Golf's Lana Lawless "Not Woman Enough" - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**trorseIrripsy** · 10-14-2010, 05:29 PM

Lana Lawless Banned From Golf Championship For Not Being Woman Enough
By CAROLINE HOWARD
Oct. 14 2010 - 9:48 am

Professional golfer Lana Lawless was a man who is now a woman, and she wants to play on in the L.P.G.A. Challenge, which begins today in Danville, Calif. The ladies golf league says no. Should she?

This is not a case of “Is she a he or a she?” like Caster Semenya, the 19-year-old South African runner who was forced out of competition until gender testing proved she is a woman. (Actually, a hermaphrodite.)

Born a male, Lawless, 57, underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2005. She is now 100% woman–except if you consider that she has the bone structure and muscles of a 50-something man.

Apparently, that was the LPGA’s line of thinking when it banned her from the 2010 championship–although she was allowed to play, and won, in 2008. The LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America, which oversees the competition, are pointing to their “female at birth” clause. No pink cap in the birthing room, no spot for you on the green.

In return, Lawless is suing the LPGA and Long Drivers of America, alleging civil rights discrimination against both groups. “It’s an issue of access and opportunity,” Lawless told the New York Times. “I’ve been shut out because of prejudice.”

This is new relatively new ground in professional sports, although many sporting groups, including the International Olympic Committee, the Ladies Golf Union in Britain, the Ladies European Golf Tour and the United States Golf Association do allow transgender athletes to compete. The USGA rules read: “In the event that a player has had gender reassignment surgery at any point after puberty, that player must provide certain documentation to the USGA.”

Why is the LPGA lagging? Meaning, the association already allowed her to compete in ‘08. Big lag–two years!–in raising a pink flag. Also, and more importantly, why is it hanging back on this as a social issue. “Born female” means little to nothing biologically, socially and athletically, and it smacks of gender bias. I don’t follow golf, but I do follow tennis. And it’s obvious that the size factor in these mano-a-mano showdowns means…not much.

Look at Serena Williams, a bonafide big girl who recently told Harper’s Bazaar, “I’m super-curvy. I have big boobs and this massive butt,” and the slighter U.S. Open champ Kim Clijsters. In this sport, as in most, it’s about big serves and big nerve, not big bones or the aforementioned body parts.

Lawless is also suing Dick’s Sporting Goods, Re/Max and CVS, corporate sponsors of the Long Drivers and the championship. It would be interesting to see if these businesses take a stand and pressure the golf groups to amend their by-laws and allow Lawless in the game.

http://blogs.forbes.com/carolinehowa...-woman-enough/

**trorseIrripsy** · 10-14-2010, 05:41 PM

Just to place this in a historic context, vis-a-vis Renee:

In 1975, Richards underwent sex reassignment surgery. She is known for initially being denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, citing an unprecedented women-born-women policy. She disputed the ban, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977. This was a landmark decision in favor of transsexual rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

**Uvgsgssu** · 10-14-2010, 05:52 PM

Just to place this in a historic context, vis-a-vis Renee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

I'm surprised they didn't say anything about this in the article.

**Flirigor** · 10-14-2010, 06:00 PM

Kind of an odd thing to focus on in the story, but the whole "pink cap" thing. It used to be historically, that pink was for boys and blue was for girls. Pink being a "hotter" sort of active, aggressive (read: masculine) color. Blue, by contrast, was a "cooler" gentle and soothing (read: feminine) color.

The color gender assignment flipped at some point. This always springs to mind when I read or see anything that simply states pink for girls, blue for boys.

Offtopic, probably.

As for the content, it's a little confusing because the reassignment was so late in life. The whole reason for the different tours was due to the different physical statures of the genders, right? I can see the logic for both sides of this argument, but I guess I kind of agree with the "no" decision in physical contests... but maybe not as a blanket decision. I would think there has to be some leeway which makes things automatically infinitely more complex.

**incimisiche** · 10-14-2010, 07:17 PM

This will be interesting.

Of course...I hesitate to say automatically that Lana should be allowed in due to the late re-assignment and stage in development...there is a reason why men and women don't compete against each other.

I'm guessing if Lana had her re-assignment earlier on, this might not be a problem. Then again...the muscles and bone structure of a 50 year old man shouldn't be much to brag about.....could this shut out be due to the fact that she won in 2008 and someone wants to stop her?

**KellyLynchIV** · 10-14-2010, 10:15 PM

How is gender to be defined then? Should the legal definition, for purposes such as this, not be chromosomal? Is it body parts? Hormone levels? I believe it's "illegal" for female athletes to use testosterone or mimics to artificially stimulate muscle growth. So why is it fair for a male to go through puberty, develop a male physique, then get reassignment and compete against females?

Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself.

**trorseIrripsy** · 10-14-2010, 11:35 PM

Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself.

if that question goes on the test, so should "Bigger Tearjerker- Terms Of Endearment or Field of Dreams"?

**johnstylet** · 10-15-2010, 01:33 AM

"...can she parallel park or not?" LMAO! Too funny.

**incimisiche** · 10-15-2010, 02:44 AM

How is gender to be defined then? Should the legal definition, for purposes such as this, not be chromosomal? Is it body parts? Hormone levels? I believe it's "illegal" for female athletes to use testosterone or mimics to artificially stimulate muscle growth. So why is it fair for a male to go through puberty, develop a male physique, then get reassignment and compete against females?

Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself.

No doubt this case will answer some of those questions and also probably will set a precedent....I wonder if the precedent it will create will carry over to other sports or remain in golf.....

**hereiamguy** · 10-15-2010, 03:07 AM

I say let her compete, see if she dominates (doubt it), then determine what to do about it.

I mean, it's not like Golf is a sport anyway

**longrema** · 10-15-2010, 04:10 AM

I understand the concern that people will change their sex just to have an edge in competition. I think it's kind of crazy, but I guess if you trained your whole life to be great at something and just couldn't make it as a man (or woman) but thought you'd have better luck as the other, then perhaps you might be desperate enough to have sexual reassignment surgery to get the upper hand.

But from what I can tell, that doesn't seem to be the argument here. I know that physically the person may have an advantage, but I for one would not be willing to tell people that just because they feel like they were born with the wrong sex means they can never play competitive sports. And it sounds like the Supreme Court has previously decided similarly.

I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to athletic organizations not allowing people to compete if they only had sexual reassignment surgery to gain the competitive edge. While I think that would be difficult to specify, I could foresee an allegation that was the case leading to an investigation and discussions with friends, neighbors, coaches, etc. Although there would certainly be a disadvantage for people who didn't frequently discuss their desires. But generally speaking you don't just walk outside one day a completely different sex, most surgeons seem to require you to have been on hormones and under the supervision of a therapist as well as live as your preferred sex for a period of time (I believe it's something like one years) before they will do the surgery. That's an awful lot and an awful long time to hide it if it's simply for the competitive edge. Then what? Even if you when, I think becoming a woman/man to win may have a big life impact. Overall, I can't see this particular side of it being a big problem, but some type of ready-made solution would help to quell the fears of those who would believe it.

**KellyLynchIV** · 10-15-2010, 04:37 AM

Oh I agree, I never suggested anyone would do it FOR competitive purposes, good grief I hope not. But try this out: A man has a congenital heart defect and needs a heart transplant. He receives a new type of artificial heart that can pump with 10% more efficiency tham a typical human heart. He used to be a mediocre competitive runner, but now finds he can be a world class athlete.

Did he cheat? No. Did he do this for the advantage? No. But the result is the same. Medicine has accidentally created a loophole. Is the competition "fair"? I don't think so. This is going to happen more and more (there is already a sprinter with 2 artificial legs that some think gives him an advantage) as science improves on the human body. I guess I am more concerned about absolute fairness in competition than about a pretty obscure civil rights issue.

**johnstylet** · 10-15-2010, 04:54 AM

This has been really tough for me to come to an opinion on (and if I don't have an opinion on everything, my head will explode. Literally.)

First of all, anyone who has sex reassignment surgery for the sole purpose of getting an edge in sports has bigger problems than being excluded from an event. They should be excluded for being mental.

I don't think I buy into the idea that a trans-gender woman has an advantage because she might still have the frame and muscle tone of a male, therefore is at an advantage over the other women competitors.

Serena Williams is, imo, the perfect example of why that theory doesn't hold water. She's a freaking knockout of a woman. She's beautiful, poised, elegant; feminine in every respect. But there are a lot of men on the ATP that she could kick the crap out of -- both on and off the court.

I'm sure there are women out there who could probably be stronger golfers than Ms. Lawless. The fact that she was born a male doesn't have squat to do with it. What are the LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America going to do if a large-in-stature, strong, and able woman who was born a woman wants to play in an event?

I don't know what the reasoning is behind Lana Lawless' disqualification is, but the reason they're using doesn't quite jive to me.

**SpeavaJap** · 10-15-2010, 06:27 AM

This is one of those situations where I just can't come to an opinion. We like simple, clear-cut answers. Sometimes, they just aren't to be had. And that's... okay.

**Nptxsews** · 10-15-2010, 09:03 AM

Methinks this woman has bigger issues than golf.

**incimisiche** · 10-15-2010, 10:30 AM

This has been really tough for me to come to an opinion on (and if I don't have an opinion on everything, my head will explode. Literally.)

First of all, anyone who has sex reassignment surgery for the sole purpose of getting an edge in sports has bigger problems than being excluded from an event. They should be excluded for being mental.I don't think I buy into the idea that a trans-gender woman has an advantage because she might still have the frame and muscle tone of a male, therefore is at an advantage over the other women competitors.

Serena Williams is, imo, the perfect example of why that theory doesn't hold water. She's a freaking knockout of a woman. She's beautiful, poised, elegant; feminine in every respect. But there are a lot of men on the ATP that she could kick the crap out of -- both on and off the court.

I'm sure there are women out there who could probably be stronger golfers than Ms. Lawless. The fact that she was born a male doesn't have squat to do with it. What are the LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America going to do if a large-in-stature, strong, and able woman who was born a woman wants to play in an event?

I don't know what the reasoning is behind Lana Lawless' disqualification is, but the reason they're using doesn't quite jive to me.

Kirkus, you have SUCH a way of putting things! (But I agree with this statement).....and

I'm really of no opinion until this investigation is complete. Does anyone know if Lana Lawless used to compete in professional golf (or attempt to, anyways) as a man?

**johnstylet** · 10-15-2010, 05:02 PM

Kirkus, you have SUCH a way of putting things! (But I agree with this statement).....and

I'm really of no opinion until this investigation is complete. Does anyone know if Lana Lawless used to compete in professional golf (or attempt to, anyways) as a man?

According to the original article she won this very event in 2008.

**incimisiche** · 10-15-2010, 05:47 PM

According to the original article she won this very event in 2008.

But...she won it as a woman. I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful.....

**johnstylet** · 10-15-2010, 06:30 PM

But...she won it as a woman. I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful.....

Ohhhh. I gotcha. I don't know.

**trorseIrripsy** · 10-15-2010, 07:15 PM

I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful.....

I'm guessing no, Missin'...only because Fanhouse says Lana is a retired police officer. So she probably has only tried to qualify for the Tour since her retirement.

http://golf.fanhouse.com/2010/10/13/...ly-suing-lpga/

10-14-2010, 05:29 PM	#1
trorseIrripsy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	Golf's Lana Lawless "Not Woman Enough" Lana Lawless Banned From Golf Championship For Not Being Woman Enough By CAROLINE HOWARD Oct. 14 2010 - 9:48 am Professional golfer Lana Lawless was a man who is now a woman, and she wants to play on in the L.P.G.A. Challenge, which begins today in Danville, Calif. The ladies golf league says no. Should she? This is not a case of “Is she a he or a she?” like Caster Semenya, the 19-year-old South African runner who was forced out of competition until gender testing proved she is a woman. (Actually, a hermaphrodite.) Born a male, Lawless, 57, underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2005. She is now 100% woman–except if you consider that she has the bone structure and muscles of a 50-something man. Apparently, that was the LPGA’s line of thinking when it banned her from the 2010 championship–although she was allowed to play, and won, in 2008. The LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America, which oversees the competition, are pointing to their “female at birth” clause. No pink cap in the birthing room, no spot for you on the green. In return, Lawless is suing the LPGA and Long Drivers of America, alleging civil rights discrimination against both groups. “It’s an issue of access and opportunity,” Lawless told the New York Times. “I’ve been shut out because of prejudice.” This is new relatively new ground in professional sports, although many sporting groups, including the International Olympic Committee, the Ladies Golf Union in Britain, the Ladies European Golf Tour and the United States Golf Association do allow transgender athletes to compete. The USGA rules read: “In the event that a player has had gender reassignment surgery at any point after puberty, that player must provide certain documentation to the USGA.” Why is the LPGA lagging? Meaning, the association already allowed her to compete in ‘08. Big lag–two years!–in raising a pink flag. Also, and more importantly, why is it hanging back on this as a social issue. “Born female” means little to nothing biologically, socially and athletically, and it smacks of gender bias. I don’t follow golf, but I do follow tennis. And it’s obvious that the size factor in these mano-a-mano showdowns means…not much. Look at Serena Williams, a bonafide big girl who recently told Harper’s Bazaar, “I’m super-curvy. I have big boobs and this massive butt,” and the slighter U.S. Open champ Kim Clijsters. In this sport, as in most, it’s about big serves and big nerve, not big bones or the aforementioned body parts. Lawless is also suing Dick’s Sporting Goods, Re/Max and CVS, corporate sponsors of the Long Drivers and the championship. It would be interesting to see if these businesses take a stand and pressure the golf groups to amend their by-laws and allow Lawless in the game. http://blogs.forbes.com/carolinehowa...-woman-enough/ Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 05:41 PM	#2
trorseIrripsy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	Just to place this in a historic context, vis-a-vis Renee: In 1975, Richards underwent sex reassignment surgery. She is known for initially being denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, citing an unprecedented women-born-women policy. She disputed the ban, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977. This was a landmark decision in favor of transsexual rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 05:52 PM	#3
Uvgsgssu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 534 Senior Member	Just to place this in a historic context, vis-a-vis Renee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards I'm surprised they didn't say anything about this in the article. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 06:00 PM	#4
Flirigor Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	Kind of an odd thing to focus on in the story, but the whole "pink cap" thing. It used to be historically, that pink was for boys and blue was for girls. Pink being a "hotter" sort of active, aggressive (read: masculine) color. Blue, by contrast, was a "cooler" gentle and soothing (read: feminine) color. The color gender assignment flipped at some point. This always springs to mind when I read or see anything that simply states pink for girls, blue for boys. Offtopic, probably. As for the content, it's a little confusing because the reassignment was so late in life. The whole reason for the different tours was due to the different physical statures of the genders, right? I can see the logic for both sides of this argument, but I guess I kind of agree with the "no" decision in physical contests... but maybe not as a blanket decision. I would think there has to be some leeway which makes things automatically infinitely more complex. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 07:17 PM	#5
incimisiche Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	This will be interesting. Of course...I hesitate to say automatically that Lana should be allowed in due to the late re-assignment and stage in development...there is a reason why men and women don't compete against each other. I'm guessing if Lana had her re-assignment earlier on, this might not be a problem. Then again...the muscles and bone structure of a 50 year old man shouldn't be much to brag about.....could this shut out be due to the fact that she won in 2008 and someone wants to stop her? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 10:15 PM	#6
KellyLynchIV Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	How is gender to be defined then? Should the legal definition, for purposes such as this, not be chromosomal? Is it body parts? Hormone levels? I believe it's "illegal" for female athletes to use testosterone or mimics to artificially stimulate muscle growth. So why is it fair for a male to go through puberty, develop a male physique, then get reassignment and compete against females? Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-14-2010, 11:35 PM	#7
trorseIrripsy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself. if that question goes on the test, so should "Bigger Tearjerker- Terms Of Endearment or Field of Dreams"? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 01:33 AM	#8
johnstylet Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	"...can she parallel park or not?" LMAO! Too funny. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 02:44 AM	#9
incimisiche Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	How is gender to be defined then? Should the legal definition, for purposes such as this, not be chromosomal? Is it body parts? Hormone levels? I believe it's "illegal" for female athletes to use testosterone or mimics to artificially stimulate muscle growth. So why is it fair for a male to go through puberty, develop a male physique, then get reassignment and compete against females? Also, can she parallel park or not? Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself. No doubt this case will answer some of those questions and also probably will set a precedent....I wonder if the precedent it will create will carry over to other sports or remain in golf..... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 03:07 AM	#10
hereiamguy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 537 Senior Member	I say let her compete, see if she dominates (doubt it), then determine what to do about it. I mean, it's not like Golf is a sport anyway Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 04:10 AM	#11
longrema Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	I understand the concern that people will change their sex just to have an edge in competition. I think it's kind of crazy, but I guess if you trained your whole life to be great at something and just couldn't make it as a man (or woman) but thought you'd have better luck as the other, then perhaps you might be desperate enough to have sexual reassignment surgery to get the upper hand. But from what I can tell, that doesn't seem to be the argument here. I know that physically the person may have an advantage, but I for one would not be willing to tell people that just because they feel like they were born with the wrong sex means they can never play competitive sports. And it sounds like the Supreme Court has previously decided similarly. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to athletic organizations not allowing people to compete if they only had sexual reassignment surgery to gain the competitive edge. While I think that would be difficult to specify, I could foresee an allegation that was the case leading to an investigation and discussions with friends, neighbors, coaches, etc. Although there would certainly be a disadvantage for people who didn't frequently discuss their desires. But generally speaking you don't just walk outside one day a completely different sex, most surgeons seem to require you to have been on hormones and under the supervision of a therapist as well as live as your preferred sex for a period of time (I believe it's something like one years) before they will do the surgery. That's an awful lot and an awful long time to hide it if it's simply for the competitive edge. Then what? Even if you when, I think becoming a woman/man to win may have a big life impact. Overall, I can't see this particular side of it being a big problem, but some type of ready-made solution would help to quell the fears of those who would believe it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 04:37 AM	#12
KellyLynchIV Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Oh I agree, I never suggested anyone would do it FOR competitive purposes, good grief I hope not. But try this out: A man has a congenital heart defect and needs a heart transplant. He receives a new type of artificial heart that can pump with 10% more efficiency tham a typical human heart. He used to be a mediocre competitive runner, but now finds he can be a world class athlete. Did he cheat? No. Did he do this for the advantage? No. But the result is the same. Medicine has accidentally created a loophole. Is the competition "fair"? I don't think so. This is going to happen more and more (there is already a sprinter with 2 artificial legs that some think gives him an advantage) as science improves on the human body. I guess I am more concerned about absolute fairness in competition than about a pretty obscure civil rights issue. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 04:54 AM	#13
johnstylet Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	This has been really tough for me to come to an opinion on (and if I don't have an opinion on everything, my head will explode. Literally.) First of all, anyone who has sex reassignment surgery for the sole purpose of getting an edge in sports has bigger problems than being excluded from an event. They should be excluded for being mental. I don't think I buy into the idea that a trans-gender woman has an advantage because she might still have the frame and muscle tone of a male, therefore is at an advantage over the other women competitors. Serena Williams is, imo, the perfect example of why that theory doesn't hold water. She's a freaking knockout of a woman. She's beautiful, poised, elegant; feminine in every respect. But there are a lot of men on the ATP that she could kick the crap out of -- both on and off the court. I'm sure there are women out there who could probably be stronger golfers than Ms. Lawless. The fact that she was born a male doesn't have squat to do with it. What are the LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America going to do if a large-in-stature, strong, and able woman who was born a woman wants to play in an event? I don't know what the reasoning is behind Lana Lawless' disqualification is, but the reason they're using doesn't quite jive to me. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 06:27 AM	#14
SpeavaJap Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 535 Senior Member	This is one of those situations where I just can't come to an opinion. We like simple, clear-cut answers. Sometimes, they just aren't to be had. And that's... okay. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 09:03 AM	#15
Nptxsews Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 427 Senior Member	Methinks this woman has bigger issues than golf. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

10-15-2010, 10:30 AM	#16
incimisiche Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	This has been really tough for me to come to an opinion on (and if I don't have an opinion on everything, my head will explode. Literally.) First of all, anyone who has sex reassignment surgery for the sole purpose of getting an edge in sports has bigger problems than being excluded from an event. They should be excluded for being mental.I don't think I buy into the idea that a trans-gender woman has an advantage because she might still have the frame and muscle tone of a male, therefore is at an advantage over the other women competitors. Serena Williams is, imo, the perfect example of why that theory doesn't hold water. She's a freaking knockout of a woman. She's beautiful, poised, elegant; feminine in every respect. But there are a lot of men on the ATP that she could kick the crap out of -- both on and off the court. I'm sure there are women out there who could probably be stronger golfers than Ms. Lawless. The fact that she was born a male doesn't have squat to do with it. What are the LPGA and the Long Driver’s of America going to do if a large-in-stature, strong, and able woman who was born a woman wants to play in an event? I don't know what the reasoning is behind Lana Lawless' disqualification is, but the reason they're using doesn't quite jive to me. Kirkus, you have SUCH a way of putting things! (But I agree with this statement).....and I'm really of no opinion until this investigation is complete. Does anyone know if Lana Lawless used to compete in professional golf (or attempt to, anyways) as a man? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 05:02 PM	#17
johnstylet Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	Kirkus, you have SUCH a way of putting things! (But I agree with this statement).....and I'm really of no opinion until this investigation is complete. Does anyone know if Lana Lawless used to compete in professional golf (or attempt to, anyways) as a man? According to the original article she won this very event in 2008. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 05:47 PM	#18
incimisiche Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	According to the original article she won this very event in 2008. But...she won it as a woman. I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful..... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 06:30 PM	#19
johnstylet Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	But...she won it as a woman. I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful..... Ohhhh. I gotcha. I don't know. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-15-2010, 07:15 PM	#20
trorseIrripsy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	I'm asking if she competed as a man on the men's tour and specifically....if he wasn't quite so successful..... I'm guessing no, Missin'...only because Fanhouse says Lana is a retired police officer. So she probably has only tried to qualify for the Tour since her retirement. http://golf.fanhouse.com/2010/10/13/...ly-suing-lpga/ Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote