#fair use has to be non competitive with the original rights holder | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

I. van Hilvoorde and L. Landeweerd, Enhancing disabilities: transhumanism under the veil of inclusion?, 32 Disability & Rehabilitation 2222 (2010)

Abstract

Technological developments for disabled athletes may facilitate their competition in standard elite sports. They raise intriguing philosophical questions that challenge dominant notions of body and normality. The case of ‘bladerunner’ Oscar Pistorius in particular is used to illustrate and defend ‘transhumanist’ ideologies that promote the use of technology to extend human capabilities. Some argue that new technologies will undermine the sharp contrast between the athlete as a cultural hero and icon and the disabled person that needs extra attention or care; the one exemplary of the peak of normality, human functioning at its best, the other representing a way of coping with the opposite.

Do current ways of classification do justice to the performances of disabled athletes? The case of Oscar Pistorius will be used to further illustrate the complexities of these questions, in particular when related to notions of normality and extraordinary performances. Pistorius’ desire to become part of ‘normal’ elite sport may be interpreted as an expression of a right to ‘inclusion’ or ‘integration’, but at the same time it reproduces new inequalities and asymmetries between performances of able and dis-abled athletes: we propose that if one accepts that Pistorius should compete in the ‘regular’ Olympic Games, this would paradoxically underline the differences between able and disabled and it would reproduce the current order and hierarchy between able and disabled bodies.

Introduction

There is a growing academic interest in issues that relate to sports, disability and classification [1–3]. Academics from a variety of disciplines deal with questions like: ‘Can we objectively classify human beings in sport?’, ‘Should health and disability be defined in objective or contextual terms?’ [4,5]. ‘How does the ideology of normalcy relate to elite sport?’ [6]. These questions arise from a broader philosophical debate on ‘performativity’, the theoretical notion that disability is ‘performed’ instead of a static fact of the body [7,8]. They are nourished by a more general debate on disability and theories of social justice [9,10]. The case of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, also known as ‘the fastest man on no legs’, has particularly stimulated the academic interest from a variety of disciplines [11–18].

Pistorius is an outstanding athlete, who had the desire to compete at the Olympic Games. Running with carbon-fibre legs he is world record holder in the 100, 200 and 400 m and can even compete with elite athletes on ‘natural legs’. His desire to participate in a regular competition is surrounded by controversy and raises a variety of both empirical and (sport) philosophical questions dealing with the concepts of dis-ability, super-ability, enhancement and a fair competition. It is clear that Pistorius challenges our understanding of disability and that his case contributes to the blurring of some traditional boundaries. New technological artefacts such as innovative prostheses apparently help to turn ‘disabled’ people into ‘normal’ subjects.

What may be considered ‘normalisation’ in the context of daily life is at least ambivalent in the context of elite sport. Running on prostheses may be defined as an intrinsic aspect of the talent that is tested in a competition against ‘relevant others’: athletes who have the ability to show a similar talent. Pistorius is still officially classified as ‘disabled’, but this classification may not be relevant anymore if one abandons the criterion of species-typical functioning in favour of a contextual approach, an approach that looks at how the socio-cultural context of a certain trait is relevant for this traits definition [18].

In daily life, there is little reason to qualify people who integrate their prostheses into their ‘lived bodies’ as impaired. The demarcation between sport for the ‘normal’ and sport for the ‘abnormal’ rather demonstrates aspects of our understanding of what is and what should be considered a ‘normal athletic body’. Disabled athletes are literally constructed as such in the context of the culturally robust demarcation between Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. As is the case with other performance enhancing methods, the Olympic competition becomes a mechanism for evaluating athletes with a ‘normal biological body’ [19]. If Pistorius’ label as dis-abled does not relate to his body image and way of life in a non-sports context, what does this mean for the construction of a boundary between ability sports and disability sports? Are there valid arguments to exclude him from running against able bodied athletes? And how does this discussion relate to the general discussion on classification? We will attempt to answer these intriguing questions against the background of the discussion on the definitions of and demarcations between normalcy and disability and against the background of current discussions on ‘transhumanism’.

Being disabled as the norm for humanity

In the theoretical framework of the philosopher John Rawls, those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system [20]. Social class, gender or any other contingency should have no influence on the liberty individuals are to enjoy in the pursuance of their goals in life. Moreover, social and economic benefits should be distributed in such a way that they can reasonably be expected to be advantageous to all those who are worst off in the first place. Rawls aimed at this distributive justice (thus termed by him) to compensate for the differences in fortune that affect our lives. Justice is seen as being independent of luck and favouring a more equal distribution of harms and benefits. This idea is still often taken to be the basis for how we deal with issues surrounding the social inclusion of the disabled [1–3].

People with impairments of any kind cannot partake in society (and sport) as fully as they should, according to the principles of distributive justice. The principles of distributive justice therefore demand that we redesign the world around us to make it more accessible for everybody. This necessitates an answer to the question what obstacles can and should be taken away in order for the persons with disabilities to become part of other spheres of life. Making a public building accessible for the disabled is one but making elite sport accessible to them is another. Elite sport is, by definition, constructed around the notions of differentiation, categorisation and selection, all with the cause of showing ‘virtuosity’, ‘supremacy’ and ‘super-humanness’. Our dominant understanding of elite sport cannot be brought in agreement with some type of right to become an elite athlete on the basis of a right to a context in which all starting positions are equal. This is different from the right, for example, to receive good education. If one defines normalcy as average, excellence, by definition, excludes normalcy.

Differences between performances of able and disabled athletes can not be inferred from a definition of ‘the normal’. Modern elite sport celebrates abnormalities in many shapes and appearances, varying from extreme sized sumo wrestlers to extremely undersized gymnasts. In this light, it becomes difficult to justify the difference in admiration for the elite athlete and the impaired athlete with recourse only to concepts such as ‘talent’ or ‘effort’. Some talents are more valued in a society than others, in spite of a changing terminology that sometimes even seems to suggest that being disabled is an occasional experience of each human being.

If one were to grant a disabled person’s desire to become part of ‘normal’ elite sport by enhancing one or more aspects of his body, this may be framed as a way of ‘inclusion’ or ‘integration’. At the same time, this reproduces new inequalities and asymmetries between performances of the able and dis-abled bodied. To enhance the traits needed to function optimally in a society, is to take that society as the proper standard against which the functioning of people is legitimately judged. Enhancement of specific traits may count as justice through social inclusion but one could also defend that a just society is one in which people are not forced to conform and are not measured by a single yardstick. In that case, the yardstick itself should not be seen as neutral: it appears to be politically biased. When one defines what counts as a handicap in a contextual rather than a descriptive fashion, the notion of disability becomes political.

In contemporary (Western) society, social arrangements are based on the aim to provide people with the same starting position in life. Abnormalities that render this starting position inferior are therefore to be compensated. In many respects, the ideal of the elite sportsman has all characteristics of abnormality as well. However, in contrast to the physically or mentally challenged, the elite sportsman is not considered to be subject to societies’ assignment to normalise people’s starting positions. How ‘extreme’ and ‘beyond normal’ the elite athletes bodies and outstanding performances may be, they are still considered as cultural heroes, icons and even as examples for the average human being (even whilst some characteristics of elite athletes’ bodies may pose a handicap in daily life).

Elite sport is about excellence within the boundaries of ‘self-chosen’ limitations; disability sports originated from limitations through fate. Elite sport symbolises the athlete as hero; it reproduces elitist ideals about the (‘athletic’ and ‘beautiful’) body, about good sportsmanship and national pride. For many people, in disability sport, the athlete is still a ‘patient combating his limitations’, instead of an elite athlete with specific and outstanding talents.

The case of Pistorius holds a dichotomous con- sequence for the debate on equality and disability rights in sport. Pistorius’ not unrealistic desire to participate in the regular Olympics is illustrative of how technological progress and changes in definition blur the distinction between able and disabled, therefore contributing to the emancipation of the disabled. But his case may also contribute to an increased inequality, between those that are technologically ‘enhanced’ and those that are not.

Transhumanists look upon the case of Pistorius with excited interest, since Pistorius can be used as an icon for technological progress just as easily as for equality rights for the disabled. As Camporesi [12] states:

‘His [Pistorius] case is a snap-shot into the future of sport. It is plausible to think that in 50 years, or maybe less, the ‘‘natural’’, able-bodied athletes will just appear anachronistic. As our concept of what is ‘‘natural’’ depends on what we are used to, and evolves with our society and culture, so does our concept of ‘‘purity’’ of sport, and our concept of how an Olympics athlete should look.’

Transhumanism is a movement that seeks to advance technology in such a way that it would alter the human condition to something to which the term human may no longer be applicable. It seeks to achieve this through the means of genetic engineer- ing, artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, virtual reality, etc. [21]. The problem with transhumanism is that in its desire to improve upon mankind, it may lead to an increase in the division between the ‘tech-rich’ and the ‘tech-poor’. Although Pistorius has no transhumanist aspirations, his case could be seen a first step towards the transhumanist dream of a post-humanity. Apparently, Pistorius’ case can be brought forward in support of equality between able and disabled, but it may also amount to an inadvertent support of transhumanism. When posited in support of trans- humanism, his case may lead to an increase rather than a decrease of equality.

The ideology of the ICF versus the logic of sports

The ambiguity of Oscar Pistorius’ status as either a ‘dis’-abled, ‘abled’, or even ‘super’-abled sportsman carries along some interesting consequences for both the classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps and the classification of disabilities sports and elite sports. The ‘International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps’ (ICIDH) has been replaced by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) at the start of this century [22]. In general, this change of terminology reflects a shift in focus from disabilities to abilities and capacities. Disability is not regarded a characteristic (that is present all the time) but a state that may be present in certain environments or results from specific interactions with other people. With this change, the concept of health changed from a bio-statistical (‘objective’) conception to a more contextual conception. Being disabled is no longer considered as something one is by definition (‘by its nature’), but something one becomes in relation to specific environments [23]. Disabilities are socio-cultural constructions rather than natural kinds or given states of being. People can become disabled by their environment or by specific (lack of) technologies. A person with an average intellectual ability may ‘become’ less able in an environment consisting of highly gifted people. An elite athlete who chooses not to use performance-enhancing substances may become ‘dis-abled’ in a context in which the use of doping is ‘normalised’.

There is still an active discussion on the value of the ICF. Critics argue that it still leads to a desire to classify individuals according to disabilities. The philosopher of health, Lennart Nordenfelt, wrote a critical article on the ICF in this journal in 2006. Nordenfelt stated that

‘The will is a crucial notion in all action theory. But the will is quite absent in the theory of the ICF. [ . . . ] Ability and opportunity are not sufficient for the performance of an action . . . one must first intend to act or want to act’ [24]. According to this ability-centered theory of health, the ability of health should be related to the realization of the person’s vital goals: ‘The ultimate goal should be to enable the individual and give him or her opportunities to participate in the way and to the extent he or she wants and chooses to participate’ [25].

What about the vital goals of Oscar Pistorius? Although this debate on the value of the ICF focused on the goals of rehabilitation, this case illustrates the rather subject-oriented position of Nordenfelt. As has been put forward by Reinhardt et al. [26] in their response to Nordenfelt, the will of an individual, how he or she wants and chooses to participate is, not in the least in the context of elite sports, highly restricted by social, political and ideological circumstances. Moreover, classification is a sport specific process and of major importance in all sports. Handicaps are artificially constructed and defined. Being a woman is seen as a sport specific ‘handicap’, otherwise they would be performing together with men. Being small and light is a handicap in boxing and wrestling compared to bigger and heavier athletes. Participation is not based upon an ideology of ‘inclusion’ and ‘sameness’, but based upon differences in talent, classified on the basis of relevant inequalities.

There is a clear friction between Pistorius’ qualification as ‘super-abled’ and his vital goals that are based upon an alternative understanding of normality and ability. Most of the empirical studies on this subject support this label of ‘super-ability’. Much of the academic debate did not so much deal with his vital goals, but rather with the empirical question how his achievements have been influenced by his artificial legs, therefore not centering on whether Pistorius should be classified as a disabled sportsman, but on whether he should be disqualified as having an unfair advantage. Based on a study by the Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics (German Sport University, Cologne), the IAAF concluded that an athlete running with prosthetic blades has a clear mechanical advantage (more than 30%) over someone not using blades. Pistorius responded to this challenge that his prosthetics also confront him with disadvantages, such as the fact that he uses more energy at the start of the race than other runners. Recent findings suggest that running on lower-limb sprinting prostheses is physiologically similar to intact-limb elite running (measured in mean gross metabolic cost of transport), but mechanically different (longer foot-ground contact, shorter aerial and swing times and lower stance-averaged vertical forces) [11,17].

Even if there is evidence that running with prosthetics needs less additional energy than running with natural limbs, this in itself would be an insufficient argument to keep Pistorius from competiing in the Olympics. There is no standard test available to judge different bionic legs and compare them with ‘normal’ legs’ [18]. Besides, ‘if there is any reason to believe that Pistorius’s prostheses afford him some degree of unfair advantage [ . . . ] then surely there has been a similar, nay greater, risk of unfair advantage in all of his paralympic competing up to the present’ [16]. Categories within disability sports are much fuzzier and more variation in the quality of technology (such as prosthetic limbs) is accepted within disability sports, which provides unfair advantages for some of the athletes. But these unfair advantages within the Paralympic Games do not seem to be such a high concern by the International Athletic Federation.

The ideology mirrored by the ICF conflicts with the discussion on classification within disability sports, with respect to diverging perspectives on the meaning of obstacles. Although the ICF aims at the removal of obstacles (to minimalise any disability), and Nordenfelt adds to that the will to overcome obstacles, sport is however defined by a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles [27]. Sport is about creating ‘artificial dis-abilities’, not about taking them away.

Prostheses not necessarily define Pistorius as ‘dis- abled’. On the basis of a definition of his abilities there is no good argument to exclude Pistorius from the Olympic Games. Prostheses are however part of the definition of the game. The question if Pistorius should be labelled as either super- or dis-abled is not that relevant for his in- or exclusion. More relevant is the question what kind of a game is he playing. The question how to define a game deals with criteria for the relevant athletic performance. The standards of excellence for each specific sport are based upon judgements that are informed by scientific, conceptual and ethical evidence [15]. The questions for example if ‘klapskates’ could officially become part of the game of long track speed skating, if Fosbury’s masterful redefinition of high jumping was within the rules of the game are conceptual matters of definition and sport ethical analysis (grounded in notions of fairness and safety) [28]. If re-skilling a technique is necessary as a result of such redefinitions, than accessibility of new technology is crucial. The athletic edge that is gained should always be attributed to someone’s own athletic skills, and not on the basis of an unequal distribution of means and superior technology.

In dealing with such issues of fairness and definition in sport, the process of decision making also remains crucial. Who is eligible to make informed decisions about the rules and definition of the game and on what grounds? These informed decisions can be made by a broad practice commu- nity that have an interest in the quality of the game itself (such as athletes, coaches, officials, scientists), that are highly knowledgeable on the sport, but without apparent (commercial or athletic) interest in a certain outcome of the decision process. Manufactures (and sponsors) of high-tech swimming suits eventually harmed the game of swimming when they had too much control on the rules. This was more or less corrected by the community of swimming itself. Similarly, it is clear that manufacturers of prostheses should not be involved in defining the rules of disability sports, unless they are clearly involved in organising an equal distribution of technological means for each specific category of disability.

Disability sports are about showing performances within categories of similar disabilities, without making those disabilities the central element of athletic prowess. Running on prostheses may be defined as crucial for the specific talent that is tested in a competition against ‘relevant others’: athletes who have the ability to show a similar talent. The advantages of a prosthesis in this case bear upon the ‘relevant inequalities’ of the sport. Pistorius is not playing the same game as his opponents because he is showing another and extra skill, namely handling his prosthesis in an extremely talented way.

At first sight it seems that the inclusion of Pistorius in the Olympic Games is in accordance with the ideology behind the ICF and in accordance with the realization of his vital goals [5]. It could be argued that the case of Pistorius blurs the distinction between elite sports and the disabled sports. His ‘promotion’ to the elite level of sport may be considered as a form of empowerment and a symbol for non-discrimination. On the other hand, one can foresee a new boundary between disabled people into two categories: first the invalid, dependent and incapacitated and second ‘that much celebrated media persona of the disabled person who has ‘overcome adversity’ in a heartwarming manner and not been restricted by his or her ‘flaws’, but believes that ‘everything is possible’ for those who work hard’ [16]. Of the limited available ‘scripts of disability’ [7], the ‘inspirational overcomer’ dominates the image of the heroic disabled athlete. The blind runner Marla Runyan received much less attention for the five gold medals that she won in the Paralympics of 1992 and 1996, but really became famous when she competed in the ‘normal Olympics’ in 2000, and finished 8th in the 1500 m. This difference in status confirms the idea that ‘overcoming a disability’ seems a more out- standing performance than winning gold in the Paralympic Games. But when a disability can be compensated in such a way that the compensation provides for a ‘super’-ability in a specific context, compensating for a disability may prove to be a step beyond ‘normal’ humanity or even a step towards ‘transgressing’ humanity.

The case of Pistorius (and more will follow) stimulates the ideology of transhumanism, and the transhumanization of ableism: ‘the set of beliefs, processes and practices that perceive the ‘‘improvement’’ of human body abilities beyond typical Homo sapiens boundaries as essential’ [19]. What is perceived of as ‘better’, as ‘enhancement’ and what not, however, is up for dispute. If there is no neutral ground on which to define normalcy and ‘super’-ability, any attempt at ‘going beyond’ normal functioning necessarily is politics disguised as science. Transhumanism therefore is an ideological project. It is the paradox of Oscar Pistorius that he could develop into a symbol for the ‘normalization of dis-abilities’, but at the same time into a symbol of a neo-liberal ideology in which specific talents of the individual ‘superhuman’ and ‘inspirational overcomer’ [7] are put on the stage as an heroic example. Pistorius may become a symbol for both a concept of equality through a justice of social inclusion and for a concept of inequality through enhancement towards a form of ‘super’- humanism.

Conclusion

On the one hand, society invests quite willingly in the super-abilities of the elite athlete whilst on the other it only does this reluctantly, and from an ethics of inclusion, with respect to the disabled. In the case of disabilities, one wants to eradicate abnormalities by equalising on the basis of ‘sameness’, while in the case of super-abilities we support abnormalities. This ‘selective investment in the abnormal’ and the admiration for the ‘genetically superior’ could be seen as a token of a society that cannot meet up with the criteria for justice [10]. On the other hand, sport is a competitive practice, whose internal logic consists of the display of an unequal distribution of abilities and talents.

There are good arguments for a radical change of the organisation and classification of traditional sports and for the need of a critical rethinking of the traditional boundary between Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. A more successful application of the notion ‘distributive justice’ would call for a change of the organisation and classification of traditional sports. Starting from a more liberal definition of categories one can also imagine the organisation of competitions that are not contrasted on the basis of an opposition between able and dis-able, but rather around the equal distribution and accessibility of new technology (including prostheses).

The claim that Pistorius has the right to compete directly against non-disabled athletes in Olympic events does not appear to be a strong claim. A stronger claim can be made for a separate bionic track event to be part of the Olympics. This however needs consistent rules on technical aids as well as an equal and standardised access to new technology. The inclusion of just one (‘Paralympic’) event will also create new inequalities and asymmetries between performances of able and dis-abled athletes. Pistorius’ wish to become part of ‘normal’ elite sport may be framed as a way of ‘inclusion’ or ‘integration’, but paradoxically underlines the differences and reproduces the current order and hierarchy between able and disabled bodies.

References

DePauw KP, Gavron SJ. Disability sport. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2005.

Doll-Tepper G, Kroner M, Sonnenschein W. New horizons in sport for athletes with a disability. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Sport; 2001.

Vanlandewijck YC, Chappel R. Integration and classification issues in competitive sport for athletes with disabilities. Sport Sci Rev 1996;5:65–88.

Cox-White B, Flavia Boxall S. Redefining disability: maleficent, unjust and inconsistent. J Med Philos 2009;33:558–576.

Harris J. Is there a coherent social conception of disability? J Med Ethics 2000;26:95–100.

Koch T. The ideology of normalcy: the ethics of difference.J Disabil Policy Studies 2005;16:123–129.

Sandahl C, Auslander P, editors. Bodies in commotion; disability and performance. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press; 2005.

Corker M, Shakespeare T, editors. Disability/postmodernity: embodying disability theory. Continuum International; 2002.

Pickering Francis L. Competitive sports, disability, and problems of justice in sports. J Philos Sport 2005;32:127–132.

Nussbaum M. Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University; 2006.

Bruggeman GP, Arampatzis A, Emrich F, Potthast W. Biomechanics of double transtibial amputee sprinting using dedicated sprint prostheses. Sports Technol 2009;4–5:220–227.

Camporesi S. Oscar Pistorius, enhancement and post-humans. J Med Ethics 2008;34:639.

Edwards SD. Should Oscar Pistorius be excluded from the 2008 Olympic Games. Sport Ethics Philos 2008;2:112–125.

Hilvoorde I, van & Landeweerd L. Disability or extraordinary talent; Francesco Lentini (3 legs) versus Oscar Pistorius (no legs). Sport, Ethics & Philosophy 2008;2:97–111.

Jones C, Wilson C. Defining advantage and athletic performance: the case of Oscar Pistorius. Eur J Sport Sci 2009;9:125–131.

Swartz L, Watermeyer B. Cyborg anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the boundaries of what it means to be human. Disabil Soc 2008;23:187–190

Weyand PG, Bundle MW, McGowan CP, Grabowski A, Brown MB, Kram R, Herr H. The fastest runner on artificial legs: different limbs, similar function? J Appl Physiol 2009;107:903–911.

Wolbring G. Oscar Pistorius and the future nature of olympic, paralympic and other sports. ScriptEd 2008;5:139–160.

Wolbring G. One world, one Olympics: governing human ability, ableism and disablism in an era of bodily enhancements. In: Miah S, Stubbs, editors. Human futures: art in an age of uncertainty. FACT and Liverpool University Press; 2009.

Rawls J. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1971.

Bostrom N. The Transhumanist FAQ: a general introduction (Version 2.1). 2003. http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/FAQv21.pdf (last accessed 12 January 2005).

IPC. Athletics Classification Handbook. 2006.

Moser I. Disability and the promises of technology: technology, subjectivity and embodiment within an order of the normal. Inform Commun Soc 2006;9:373–95.

Nordenfelt L. On health, ability and activity: comments on some basic notions in the ICF. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:1461–1465.

Nordenfelt L. Reply to the commentaries. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:1487–1489.

Reinhardt JD, Cieza A, Stamm T, Stucki G. Commentary on Nordenfelt’s ‘On Health, ability and activity: comments on some basis notions in the ICF’’. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28: 1483–1485.

Suits B. The grasshopper. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1978/2005.

Hilvoorde I, van Vos R, Wert GD. Flopping, klapping and gene doping; dichotomies between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ in elite sport. Social Stud Sci 2007;37:173–200.

#disability #sports #ethics #classification #enhancement #technology #transhumanism #prostheses #oscar pistorius #medical model of disability #human enhancement #social model of disability #ethics in sport #normativity

1 note · View note

pricelinepharmacybourkestma-blog · 6 years

Text

Priceline Bourke St. Mall x Nude By Nature Lipstick Giveaway

Terms and Conditions

By entering the “Priceline Bourke St Mall x Nude By Nature Lipstick Giveaway”, you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions:

1. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1.1. Information on how to enter and prizes form part of these Conditions of Entry. Entry into this promotion is deemed acceptance of these Conditions of Entry.

2. ELIGIBILITY – WHO CAN ENTER? 2.1. Entry is limited to residents of Australia with a current Instagram account and who follow the entry instructions in these conditions. 2.2. Entrants under 18 years old must have permission to enter the Promotion from their parent or guardian. 2.3. Employees and immediate families of the Promoter and suppliers, providers and agencies associated with this promotion are ineligible to enter. Immediate family means any of the following: spouse, ex-spouse, de-facto spouse, child or step-child (whether by natural or by adoption), parent, step-parent, grandparent, step-grandparent, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, brother, sister, step-brother, step-sister or first cousin.

3. HOW TO ENTER 3.1. The promotion commences 11th February, 2019 at 8:00am AEDT and concludes 18th February, 2019 at 11:59pm AEDT (“the Promotional Period”). 3.2. The winners will be drawn on 19th February 2019 at 12:00pm AEDT. 3.3. To enter the Promotion, the entrant must: 3.3.1. Follow @pricelinepharmacy.bsm (https://www.instagram.com/pricelinepharmacy.bsm/) and Nude by Nature (https://www.instagram.com/nudebynature/) on Instagram. 3.3.2. Find the post announcing the “Priceline Bourke St Mall x Nude By Nature Giveaway”, tag a friend and tell us in the comments in 25 words of less what make-up look you’ll create with the creamy matte lipstick. 3.4. This competition is a game of chance. 3.5. Entry is limited to 1 entry per person. The authorised account holder of the email address associated with the Instagram account used to enter the Promotion is deemed to be the entrant. The “authorised account holder” is the natural person assigned to an email address by an internet access provider, online service provider or other organisation responsible for assigning email addresses for the domain associated with the submitted address. Each potential winner may be required to show proof of being the authorised account holder. 3.6. The Promoter, its agents, affiliates or representatives will not be liable for any lost, late or misdirected entries.

4. HOW TO WIN 4.1. Each entrant who has entered the competition over the Promotional Period and registered their details in accordance with clauses 2 and 3 will automatically go into the draw for the chance to win. 4.2. The winning entrant will be contacted via Instagram (with a request for further contact details such as address and telephone number) following the draw (within 24 hours). 4.3. Entrants can only enter in their own name. The Promoter, reserves the right to request proof of residency at the stated address and identification for verification (to the Promoter's satisfaction in its discretion) before issuing the prize. Incomplete or incomprehensible entries will be deemed invalid. The Promoter's decision to disqualify an entry is final and no correspondence will be entered into. No responsibility will be taken for lost, late or misdirected entries. 4.4. One entrant will be selected by random drawing on 19 February, 2019 at 12:00pm AEDT. 4.5. Draw details: The competition draw will take place on the 11 February 2019 at Shop 108-112 & 125 Centrepoint Building, Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne, VIC, 3000. The prize winner will be the first valid entry drawn at random. 4.6. Winner will be announced by 19 February 2019 12:30pm AEDT and will be published on Instagram. 5. UNCLAIMED PRIZES 5.1. In the event that the prize winner is unable to be contacted successfully or does not reply to the prize notification email, the Prize will be forfeited and an alternate winner will be selected from all remaining (non-winning) eligible entries. 5.2. If the prize remains unclaimed by 29 February 2019 (10 days from original draw date) the original winner forfeits the prize and will be advised in writing. In this event, the Promoter will conduct a second chance draw on 29 February 2019 at 12:00pm AEST and award the unclaimed prize to the first drawn entry. 5.3. The winner of the second chance draw will be contacted via email (with a request for further contact details such as address and telephone number) following the draw (within 24 hours). 5.4. Winners of the unclaimed prize draw will be announced on 29th February 2019 at 12:30pm AEST and will be published on Instagram.

6. PRIZE 6.1. There will be three (3) winners in total $249.45. 6.2. The winners will receive 1 x Complete Creamy Matte Lipstick Collection and Perfect Lip Primer valued at RRP AUD $249.45: 6.4. Prize values are based on the recommended retail prices as at 8 February 2019. The promoter accepts no responsibility for change in prize value between now and the ultimate prize redemption date. If, for any reason, any of the specified prizes (or any part of them) are unavailable or out of stock, the Promoter reserves the right to replace them with something of similar value and/or specification. 6.5. Taxes on the prize, if any, are solely the responsibility of the winner. Entrants should consult a tax advisor within their home jurisdiction should they have further questions. 6.5. Prize, or any unused portion of the prize, is not transferable or exchangeable and cannot be taken as cash.

7. LIABLIITY 7.1. If for any reason this promotion is not capable of running as planned because of infection by computer virus, bugs, tampering, unauthorised intervention, technical failures or any other causes beyond the control of the Promoter which corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness, integrity or proper conduct of this promotion, the Promoter reserves the right in its sole discretion to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend the promotion subject to any written directions under applicable legislation. The Promoter also reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any individual who the Promoter has reason to believe has breached any of these conditions, or engaged in any unlawful or other improper misconduct calculated to jeopardise the fair and proper conduct of the promotion. The Promoter's legal rights to recover damages or other compensation from such an offender are reserved. 7.2. The Promoter is not responsible for any problems or technical malfunction of any telephone network or lines, computer on-line systems, servers, or providers, computer equipment, software, technical problems or traffic congestion on the Internet or at any website, or any combination thereof, including any injury or damage to participants or any other person's computer related to or resulting from participation in or downloading any materials in this promotion.

8. PRIVACY 8.1. All entries and any copyright subsisting in the entries become and remain the property of the Promoter. 8.2. Each entrant agrees, that the Promoters or its agents may do the following: a) transfer personal information confidentially to the Promoters or other organisations that provide services in relation to this promotion; b) disclose personal information to State and Territory lottery departments and/or; c) publish the winners’ names as required under applicable law. 8.3. In accepting the Prize, the Winner agrees to participate and co-operate as required in all marketing activities relating to the promotion, including but not limited to being interviewed and photographed. The winner grants the Promoters a perpetual and non-exclusive license to use such footage and photographs in all media worldwide and the winner will not be entitled to any fee for such use. 9. THE PROMOTER 9.1. The Promoter is Priceline Pharmacy Bourke St Mall, at Shop 108-112 & 125 Centrepoint Building, Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, AUSTRALIA. ABN 8222 171 2248. 9.2. This competition is in no way sponsored, endorsed or administered by, or associated with, Instagram. Eligible persons understand that they are providing their information to the Promoter and not to Instagram. The information an Eligible Person provides will only be used for the purposes outlined in these Conditions. Any questions, comments or complaints about this Competition must be directed to the Promoter and not to Instagram.

#melbournemakeup pricelinepharmacy nudebynature kisstoxicgoodbye mineralmakeup mineralcosmetics pricelinegiveaway

1 note · View note

saikrishnaandassociates · 3 years

Text

Consult Top IPR Firms in India For Intellectual Property Protection

Your intellectual property (IP) is an important marketing asset that could be your primary competitive advantage in a developing market like India. Companies selling to or working in India, or even considering India as a potential market, must have an IP management plan in place that recognizes and protects all of their intellectual property. People can solve their issues with the Top IPR Firms in India that will legally help them from big concerns. Read this article to understand different types of Intellectual property rights in India.

Intellectual property rights and security are divided into four categories (although multiple types of the intellectual property themselves). It is critical to ensure that your property is properly protected, which is why working with a lawyer is important. The following are the four types of intellectual property protection laws:

Four Types Of Intellectual Property Rights

Trade Secrets

Trade secrets are specific, confidential knowledge that is valuable to a company because it offers it a competitive advantage in its market. If a corporation acquires a trade secret, it can cause damage to the original owner.

Patents

Patents are one of the most valuable forms of intellectual property rights. "A government authority or authorization granting a privilege or title for a set time, particularly the sole right to exclude anyone from creating, using, or selling an invention," according to the definition. Individuals or organizations contact the patent office when they develop or think of a new way of doing something, include information about the product or procedure, and pay a fee to have their 'property' protected.

Copyright is a legal concept that refers to the rights that authors have over their original literary, musical, or artistic creations, allowing them to regulate how they are used in the future. If you find any copyright issues, immediately contact the Best IPR Firms in India to solve the matter. For instance, consider the following copyrights:

computer software

drawings, maps, charts, or plans

photographs and films

architectural works

sculptures

sound recordings

TV and radio broadcasts

It has two parts:

Moral rights: They are non-transferable and provide the writer with the right to be credited as the creator of the work, as well as the right to object to any alteration or mutilation of the work.

Economic rights: They permit the holder to direct the use of his or her production in a variety of ways (making a copy, releasing public copies, acting in public, broadcasting, and so on) and to receive fair financial compensation.

Trademark

Finally, trademark protection is the fourth form of intellectual property rights. Note that patents safeguard innovations and discoveries, while copyrights protect representations of ideas and crafts, such as painting and writing.

A trademark is a symbol that recognizes and separates a company's goods or services from those offered by rivals. It may be distinct phrases, logos, or other characteristics. Its goal is to create a mental connection between all of the company's goods and/or services and then differentiate them from those offered by rivals in the minds of customers.

Conclusion!

Knowing the different forms of intellectual property and the four types of intellectual property rights can be difficult, and registering for such protections can be even more difficult. In fact, several Top IPR Firms in India have more pressing concerns than the specifics of a patent or other intellectual property rights provision.

#the Top IPR Firms in India

0 notes

redroses879-blog · 4 years

Text

Canada’s Quinn on coming out as transgender and the power of ‘being visible’

Canada player Quinn talks about coming out as transgender

Throughout this article Quinn is referred to as ‘they/their’ rather than ‘she/her’ to respect their wishes around use of pronouns. Quinn has also dispensed with what they call their “dead” former first name.

“When I was figuring out who I was, it was really scary and I didn’t really understand if I had a future in football, if I had a future in life.”

Quinn doesn’t like living in the spotlight. Yet as a professional athlete, it often comes with the territory.

But little provides a greater platform than sport, and despite being a self-proclaimed introvert, Quinn recognised the power of using that platform and of “being visible”.

And so, earlier this month, Quinn, a defender for Canada’s women’s football team, publicly came out as transgender.

“It’s really difficult when you don’t see people like yourself in the media or even around you or in your profession. I was operating in the space of being a professional footballer and I wasn’t seeing people like me,” Quinn tells BBC Sport.

Quinn, who has five goals and 59 caps for Canada, won Olympic bronze at Rio 2016 and played at the 2019 World Cup.

The 25-year-old remains eligible to compete in women’s sport despite identifying as transgender because gender identity differs from a person’s sex – their physical biology.

Most people, unless they’re non-binary, have a gender identity of male or female.

Quinn was assigned female at birth but after many years of questioning themselves, realised their own gender identity did not match their sex.

In an exclusive interview, Quinn tells BBC Sport how there are still “spaces of ignorance” in women’s football, their Olympic ambitions, and their concern as sporting governing bodies start to weigh up transgender policies.

‘More learning to be done’ in women’s football

On coming out as transgender in an Instagram post earlier this month, it marked the end of Quinn living “essentially two different lives”.

“I really didn’t like feeling like I had a disconnect between different parts of my life, being a public figure, and so I wanted to live authentically,” they say.

“I think being visible is huge and it’s something that helped me when I was trying to figure out my identity.

“I wanted to pass that along and then hopefully other people will come out as well if they feel safe to do so and I can create a safer space for them.”

Quinn had their first interactions with transgender people at college and it was at that point, they say, that they “really understood that was who I was”.

Quinn has 59 caps for Canada

“I couldn’t verbalise what I was feeling before and I didn’t have the right language to articulate how I was feeling before that.

“We live in a world that is so binary and I have been receiving messages ever since I was a young child about how I should act, how I should portray myself and how I should be and anything that deviated from that was essentially wrong.

“I wanted to live my authentic self, dress the way I wanted to, present the way I wanted to, and that wasn’t always seen as positive, so that was really hard to digest.”

Those in Quinn’s personal circle have known their identity for some time, and the reaction from Canada team-mates, who they told in an email, was “overwhelmingly positive”.

For “the most part”, women’s football is a supportive space, adds Quinn – who is currently on loan at Swedish club Vittsjo GIK from the American National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) side OL Reign – but there are still “spaces of ignorance”.

“It’s been a really long ride with [Canada team-mates] and they are people who I consider some of my best friends,” Quinn says. “A lot of those players have been my concrete supports going through this process.

“I think when looking at the larger realm of women’s football there still are spaces of ignorance and there is a little bit of push back, so those are definitely opinions that I want to see change over a period of time and to create a completely safe space for me, because quite honestly I don’t think sport is there yet and women’s football is there yet.”

Despite their team-mates’ acceptance and support, Quinn admits there is “still a lot of learning to be done”.

“I’m really open for my team-mates wanting to talk to me,” Quinn says. “I wasn’t taught throughout the course of my life what it meant to be trans, all the language around it. I think that’s something that’s new for a lot of people.

“Once I started living more authentically in my life, whether that’s just how I present myself or coming out to them as trans, I think they’ve all said to me it’s really incredible to see me just live my authentic self and how I’ve exuded a different level of confidence, and how it just fits with who I am as a person.”

Being ‘openly trans’ at an Olympics

Quinn made three appearances at the 2019 Women’s World Cup in France

Quinn hopes to take their visibility as a transgender athlete to sport’s greatest level by playing at next year’s rearranged Olympics in Tokyo, something which would make them “incredibly proud”.

“That was one of the reasons why I came out publicly, it’s because I want to be visible and I think the Olympics is a massive platform to have that visibility,” Quinn adds.

“It’s my hope that I might be the first and that’s really exciting, but it’s also my hope that there are other people following in my footsteps and so I hope that it opens the door to other trans athletes being represented at the Olympics.”

Since 2004, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete at the Olympics.

Those who have transitioned from female to male are allowed to do so without restriction. However, current International Olympic Committee guidelines, issued in November 2015, state that transgender women (those who have transitioned from male to female) must suppress testosterone levels for at least 12 months before competition.

Explicit IOC guidelines do not currently exist for non-binary athletes – those whose gender identity falls outside the categories of man or woman.

The IOC says it is trying to strike the right balance of fair and equal competition, while not excluding trans athletes from the opportunity to participate.

These rules will be in place for Tokyo 2020 but a consultation process is ongoing.

Quinn’s announcement comes at a time when various governing bodies are weighing up their own policies towards transgender athlete participation, with World Rugby proposing to ban trans women from contact rugby.

“I think it is really concerning,” Quinn says.

“We created this rigidity that anyone who goes against the white colonial depiction of what it is to be a woman is getting excluded from our sports realms and I don’t think that’s fair, I think that’s taking away opportunity and joy from a variety of people.

“I think that we need to focus on why we’re in sports in the first place and the celebration of the excellence of our bodies.”

However, critics say it is unfair to have a trans woman competing in female sport with a biologically male body.

Last year, former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies said Olympic chiefs should not use women’s sport as a “live experiment” on the issue of transgender athletes.

The 1980 silver medallist believes people born biologically male who transition after puberty will retain a physical advantage over their competitors, and that their participation should be limited until the science is clear on the issue.

Davies, along with Dame Kelly Holmes, double gold medal winner at the 2004 Olympics, and former marathon world record holder Paula Radcliffe, with the support of 60 other top-class athletes, wrote to IOC president Thomas Bach in March 2019 urging him to further investigate the issue.

Quinn says: “I don’t think that trans women should be excluded. I think that’s a really concerning conversation that we’re having right now. I think that we need to create those inclusive spaces for everybody.

“We have such biases as people and we are taught such rigid things in terms of the gender binary growing up that I would just like people to take a step back for a second.

“Think about the biases that they’re putting on people and the assumptions that they’re putting on people because that’s not beneficial to the world as a whole.

“I’m just another person doing the thing that I love to do and I get the privilege do that every day on the pitch.”

The article was originally published here! Canada’s Quinn on coming out as transgender and the power of ‘being visible’

0 notes

arcadeparade-blog1 · 4 years