2
Section One: The Fundamentals
A) History and Context
Exercise 1: Notebook Prompt
| The CBC podcast episode, Tested with Rose Eveleth: Episode 3 – Card-Carrying Females, provided a compelling exploration of how differences in sexual development policies affect athletes such as Kenyan sprinter Maximila Imali. What stood out most was the striking disparity in how these regulations target women of colour, especially from the Global South, perpetuating systemic racism and colonial ideals of gender and femininity. This episode underscored that these policies are not just athletic or scientific but deeply political, rooted in controlling women’s bodies. One surprising revelation was the historical persistence of sex testing in sports, with decades-long efforts by scientists, athletes, and journalists to dismantle earlier iterations of such policies. Thus, emphasizing the recurring nature of oppression and how the facade of “fairness” in athletics is repeatedly weaponized against marginalized groups. As well, it was surprising to learn how differences in sexual development policies demand athletes such as Imali to undergo invasive medical interventions or suppress their natural hormone levels. This choice is dehumanizing and medically unethical. Maximila’s court decision to fight these regulations introduced a powerful narrative of resistance, contrasting Christine Mboma’s decision to comply. This divergence in approach highlighted the multifaceted challenges athletes face when navigating these oppressive systems. Thus, this episode reflects how gender verification policies have evolved; however, the core of these policies remains in outdated binary understandings of sex and gender. This reinforces collective action’s importance in contesting these discriminatory systems to advocate for dignity and inclusion in sports. |
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.
| After reading Fair Play by Katie Barnes in its entirety, as well as reflecting on this week’s readings and content, I believe that the following events should be included on this timeline:
1985 – María José Martínez-Patiño
Spanish hurdler María José Martínez-Patiño was disqualified and publicly humiliated after failing a chromosome test due to androgen insensitivity syndrome, a condition where an individual with XY chromosomes is resistant to male hormones, resulting in commonly associated feminine traits.
Why it is important: Martínez-Patiño’s case is significant as it exposed the immense limitations and harms of using chromosomal definitions of sex in sports. This incident was the catalyst for widespread discussion regarding the inadequacy of binary sex categorizations and the ethical issues surrounding sex testing in athletics. Martínez-Patiño’s experience brought attention to the psychological, social, and professional harm caused by these invasive policies. As well, this case underscored how it is essential to have a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of biology that accounts for intersex variations, contests traditional gender norms, and respects individual dignity. This case remains critical in debates concerning fairness, inclusion, and human rights in competitive sports.
2011 – Introduction of Testosterone Testing
The International Association of Athletics Federations introduced hyperandrogenism regulations, limiting the permissible levels of naturally occurring testosterone for women athletes to participate in women’s events.
Why it is important: This policy marked a significant shift from chromosomal testing to hormonal testing to determine eligibility. Though it was intended to ensure fairness in women’s sports, it generated widespread controversy as it targeted women with naturally high testosterone levels, specifically intersex and non-cisgender athletes. Critics conveyed that these regulations were discriminatory, invasive, and depicted outdated notions regarding gender and biology. As well, these regulations excessively scrutinized and policed women’s bodies. Thus, these regulations triggered broader debates concerning inclusivity, fairness, and the intersection of human rights, ethics, and science in sports. Implementing this policy underscored how vital it is to introduce more equitable frameworks that respect the diversity of human bodies while sustaining competitive integrity.
2014 – Dutee Chand’s Legal Challenge
Indian sprinter Dutee Chand challenged the International Association of Athletics Federations’ hyperandrogenism regulations, which banned her from competing due to naturally high testosterone levels.
Why it is important: Chand’s case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport was groundbreaking as it challenged discriminatory policies that targeted women with naturally occurring biological variations. Her victory stressed the importance of bodily autonomy and fairness in athletics, underscoring that athletes should not be penalized for naturally occurring traits. As well, this case brought global attention to the ethical and scientific flaws in hyperandrogenism regulations, generating a critical discussion regarding the intersection of gender, biology, and equity in sports. Chand’s success signified a progressive step forward in advocating for athletes’ rights to compete without facing exclusion or invasive scrutiny due to subjective standards of what it means to be a woman. |
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?
| The gendering of sports has significantly constrained participation, specifically for those whose identities challenge traditional gender norms. Growing up, I experienced this firsthand in activities such as basketball, where boys were encouraged to dominate the space. At the same time, girls were forced into “feminine” sports such as gymnastics, dance, and figure skating. This social coding reinforced the belief that excelling in certain sports was “unnatural” for girls and subtly communicated that their participation was less valued. Institutional barriers, including unequal funding, access to facilities, and coaching prioritization for boys’ teams, further intensified the issue. These systemic constraints discouraged participation while impacting the confidence of athletes who compete in these traditionally male-dominated sports. Thus, this rigid binary categorization of sports perpetuates harmful societal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Women are frequently discouraged from participating in physically demanding or contact sports, deemed “inappropriate”, while men face stigma in sports perceived as “feminine”. However, for those outside the gender binary, these divisions make involvement feel exclusionary, forcing them to navigate spaces that neglect to consider their identities. In addition, certain individuals may not experience these constraints due to their alignment with traditional gender roles or privilege, but many struggle with discrimination and outright exclusion. Therefore, addressing these issues involves reimagining sports as inclusive spaces where talent and passion are prioritized instead of outdated norms. This shift empowers individuals while augmenting the sporting world by embracing diversity and challenging the restrictive notions of what bodies should and can achieve. |
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?
| While most sports are unisex in principle, gender-coding remains persistent, particularly at the professional level, shaping how sports are perceived and valued in the popular imagination. The practice of gender-coding frequently begins in youth sports, where societal expectations influence participation and perception from an early age. This is the case, as sports such as wrestling, football, and hockey are stereotypically coded as masculine in the popular imagination as they are associated with physical dominance, aggression, and toughness. Conversely, gymnastics, figure skating, and dance are often seen as feminine, emphasizing grace, flexibility, and aesthetic appeal. These associations are deeply ingrained in cultural narratives, marketing, and even the structure of youth sports programs, which push boys and girls toward activities that conform to traditional gender norms. As a result, young athletes internalize these stereotypes, and the popular imagination reinforces a binary view of sports that frames some as inherently masculine or feminine. However, this landscape is evolving as societal views on gender and inclusion shift. Stories of women excelling in rugby and men gaining visibility in artistic gymnastics are slowly reframing the popular imagination, thus, challenging entrenched stereotypes. This is exemplified by the professional success and growing visibility of women’s leagues, such as the WNBA, although entrenched perceptions of gendered sports still hold a considerable influence on how sports are viewed and celebrated.
In regard to the poll, its statistical results largely confirmed my assumptions regarding the deeply ingrained gender-coding in sports. The results, which categorized sports as male, female, or neutral, underscored how strongly gendered perceptions are associated with different activities. Sports traditionally viewed as “male-dominated” were overwhelmingly associated with masculinity, reflecting significant barriers to inclusivity for girls and nonbinary individuals. However, the poll revealed the potential for change, as neutral categorizations and shifts in perception signify opportunities to challenge and reshape these persistent norms. These findings accentuate the continuing influence of gendered perceptions in sports and the importance of actively addressing these biases to generate inclusivity. |
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 agree with Leah Thomas’s statement that trans women competing in women’s sports does not inherently threaten women’s sports. The argument that trans women would dominate or undermine fairness in women’s sports is frequently entrenched in misinformation and fear rather than empirical evidence. As Thomas underscores, NCAA guidelines regulating trans athletes have existed for over a decade, and no substantial data is showing a “wave” of trans women dominating sports. This indicates that the policies are working as intended, ensuring fair competition while upholding the rights of trans athletes to participate. Furthermore, the political and media attention on this issue seems disproportionate to its impact. The compelling image suggests politicians and influencers exploit this topic to score ideological points. These individuals often show little genuine concern for women’s sports, which is evident by their lack of advocacy for issues such as pay equity, funding for girls’ sports programs, or combating harassment in sports environments. Instead, the focus on trans athletes frequently intensifies cultural fear and marginalizes trans people further. Ultimately, women’s sports are more threatened by systemic inequalities, including underfunding and lack of resources, than by the inclusion of trans women. Thus, centering the debate on inclusion, equity, and the real barriers women face in sports would better serve all athletes and ensure sports remain a space of fairness and opportunity. |
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?
| Rose Eveleth critically examines the concept of unfair advantage in sports, questioning societal perceptions of “natural” advantages and how they intersect with gender and identity. Eveleth challenges the idea that certain biological traits, such as those of intersex athletes or individuals with higher testosterone levels, inherently create an unfair playing field. Thus, underscoring that sports are fundamentally fabricated on disparities, attributes including height and lung capacity, which are widely accepted as part of competition. However, she conveys that the definition of fairness frequently appears subjective as it disproportionately targets marginalized groups, particularly women and gender-diverse individuals. Therefore, this scrutiny raises important questions regarding societal biases concerning how bodies are policed in sports. Other unique biological or circumstantial advantages exemplify this as they reveal how athletes often excel due to factors unrelated to gender. For instance, Victor Wembanyama, with his extraordinary height of 7’4 combined with guard-like agility and shooting skills, is a prime example of how unique biological advantages, such as his unprecedented combination of size and coordination, have contributed immensely to his success in basketball. Likewise, Simone Biles’s exceptional strength-to-weight ratio, fast-twitch muscle fibers, and natural flexibility give her a significant advantage in gymnastics, allowing her to perform complex routines with precision and ease. As well, it has been proven that long-distance runners from Kenya and Ethiopia frequently benefit from living and training at high altitudes, which naturally enhances their oxygen efficiency and cardiovascular performance. Thus, these cases reveal how certain advantages are celebrated while others are scrutinized, often through lenses of gender or cultural bias. Eveleth’s perspective urges an immense reflection on the connotation of fairness in competitive sports and how it is essential for more equitable approaches. |
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.
| I agree with Katie Barnes’s assertion that sports are inherently unfair. While sports are frequently depicted as meritocratic, where skill, effort, and strategy determine success, numerous factors introduce inequities. For instance, access to resources such as equipment, facilities, and coaching differ based on socioeconomic status, institutional support, and geography. Thus, these disparities produce uneven playing fields before the competition even begins. In addition, biological differences contribute to perceived unfairness. Genetic predispositions, strength, and height variations can give athletes natural advantages or disadvantages. However, these differences are often accepted as part of the game. Moreover, sports rules themselves can perpetuate inequities. This is exemplified by policies surrounding gender divisions, such as those restricting transgender athletes, underscoring how definitions of “fairness” can exclude or disadvantage particular groups based on subjective standards. In my experience, fairness in sports is a goal rather than a reality. This is the case in youth sports, as wealthier teams frequently outperform less-funded ones due to better training resources, creating an imbalance unrelated to players’ physical abilities. Likewise, global competitions often highlight the advantages of nations with superior sports infrastructure. While sports strive for fairness, they mirror broader societal inequities and natural variations. Therefore, embracing this complexity, as Barnes suggests, could lead to more inclusive and equitable policies instead of reinforcing unrealistic ideals of fairness. |
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.
| Robins argues that the scrutiny of Olympic athletes, mainly through “transvestigations” aimed at determining their gender, is not genuinely concerning sports, fairness, or the protection of cis women in athletics. Instead, such actions are entrenched in broader societal apprehensions surrounding transness, predominantly the visibility and legitimacy of transfemininity. The attention on scrutinizing the gender of athletes provides a socially sanctioned way to question and delegitimize trans women’s existence under the facade of ensuring “fairness” in sports. These investigations deemed by Robins serve as an excuse to challenge the public presence and rights of trans women. The discourse surrounding these “investigations” exploits the competitive nature of sports, strengthening the restrictive, binary understandings of gender using trans women as a focal point for broader cultural debates regarding identity and belonging. Thus, by targeting trans women in sports, individuals are not genuinely addressing the complexities of athletic competition, instead weaponizing fairness to reinforce transphobic narratives and uphold rigid social hierarchies. Consequently, this framing shifts the discussion from an allegedly objective concern regarding physical performance to an ideological concern regarding the recognition and inclusion of trans people. Robins underscores that such debates perpetuate harmful stereotypes and exclusionary policies, aiming to delegitimize trans women by questioning their authenticity and right to participate in society, not solely sports. Therefore, these actions reflect societal discomfort with trans visibility instead of a commitment to equitable competition. |
