2
Section One: The Fundamentals
A) History and Context
Exercise 1: Notebook Prompt
| Having read Katie Barnes’ book first, there was nothing particularly surprising in Rose Eveleth’s podcast. It was interesting to learn that the sex testing based on x/y chromosomes was based on findings of a Canadian scientist. And interesting that the scientists themselves were saying the test could not be used in that way. That World Athletics totally ignored what they were saying because they had found what they wanted to prove what they wanted and the science really wasn’t a part of it, unfortunately, is not much of a surprise. And of course, it is only used to deny women the right/opportunity to participate in sports. The ongoing fear of anyone who is different being allowed to win continues to be disturbing. I did hear more names in the podcast, more women who were impacted by the rules that require women to prove that they are woman enough to participate in women’s sport. It really is no different than the requirement of the nude parades, although perhaps somewhat less invasive. As always, the search is for the ideal woman — make sure she is feminine enough. Then the blind decision making — when all testing was removed, but then some random person could decide that someone needed to be tested.
The treatment of the Kenyan runner, Maximila Imali, taking her to Nairobi and examining her, really without her consent, without even an explanation about what was happening or why, is certainly one of the most disturbing things I heard on the podcast. Not that other things were not also disturbing, but the violation of her rights, or her body, of her basic humanity — I do not believe a male athlete would ever have been treated that way. It also angers me that the goal posts keep moving. She was winning at the 400 m distance, so make sure she is banned from running at that distance. Then, because she is winning at the 200 m distance, ban her from running at that distance as well. I think if runners who were not “woman enough” had been winning at the shorter distances first, they would have been banned first. It’s not different than the college runners in the States that are in Katie Burns’ book. It was all well and good until they started to win. We only care if they are winning; otherwise, have at it — you can compete all you want. |
B) Timeline of History
Exercise 2: Notebook Prompt
What other significant case/milestone would you add to this timeline? Note it in your notebook along with a brief (one or two sentences) explanation of why you feel it is important.
| I think an important piece missing is that sex verification up until 1967, when they brought in the Barr body test, was a nude parade. Women had to expose themselves in front of men to prove they were women. Yes, the timeline includes that information that women had to carry a card verifying that they are women, but I think the means of proving it is also important. The shock value itself is important.
It may be difficult, but I would like to see more names on the timeline. People who have been personally impacted by the events noted on timeline. Caster Simenya is there, but there are other women. There names should be there. They deserve to be named. It might be interesting to see the Canadian context on a timeline. Katie Barnes’ book is almost exclusively about the States. What was happening in Canada at the same time? We know from the podcast that Canadian athletes were, unsurprisingly, being subjected to the same rules, but what else was happening in Canada? Canada is much more hockey oriented than Katie Barnes. Basketball and hockey have evolved differently, so how was that impacted. And, we don’t have a Title IX, nor do we have legislative impact like is described in the States, so what WAS happening here at that time? That would be interesting to see in a timeline. And are there Canadians who have pushed the boundaries and been successful, and then have been pushed out of a sport, like swimming, track? Where is that information? How different are we? Are we different? The other crucial dates that could be included are the dates that coincide with Trump’s decimation of protections that had been put in place over decades that he just tossed. Normally I would say that we can’t spend too much time looking at the States as the centre of what is happening in the world, but unfortunately, the influence of his policies, and just his statements, have a ripple effect around the world. He took the world backwards in his last tenure as president, and has already started taking us even further backwards in less than a month into this presidency. You only have to look at his statements with respect to boxer Imane Khelif, that he would make sure she wasn’t allowed to win, that he would take care of it. He had no standing, no rights, in any of that discussion, but media stopped and listened and gave him a soapbox to preach from. If he has that much influence when he isn’t even the president, we definitely need to include the influence he had, and will have, when he is president.
|
C) Gender coding in Sports
Exercise 3: Notebook Prompt
Has the gendering of sport ever been a constraint on your involvement? How?
Or, if not, why do you think this is?
| This is kind of a complicated question. Yes, the gendering of sport has been on constraint on my involvement, but maybe not in the way one might expect. I played women’s hockey. I loved playing women’s hockey. I am quite happy that I had the opportunity to play women’s hockey because I also played with boys sometimes and that was not nearly as enjoyable, mostly because they had the typical “boys are better than girls” attitude, and could be quite insulting.
But, I was driven out of hockey by a coaching staff that never should have been coaching a women’s hockey team. Women require a different style of coaching and if you are going to come in and coach a women’s team the same way you coach a boy’s team, it is not going to go well. I was bullied by the coaching staff, both male and female. When I spoke out about the bullying, things just got worse. In the dressing room privately, the other members of the team said I was doing the right thing, but once the adults entered the room they put their heads down and were too afraid. There were two other players in my home organization who experienced the same type of thing, and they both left hockey before I did. It takes different things to motivate women to play and the male coaches were unable, unwilling to see that. The thing is, I didn’t even really want to play on this team. I had played on a local league team for years and was quite happy to play there; it was more fun. But when you drive enough players out of the game with bullying, you end up with not enough players to run two teams. So, I could either stop playing or I could play on the rep team. There are some other interesting things that were happening in the OWHA (Ontario women’s Hockey Association) that time as well that speak to some of the themes in Katie Barnes’ book. Having been out for a few years, I don’t know if this is still the case, but at that time if a team in the C division, for example, was consistently winning, they had to move to the B division the next year. They were not allowed to continue winning — they needed to be shut down. In the OMHA (Ontario Minor Hockey Association), at the time, the division was based on the size of the population the centre drew from. That’s all — it did not matter whether they were competitive at that division, or overly-competitive. It was strictly based on size. But in the OWHA, a team couldn’t be allowed to continue winning. Another rule in the OWHA that was not a constraint for me, but was for some of my teammates, was the requirement that all members of the team MUST have matching socks. If you went to a tournament without matching socks, your games would be forfeit. This was not a rule for the OMHA. The colour of your socks had absolutely nothing to do with the game of hockey; it had to do with control, and making sure the girls all “looked the same.” But at least we weren’t wearing ribbons in our hair like the softball players. |
D) How is sport gendered in the popular imagination?
Exercise 4: Padlet/Notebook Prompt
While most sports are in fact unisex, gender coding remains pervasive, particularly at the professional level, although with a foundation established in youth competition. Participate in the poll below to share your views on how popular sports are gendered in the popular imagination. Also feel welcome to add or suggest sports that you feel strongly conform to the gender binary!
After you contribute to the padlet prompt, record your response in your notebook AND briefly discuss in two or three sentences how these responses and the polling figures in general confirm or contradict your assumptions about gender-coding and sports. Did anything surprise you?
| I was surprised, both in Katie Barnes’ book, and in the poll, that Volleyball is gender coded as female. In my high school, I would have definitely said neutral because both sexes play volleyball and it is popular in both. Also, with rugby, my experience has been that it is very much female. There was no boys’ rugby in my high school, but there was a very active girls’ rugby program. Now, that had to do with a boys’ rugby team that messed up a number of years before I got there, but there was no one willing to coach it for a long time afterwards. But it was a really popular girls’ sport, especially for many of the girls who were not considered “sporty” and who didn’t participate in other sports. I do understand that, like football, it does seem like it should be gendered male. But really, with the hair pulling that goes on, it really should maybe be gendered female.
Nothing really surprised me, but there are certainly some questions. For example, why is golf considered gendered male? You walk around with a club and hit a ball. Not sure where the masculinity comes into that particularly, but here we are. |
Section Two: Breaking it down
A) Title IX
Exercise 5: Notebook Prompt
In a longer version of the interview excerpted in the video above, Leah Thomas states “Trans women competing in women’s sports does not threaten women’s sports as a whole because trans women are a very small minority of all athletes and the NCAA rules around trans women competing in women’s sports have been around for 10+ years and we haven’t seen any massive wave of trans women dominating”?
Do you agree with this statement? See also the image above suggesting that the issue may be overblown by politicians and influencers who don’t actually care that much about women’s sports.
Please share any thoughts you have in your Notebook by clicking on the audio button above or writing a few sentences.
| I absolutely agree with Lia Thomas’s statement. There is this big fear that trans women are going to take over the world of women’s sports. If that was going to happen, it would have happened and we would be seeing more and more trans women standing on podiums. I realize that part of the reason that is not happening is because they have been systematically banned from the opportunities, but even before that, they were not dominating. Not every trans woman is, or wants to be an elite athlete, and for those that do, sometimes they win and sometimes they don’t. Just like cisgender women. Sometimes they win and sometimes they don’t.
I think that politicians, particularly in the States (although I don’t know the full story in Canada because I am not involved in any elite sports), are getting way more involved in the decision making than they should be. Sports is being used as a vehicle to discriminate, “other”, push back into the closet, transgender people. They are taking away rights that had been granted and making sure those changes are codified in law. I really fail to understand what right politicians have in determining who can compete in a sports tournament, but they are taking it. The other thing I found interesting when reading Katie Barnes’ book was the split in the LGBTQ+ community when it comes to the participating of trans women in sports. Lesbian athletes do not necessarily support trans women; in fact, it would appear that they are quite willing to speak out against their participation because they are intent on protecting women’s sport from trans women. I am pleased to see that women’s hockey is welcoming and does not discriminate. The nuance of team vs. individual sport is also important in the discussion. Even Hayley Wickenheiser needed the rest of the Canadian team to be able to win. As did Christine Sinclair in soccer. Superstars, both of them, but as part of a team. And, I know, not transgender. |
B) Unfair Advantage?
Exercise 6: Notebook Prompt
What does the host and writer, Rose Eveleth, have to say on the issue of unfair advantage?
Can you think of other examples of unique biological or circumstantial advantages from which athletes have benefitted enormously that have nothing to do with gender?
| Eveleth talks first about what athletic advantage really is, because competitive sports really are first and foremost all about advantage. Who is stronger, who is faster, who is smarter, etc. That’s advantage. But then she goes on to talk about what is deemed an unfair advantage, with a focus on Athletics. She addresses the subject of men having a 10 to 12% advantage over women because of testosterone. That’s too big of a range to be considered fair. But a range of 2 to 3% would be considered within the range of possibility, so it is okay. And really, the discussion about unfair advantage doesn’t go to the second part of this question — all those other factors — unfair advantage gets stuck on sex characteristics. Because sports is divided by sex, not by socioeconomic status, for example, the unfair advantage only comes from sex.
As for those other unique biological and circumstantial advantages, there are many. The biological example that sticks out for me is the Finnish skier who has a genetic mutation related to red blood cells and oxygenation. Instead of lamenting his unfair genetic advantage, he is hailed as someone to celebrate. The same with Michael Phelps and his ridiculously out of proportion wingspan. We just watch in amazement as he glides through the water. He is an amazing swimmer due to his genetic makeup. There are other things that create some disadvantage for him, but his physical stature seems to be able to make up for those other things.
Then there’s the non-genetic, circumstantial advantages. Why is the swimming world dominated by Australia, the United States and Canada, plus a few others such as China? Because of the advantage of money, which leads to facilities, coaches, diet, equipment. And time. Time is definitely a commodity that gives an advantage. And, I suppose, the off chance that someone who knows what they are looking for happens to scout you at some meet when you are young and they support you to continue in your sport of choice. But, you have to be in the right place for that to happen. Where you live, not just which country you live in, but also where you live in that country matters too. Just thinking about Canada itself, there are many rural and remote areas where people simply do not have access to facilities or coaches and their introduction to many sports is very limited. Interestingly enough, cousins of mine lived in Iqaluit and Whitehorse and had access to better sports facilities than I did growing up in rural Ontario. And they could get into sports I couldn’t, such as short track speed skating. There really is no reason for that not to be a big sport everywhere there is an arena, but it isn’t that widespread. Location creates some advantage for marathon runners as well. We all know how well Kenyans and Ethiopians do at those extreme endurance races. Living at altitude will do that to you.
But sex. That’s where we start talking about unfair advantage. Not how much more difficult it is for people living in less-advantages countries to get to the world stage. We don’t test anyone for their nutrition through their formative years. |
Again, let’s turn to Katie Barnes who points out that we tend to forget amidst all the debate that “sports, by design, are not fair” (235), that “the reality of sports is that we accept unfairness all the time” (235).
Do you agree? Why? In your experience, how fair are sports? Feel welcome to add a video response in the padlet and provide an example if you’re willing. Make sure you include a screenshot of your response in your notebook.
| In favour: If sports were fair all the time, there would be no winner and no loser. The whole point is to look for an advantage. The advantage of superior plays; the advantage of superior coaching; the advantage of a more streamlined swimsuit (although we got rid of those pretty quickly when the records started to fall). We accept this unfairness because we want to have winners and losers. If we were intensely concerned about fairness at the elite sports level, we would be making sure those elite sports were funded equitably worldwide, rather than athletes from around the world having to move to western nations to access coaching and facilities. Sport brings us national pride and we want to make sure our athletes have every advantage so they can shine. We can look at how much more money goes into training facilities and training itself in the United States and the outcome of that. We can ask ourselves why elite Canadian athletes feel compelled to go to American colleges instead of Canadian colleges. Sure, some of that is the larger population, but some of it is not. Population size is yet another example of the unfairness we deal with, and accept, all the time. A larger population has a larger pool to choose from for athletes, but as countries we all compete on the same field — world championships and the Olympics. We’re okay with that, and I know that for myself, I cheer greatly when someone who is the only athlete from their country at the Olympics does well. But we definitely have more of an advantage in western nations. That’s an unfair advantage that we are willing to accept.
|
B) The Paris Olympics
Optional Response:
What does Robins mean when she argues that:
“The aims of transvestigating an Olympic athlete are not, in any meaningful sense, anything to do with sports, or fairness, or even with women (cis women, at least) as a social category. Rather, they have everything to do with transness, and the public expression of transfemininity.
For my money this has never been about sport.
What it has always been is an excuse to publicly relitigate the existence of trans women.”
Make a note in your Notebook.
| I think it is pretty self-evident what she means. The issue was never about sports. It’s about making sure women are women and nothing else, and about two genders — male and female. There is nothing in between. I think we are seeing the ultimate outcome of this right now, when a president can sign an executive order stating that that gender is decided at conception ( that fact that people who truly understand the science can tell you how very unknowledgeable that makes him sound aside). That we can have a political leader in Canada say that he only believes in two genders.
It’s not about sports. It is about subjugating anyone who doesn’t fit the perfect picture. Making sure they know that they do not deserve to exist and they will certainly never be allowed in sport because they do not exist. Embarrass them as thoroughly as possible so they know what it will be like if they step onto the world stage. There are definitely people out there who will not distinguish between DSD athletes and trans athletes, but that is beside the point. They will demand to see the genitals of people to determine where they should be allowed to compete, or even BE in society. And really, I think we know that there are reasons beyond just wanting to embarrass them — there are far more nefarious reasons and I fear we are getting to that point. This is connected to some of what Katie Barnes describes. Non-allies can come from some somewhat surprising directions. Members of the LGBTQ+ community who do not support trans athletes because they have gone through male puberty. Those same people may have had to hide their sexual orientation while competing, for their own safety, but that still doesn’t stop them from pushing back on others because they are not what they call “biologically female”. Sport is an exceptionally useful vehicle to, as Robins says, “publicly relitigate the existence of trans women.” As Katie Barnes describes, knocking transwomen out of athletic opportunities, and legislating that, opened the flood gates to heaps of other legislation to put the rights of transgender people back decades. It’s not about sports. It’s about moving backwards in our society, but sports gives so many opportunities to allow people to just spout off. Partly because people are so passionate about sports, especially around the Olympics. If everyone points at the “other” together, that “other” will disappear, or maybe people will just start throwing stones along with the pointing. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. |
