Swallows and Amazons, or the Sporting Exception to the Gender Case Study

Swallows and Amazons, or the Sporting Exception to the Gender Rcognition Act - Case Study Example In that regard, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 therefore maintained that transgendered individuals be denied the opportunity to take part in sporting activities if their involvement is not encouraging to either ‘safety’ or ‘competitive fairness’. This paper reflects on the rights of the transgendered personalities, and specifically what the United Kingdom’s Gender recognition Act 2004 purports in regard to sports’, and the law’s, obscurity in obliging their participation in sports. This paper will therefore focus on the Section 19 of the Act. The s.19 of the Act facilitates various sporting bodies in prohibiting transgendered people of participation on the grounds of their ‘safety’ or ‘competitive fairness’ (Jack, 2006). This will be supported by the fact that neither ground can be established in the light of both the existing case law in transgender rights accompanied by the existing position of therapeutic ac quaintance. The possibility that s. 19 otiose is in part a consequence of being a hastily drafted provision and lately inserted to appease the sports lobby and its mouthpieces in the House of Lords. This paper is thus, a social and legal study on the Swallows and Amazons, Or the Sporting Exception to the Gender Recognition Act. ... re scrutinized, labeled and categorized in preparedness for their own, ‘Special’, Olympics at a particular moment when the informed harmony has undeniably moved away from the medical model of disability (Peter, 2005). The individuals whose bodies are outside the norms of sex gender due to their innate biology or due to the fact that they eschew the paradigm of normal manliness or femininity. Also the heterosexuality imperative that are faced with unique challenges: struggles over the sporting body which led to litigation by for instance, pregnant participations or female boxers with the aim of determining and relation of an acceptable level of the male hormone amongst female athletes. This has really aggravated the attention of the judicial field. Another area is the aspect of gay men or lesbians women who remain marginalized, in order to allow the International Olympic Committee would sanction of the use of the word ‘Olympic’ at the Gay Games. This is happe ning while the ‘Canine Olympics’, ‘Scout Olympic’, and ‘Police Olympic’ have been tolerated in the past twenty years (Jack, 2006). Sex chromatin screening was also added to the testers’ arsenal in an implicit acknowledgement in 1967 since the governing bodies did not have an interest in male imposters but instead they had an interest in females who had unusual chromosomal compositions producing testosterone not normal in women (Aileen, 2006). Various high profile athletes who had unusual chromosomal compositions had to justify through testing to their rivals who felt threatened. This is because they were viewed to have an unfair advantage to their rivals who subsequently resented their success in sporting activities (Aileen, 2006). This proved very controversial since unusual chromosomal