhaps consideration should be first given to why males are excluded from the award in the first place. Open the award and this issue would go away.
If women feel that sexual discrimination is unacceptable, perhaps they could start by ceasing to propogate it?
In case you think I am a rabid misogynisit, at my last company I promoted or recruited 2 women for my three immediate reports and one I am delighted to say is now my very capable successor as Managing Director.
Dallas, 48, male, director
Posted by: Dallas Reid | May 17th, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentIt clearly shows you are the one with a problem, your conscience is troubled about accepting this individual as a women. You “feel” deceived, while its her right not to discuss her sexual orientation or make-up; its personal unless asked. The induvidual clearly considers herself a women. You are involving your moral judgements into the situation, are they part of the criteria?
Posted by: Bafana | May 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am | Report this commentDidn’t anyone ever tell you to not judge a book by it’s cover? As far as gender goes, this woman has always been a woman. As far as sex goes, until two years this woman was trapped in the wrong body - imagine how that must have felt! I shared a house with a transsexual last year, and I have to say, they have it a lot worse off than most people think. Despite people like you being prejudiced towards her, this woman has not only founded a successful business, but also coped with transitioning from her unwanted male body to her desired female body. Let’s face it, not only do you consider her the best candidate, but you didn’t realise that she used to be a man. Sounds like she’s been very successful with both! Give her the award.
21, male, Computer Science student.
Posted by: Brian Beckett | May 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Report this commentIf you were handing out an award for British entrepreneurs, would you exclude someone who only became a British citizen two years ago? Your letter is a feeble attempt to hide your intolerance. That the candidate used to be a man is irrelevant. She is a woman now, so give her the award because she deserves it.
Civil servant, male, 40
Posted by: Fred | May 19th, 2008 at 6:44 am | Report this commentThis is simple. This person is not a “woman.” Gender is not manufactured or engineered. It is given at birth. Therefore, someone who had an operation to mimic another gender is simply that. A person who had an operation to mimic another gender. A person who possess a certain gender through the miracles of science and engineering can never truly be a biological fact as far as the second gender is concerned. The person is always the primary gender (given at birth) but only has a surface resemblance to the secondary gender. Therefore I would have disqualified the transgender person. This person is biologically a man. The only way this could work is if, as a society, we all agree to change our definition of gender, male, female, woman and man. In which case all of these new permutations would work and then this transgender person can truly call himself, not transgender, but female/woman/she. Till such time as we change the definition, this person is a man and does not deserve to win the competition if the criteria is that those who are competing should be “women.” I hope this doesn’t offend. But this is how I view this particular quagmire.
Posted by: Marion T.D. Lewis | May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am | Report this commentIt is amazing the things people are prepared to go through for a prize.
Is the award an annual thing? Is your choice of candidate based on things which he/she has done in the past year or are the years prior to the operation also being looked at? Obviously if all the outstanding achievements may be traced to the effort he put into his work before becoming a woman, than she doesn’t deserve the award. However, if you can say that at least 51% of the amazingness relates to work done after the operation, then you must award this woman her prize. Indeed, it would go to show that being a woman improved the business’ perspectives. Maybe more will follow suit in an effort to do better.
You may, however, be facing a prize-fraud issue here, also known as ’sex-change for award’ scandal, on the increase I am told. If you think you have evidence that your candidate underwent the operation with the award in mind, maybe you should contemplate legal action.
I am surprised your panel doesn’t foresee this type of problem.
Posted by: Kismet, 26, female, professional amateur | May 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am | Report this commentIs she officially a man? Was she a man when she applied for the competition? Did you specify in the rules that women born men are not welcome?
If the answer is “non”, then you’ve got no choice but to let her in.
Personnally, I’m revolted that you might disqualify people who actually have the guts to do something about their identity dilemma. Maybe there is a reason why your competition attracts lemons.
Posted by: coco, 36, male, COO | May 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Report this commentThis person is a girl. She has probably gone through years of counselling and psychological tests to prove this. I wouldn’t question it unless you wish to be called all sorts of stuff you won’t like. But I would question what sex she succeded as : did she make it big as a man or as a woman? Before or after the operation? This wouldn’t in any way have changed your candidate (except making her much happier) but it would change the attitudes of the people surrounding her such as her patrons, sponsors, clients, backers and so on. Good luck!
Posted by: Alex, 28, PA female | May 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentWhat’s so frightening about awarding this lady who has quite obviously distanced herself from her prior life? How is it deception when she is now infact in her true self..She would’ve been deceiving if she continued her life as a male and entered an all-male contest.
Posted by: 28, female | May 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentKismet… Are you certain about that 51%? What if she was sort of half sure during part of the prize period? What if for a day she fancied being a horse?
Pressing questions…
Posted by: Dave, male, LIFFE local | May 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentIn reply to Fred’s question about British entrepreneurs.
I don’t know about the correspondent but I would disqualify someone who became a citizen after the phase of business when they had displayed the entrepreneurship and had simply managed the business as a citizen so I don’t have a problem with this analogy.
If the award was for being a good employer (i.e. related in a large way to how the person is now and not how they were before) I would not do this however.
By the way, does anyone know if transgender individuals are now legally recognised as their new gender in Britain?
Also, does anyone know if there is any science behind the idea that we all have some male and some female elements to our psyche?
Posted by: Richard, language school director, Slovakia, 30 | May 19th, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Report this commentDave… We don’t want to know whether, on the balance of probabilities, the candidate was more of a man or more of a woman during the relevant timeframe. However, we do need to ascertain whom between the man and the woman in this candidate is most reponsible for the quality of the praised work. For this purpose, and to keep things simple, we shall assume that he was a man until he had the operation, and that any business prowess he displayed until then he did so as a man. Whether or not he or she dreamt or dreams of being a horse, and the occurrence of such a dream or any other similar dream if they exist is neither here nor there, it is simply irrelevant. It is also likely that most entrepreneurs fantasize about being an animal at some stage of their development, but you’ll find few to admit to it.
Unless you can have the candidate admitting that most of her work was done when she/he was under the impression that he/she was a horse, then you’ve got simply nothing to go on. Even if you did, in my view the sex of the candidate is the determining factor. Lie detectors could be used if you wanted to make your point, but as these are costly procedures, why go through with it unless you have at least an inkling that this is in fact what might be going on. As the problem doesn’t seem to mention horses, then we should probably assume they do not need to be taken into account.
Posted by: Kismet, 26, female, professional amateur | May 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentThey are recognised. Infact it is illegal to tell others that a person used to be the opposite sex.
Posted by: Clare | May 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentAlso the birth certificate can be changed to show the new sex.
Posted by: Clare | May 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Report this commentOn the subject of Mianne Bagger, the trans-gender golfer, Jennifer is quite correct that Mianne has competed in top-level ladies’ golf tournaments. However, that is golf, not tennis or the 100 yard dash. Golf doesn’t look like a sport where it’s an advantage to have a skeletal system that was formed under the influence of testosterone (personally, I’m saving golf until I hit middle age). Then again, why have different golf competitions for women?
Posted by: Greg 43 male ex-GP | May 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentThe wheel has come full circle…
You say her competition is not up to grade, so she is the best choice.
You also say that not declaring her sex-change operation should disqualify her. Not so - she probably is legally entitled not to declare it, as after all it is irrelevant to her business performance. And business performance should be what entrepreneurship, and the award, is about.
Posted by: Female, 35, Engineer | May 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentThese kind of events are fairly small worlds. You have provided enough information to identify the contest, the contestant in question and possibly yourself. Either this was your intention, in which case there might have been a more subtle way to raise the issue, or it was not your intention, in which case you need to learn to count to ten before airing private doubts in the national press.
Posted by: Director (male) 39 | May 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Report this commentThanks Clare. In that case, assuming the candidate has applied for the new birth certificate under the act (I looked this up, it’s the Gender Recognition Act 2004) then our correspondent would be taking a huge risk to unilaterally decide the law is wrong and disqualify her.
Still no answer to my question about whether we think we have such contests for women only because we think women have a disadvantage in terms of their outward appearance causing discrimination, they alck something between the ears or because they frequently have to do more to balance family commitments.
Here is the link to the act
Posted by: Richard, language school director, Slovakia, 30 | May 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040007_en_1#pb2-l1g11
This is an interesting question whether it is real or not. My personal view, as a woman entrepreneur, is that the fact that she was not a woman when she started the business disqualifies her from obtaining the entrepreneurship award for a business she started as a man. Whether or not he “felt” like a woman is irrelevant – to the rest of the world, this entrepreneur was a man. Let’s say the truth: there are still so many barriers for women in business. To start the business as a man means to have started with a different advantage, something that other women entrepreneurs cannot ever have. And the start-up phase is the most difficult one. The candidate will certainly have faced challenges as a new woman later on, but these are not the same challenges faced by the typical female entrepreneur.
I knew someone at a company I worked at 20 years ago who had a sex change from male to female – after the sex change, she became the highest ranking woman in the company. And you know what she said? She could not have gotten so far without having first been a man.
If the other judges deem this sex-change candidate to be the strongest one, then what message is being sent by giving her the award? That the best women entrepreneurs start off as men? Yeah, that’s what I always thought was maybe the key to winning in business after all.
Monica, 42, Female, Managing Director
Posted by: Monica | May 21st, 2008 at 11:30 pm | Report this commentPresumably competitions like this are less about rewarding, as such, the already successful, more about highlighting success, to encourage others, and so promote diversity. If, as a society, we now (rightly) recognise trans women as women, then surely it is valid to make an example of this woman, to encourage others, perhaps especially other trans women? Whether or not the fact she started her business as a man gave her some kind of ‘advantage’ is kind of beside the point.
Posted by: Cat, 26, Female, Ph.D. student | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Report this commentWhat most people are failing to recognise is that transsexualism is not defined by an operation, it is a life long thing. Even if she had not had SRS before starting the business, she was still a woman in heart and mind, if not in body. If a piece of flesh between the legs is all that some people allow to define ones gender / sex, then they obviously have no understanding of gender identity disorder and its consequences. It is time that you all started reading up on it, it is more than likely that there is already a gender variant person within each of your companies, you just don’t know it yet.
Posted by: Cathii, 37, MtF pre-op transsexual, Systems Analyst | May 25th, 2008 at 4:45 am | Report this commentIn the United Kingdom, gender is determined by what is recorded on ones birth certificate or, since 2004, whether one has been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate by the Gender Recognition Panel of the United Kingdom. The GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) can be used to correct ones birth certificate although this is not required
1) Does the lady in question posses a birth certificate which denotes a female gender marker?
2) Does the lady in question possess a GRC which declares her to be female?
If the answer to either or both questions is yes, then she is female
As to whether some down and out GP or some ‘bloke in the boozer’ thinks she is female is frankly irrelevant and has no bearing on reality or the law of the land
Posted by: Joseph | May 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am | Report this commentOh, and by the way, it is illegal (a criminal offence) to divulge information about a person’s earlier gender if this information is acquired in a professional capacity, to a third-party or the media, etc
I am not entirely certain but along-with a criminal record one can be fined upto £5,000; that would indeed take care of the prize money on offer
Posted by: Joseph | May 25th, 2008 at 9:05 am | Report this commentI accept that being a transsexual is lifelong thing on the inside and is more important than the piece of flesh but…
… if the award is meant to balance a specific kind of discrimination based on the piece of flesh and if you weren’t subject to that specific kind of discrimination then I don’t accept you should be eligible for the award.
If it is meant to balance discrimination in general then it should be open to all victims of discrimination not only those who experienced it because their outward appearance was female, or who experienced it because their inner psychology was female.
However, the law is different. Business is likely not to count as a “gender-affected sport” under the act (which raises the question of why the award is necessary) so the correspondent has to go along with the idea that the person is female, assuming they have a GRC. If they don’t have a GRC then they will be disqualified for (among other things) applying under a false name.
Posted by: Richard, language school director, Slovakia, 30 | May 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentI think I have the solution with which Solomon would have come up.
Posted by: gwilym rhys-jones | May 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am | Report this commentAward her or him the prize for achievement and afterwards disqualify her or him for deception.
The law in the United Kingdom does not require anyone who has a female sounding name to possess a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) declaring her female. Infact, I could change my name tomorrow, to a male sounding name, by simply stating a wish to do so; don’t even require a deed poll. The question of deception does not arise
According to the Gender Recognition Panel, persons who are affected by gender dysphoria (proven by medical examinations), must live in their acquired gender for a minimum period of two years before they qualify to apply for a GRC
At the start of this two year mandatory period, they must change all their documentation (except for the birth certificate) to their new name and gender (for a male-to-female transgender person, their passports are reissued with the female gender marker, the driver number on their driving licence is recoded and the licence reissued to reflect their acquired gender, new NHS Medical Numbers are issued, etc)
Once the GRC is issued, then a male-to-female transgender person is female and has all the protection under the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) as amended in 1999
She can take someone to court if she is asked to produce her GRC or birth certificate unless it is a requirement for everyone to prove their gender too by producing their birth certificates or other such documentation; otherwise, she would be discriminated against
Furthermore, she could even work in a rape-crises centre or under PACE rules, strip-search other women (let alone be eligible for some award being offered exclusively to women)
Is she a woman? If she possess a GRC then she is legally a woman. Full Stop! If she possess a GRC and has undergone Gender Reassignment Surgery/Sex Change Surgery/Genital Correction Surgery (whatever it is called today) then she is legally and anatomically a woman
There are many women who, either through a birth anomaly or because of a hysterectomy, do not have a uterus or ovaries. I would like to be a fly on the wall when some silly person tells them that they are not women
Even in the 21st century, gender is recorded on birth certificates through visual confirmation of what is ‘between our legs’. I am not aware of any chromosome biopsies being conducted on new-born babies to determine their gender
We, as human beings, do not interact with each other on a chromosome level but by what we can see, hear and touch (touch, within the law); and when we are ready to enter into a legally binding relationship (such as a marriage), by what is recorded on our birth certificates
I think that the situation described by the correspondent is just a ruse. It does not exist and is simply designed to get the bigots out of their shells to pour their hatred out
The fact of the matter is that any manager in any worthwhile company would have recourse to their HR department who would be fully aware of the Gender Recognition Act and the Sex Discrimination Act
Discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act, unlike this imaginary award, can result in an uncapped award to the plaintiff (a very recent award was for £250,000 for hurt feelings by the MoD to a person undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria)
If however, this is a real situation, then my advice to ‘Manager, male, 53′ is as follows:
Posted by: Josephine, female, 46, Local Government Officer | May 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am | Report this commentYou are in the wrong job for you are unaware of even the most basic legislation which has now been around for several years. Forget about this award for it will tax your intellect to limits hitherto unknown to you; in this case, stacking shelves is a recommended career move; good luck
Be thankful I’m not entering.
I’m Intersexed - body neither 100% male nor 100% female. My mind and (from the evidence) my brain has always been female. My appearance hasn’t though, not always. It is now, thank goodness!
Usually such apparent natural sex changes go the other way, from apparently female to apparently male, due to 5ARD syndrome or 17BHDD syndrome. Some can even become fathers after the change. Chromosomes aren’t affected, but body shape is.
The UK Gender Recognition Act is an excellent piece of legislation, but has a few holes in it to do with Intersexed people and expatriates. I’m both, so can never get my UK “boy” birth certificate changed. Unlike Kate, who I met in Chonburi, Thailand. She had her surgery just after me.
Hers was counted legally as Gender Reassignment Surgery, mine as Genital Reconstruction Surgery, as I’d already been diagnosed as biologically female. Well, more female than male, anyway. I can’t “pass” as a guy, not would I want to.
Transsexuality, the condition Kate lived with for so long, is usually fatal if not treated. That she managed to found a business despite an awful situation for any woman, the wrong-shaped body, should be grounds for extra points, not disqualification.
Against that… I took full advantage of Male Privilege when I was growing up. It was something of a consolation prize for decades of misery, before my shape normalised (mostly - the surgery did the rest). Even now, the number of Job offers I get with Zoe on my resume is less than when the exact same resume had Alan on. This privilege nowhere near makes up for the handicap of transsexuality, but proving that would be difficult to anyone who hasn’t gone through it.
For those who wonder whether Kate has “really” always been female, I’ll quote some scientific evidence about Transsexuality.
Zhou J.-N, Hofman M.A, Gooren L.J, Swaab D.F (1997)
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality.
Kruijver F.P.M, Zhou J.-N, Pool C.W., Swaab D.F. (2000)
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Her brain has always been female, even if the rest of the body wasn’t.
From the German Medical Journal ArzteZeitung 2005:
“Radiologists can now confirm what transsexuals report - that they feel “trapped in the wrong body” - on the basis of the activation of the brain when presented with erotic stimuli. There is obviously a biological correlation with the subjective feelings”
As other commenters have stated, the UK law now makes Kate legally female for all purposes. It also makes revealing her past illegal, and I was most surprised when Kate’s personal and private medical records were publicised by the FT.
The reason for this secrecy is obvious, given the sometimes ill-informed and occasionally malicious comments here. And of course, that a judge found it reasonable to disqualify her because of a past medical condition she was born with. One she managed at great personal cost to finally get cured.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | May 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am | Report this commentTwo final things - Kate’s picture did not do her justice, she looks far prettier than that. (Blonde, beautiful, svelte, rich, intelligent, did I mention I hate her?)
And my personal details. Age 50, Occupation Rocket Scientist (yes, really) and PhD Candidate studying Computer Science.
And as for gender, my UK and Australian passports both say “Female”, my UK Birth Certificate says “boy”, and my medical diagnosis is “severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman”.
In Australia, where same-sex marriage is illegal, I could only marry a man. In the UK, where same-sex marriage is also illegal, I could only marry another woman. I’m not confused about my gender, but the legal system certainly is.
It helps to have a sense of humour about this.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | May 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am | Report this commentWhat would a DNA test establish as to the sex of the applicant?
Posted by: Luke Smith | May 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment> Luke Smith
1) A DNA test is not required for she is already legally a woman, if her birth certificate or GRC states so
2) Asking a candidate within the civilised nations of the world (United Kingdom included) to undergo a DNA test to prove gender is illegal
3) A DNA test is not conclusive proof of anything where gender is concerned; few people on the surface of the planet are either 100% XY or 100% XX. A biopsy would prove one thing only and that is that the cells from the biopsy site are XX or XY (or even, possibly, a combination of both)
4) Even if the biopsy site revealed 100% XY, the subject could have a condition such as AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) which would render the test results completely useless
The solution is that some people who still live in the dark ages should re-evaluate their misconceptions regarding gender and do their utmost to educate themselves. We in the Western world regard racism, gender inequality, transphobia, etc as undesirable traits and therefore legislate against such acts
By the way, I am dismayed by the transphobia exhibited within some of the comments on this site. Calling this lady, “he”, “man-woman”, etc is transphobic abuse
We already have robust laws within this country to deal with such transphobic abuse; I believe that this falls under the category of a hate crime, just as referring to a black person using derogatory terms does
Posted by: Josephine, female, 46, Local Government Officer | May 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Report this commentZoe, what does it mean that transsexuality is usually fatal if not treated? Do you mean people commit suicide in more than 50 percent of cases?
Thanks Josephine for the helpful info, I had forgotten it was possible for a person to change their name anyway.
The one thing I disagree with is the following quote:
“If however, this is a real situation, then my advice to ‘Manager, male, 53′ is as follows:
You are in the wrong job for you are unaware of even the most basic legislation which has now been around for several years. Forget about this award for it will tax your intellect to limits hitherto unknown to you; in this case, stacking shelves is a recommended career move; good luck”
This is typical of coments people make on almost every topic basically along the lines of “if you are an X, then you should know alone how to solve this problem and as you are writing in, you should take a step down the career ladder”. Although not in this case there is usually the implication that the fact that the person is writing in shows that they are incompetent and are the root cause of the problem (for example “Dear Lucy, my boss says I’m indecisive, what should I do?”).
When I see these comments, I always think the following things:
Firstly, the person involved presumably earns immensely more as a manager than he would stacking shelves (or a level down in the company as is most often recommended) so would be foolish to take this advice.
Secondly, the correspondent may already have a fair idea of how to solve the problem and may be simply seeking confirmation, they could also have heard of it secondhand and be curious but not directly involved.
Thirdly (where it is implied that the correspondent is the root cause of the problem because if he wrote in he’s not up to a mangagement job), the problem is not likely to be totally unique and it’s also interesting to talk about what any person should do in a similar situation. Always knowing the answer is a mark of arrogance, knowing when to ask for help is an important skill for anyone.
Fourthly, many jobs require a wide range of skills and individuals are typically stronger and weaker in different areas. For example our manager should:
a) know the latest anti-discrimination legislation (although in his regular job the GRA 2004 is unlikely to come up often as people affected don’t normally declare that they could be discriminated against in this way)
b) know how to create value for his employer and their clients (of course this doesn’t apply working in local government).
c) have specialised knowledge about the particular industry his company operates in (also doesn’t apply working in local government).
He may be very strong in b) and c) and so be an asset to his company and a long way from being sacked or advised to do the decent thing and resign.
Of course b) and c) don’t apply in local government in the UK as the state has unlimited call on people’s private resources (here in Slovakia we can send a small percentage of our taxes direct to NGOs if we are not satisfied with the way the state solves problems but it’s basically the same). For that reason it is easy to see why Josephine thinks that also in the private sector a manager’s job is primarily related to a) and the manager should go and stack shelves.
Posted by: Richard, language school director, Slovakia, 30 | May 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm | Report this comment“Zoe, what does it mean that transsexuality is usually fatal if not treated? Do you mean people commit suicide in more than 50 percent of cases?”
Not quite, deaths from alcohol and substance abuse by age 30 probably outweigh the suicides. Many die of HIV, as they’re forced into prostitution at an early age. Deaths by violence, while 17 times the national average in the USA, are a relatively small fraction of the total. Only 30% or so deliberately kill themselves, according to a California survey. Even after treatment, suicide rates are an astonishing 5%, usually due to losing home, marriage, children, job, being repeatedly assaulted etc.
The best scientific study (by far) on the subject was by the Scottish Office, oddly enough. It showed that 50% of transgendered kids had self-harmed (via suicide attempts, “cutting” etc) by age 20. That didn’t include completed suicides, only unsuccessful attempts. It also didn’t distinguish between transsexuals and those with milder conditions. Unlike most such surveys though, this figure is reliable.
It does mean though that knowledgeable people tend to get a little peeved when those who don’t know any better describe the treatment as “non essential”, “optional”, “cosmetic” etc. It’s none of the above.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | May 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Report this commentNo amount of surgery and hormons can turn a male into a female…That confused poor ‘thing’ of a male is only a skin deep ‘female’, while inside its whole body every one of his 75 trillion cells scream ‘I am a man’ since all the cells are XY cells, hense they are a part of a male organism injected with the wrong hormons and having to deal wth a twisted and maimed body topology….
Political Correctness of Journalists can only decieve the uneducated, the illiterate and ignorant masses, who believe anything told to them… and who will accept popular science, but never accepts or learns its scientific methods.
Posted by: Ivan, 67, male, Physicist | June 14th, 2008 at 3:47 am | Report this commentInteresting post from Ivan, clearly a controversial issue. How about this as a solution that would maybe appease both sides?
1) Stop printing gender on birth certificates.
Posted by: Male, 30 | June 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Report this comment2) All laws which treat women and men differently or require quotas to be changed to be gender-blind.
3) Fire Brigade, Army etc. to have the same physical tests for entry for men and women.
4) Discrimination on gender or trans-gender related grounds to remain illegal (remember this is still possible - we ban racial discrimination without having race on birth certificates) with the following exceptions:
a) Sports organisations allowed to discriminate by setting their own rules for who is eligible for what competition. Not to affect public funding.
b) Competitions of the type mentioned in this article allowed to discriminate on gender grounds but not eligible for public funding if they do.
c) Religious organisations can anything they like.
A quick note to the poster who goes on about ’screaming’ chromosomes: The notion that xx = female and xy = male is a little more than just dated (people are born with xxy, xyy as well; perhaps the poster is still browsing through his school textbooks from the 1950s). Unless of course he regards a woman with a uterus who could technically carry a child for nine months, a woman who is raised as a girl and born as such to be a man because she has xy chromosomes (Swyer syndrome)
As far as 21st century medical technology is concerned, chromosomes are not a reliable marker of gender and these really should not be used a debating point to prop up fatalism and prejudices as it causes a lot of harm. Ask any teenage girl just told that she has Swyer or CAIS, or 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5-ARD) or any other of the 90 or so intersex conditions, how much harm “you are genetically a bloke” causes
A few statistics gathered by the Intersex Society of North America:
Not XX and not XY: one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY): one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome: one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia: one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia: one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis: one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes: one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause): one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother): no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency: no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis: no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis: one in 150,000 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female: one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to ‘normalise’ genital appearance: one or two in 1,000 births
From 2004, The International Olympic Committee developed a policy for transgender athletes who want to compete. The trans-person will have to prove that they have undergone at least a minimum two-year regime of hormones and gender reassignment surgery. The IOC abandoned their earlier DNA ’sex-testing’ simply because it was completely useless when all the intersex condition are taken into account
Many transwomen (and transmen!) conceal their intersex conditions simply because under the current NHS guidelines, they will be denied gender reassignment surgery otherwise
Posted by: Josephine, female, 46, Local Government Officer | June 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Report this comment