As we head towards tomorrow’s Australian federal election, it seems that voters have very little choice in terms of the differentiation of the policy positions of the two major parties. Since Prime Minister Rudd’s rebuttal of a pastor on television on the issue of same-sex marriage (which has since gone viral on social media), matters of equality (specifically for the LGBT community) have become the single issue that has helped differentiate the Labor party from the Coalition, or more specifically, Tony Abbott.
But contemporary issues of gender equality and sexuality have not been confined to national politics. In sports, Russia’s anti-gay laws for the Olympics have faced the ire of Stephen Fry. Locally, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) announced it would draft and implement an “Inclusion” policy, aimed to stamp out homophobia in rugby. The ARU hopes to enshrine tolerance in the game’s charter and will be among the first of its kind in world sport, is separate to existing anti-vilification guidelines, and will have anti-homophobia programs for young players and high-profile stars in public awareness campaigns. But has sport gone far enough in ensuring inclusion and gender acculturation?
Ever since Caster Semenya was allowed to compete at the 2012 Olympics, the issue of intersex athletes is a perplexing problem for organizers of elite level sports. How does one organize sports “fairly” to ensure gender inclusion, and yet allow the competition format established for centuries to persist?
Even in this post-modern era of medical enlightenment, the majority of the sports viewing audience potentially still hold a largely traditional and conservative view of gender in sports. The idea of encouraging and empowering women in elite level sports is still relatively new and may seem a novel concept for those less informed; the open acceptance of gay athletes is often still considered taboo. So to challenge such a climate of conservatism by boldly encouraging organizers to establish a specific formulation of an intersex competition category may be a leap of emotional and psychological faith too far, and is arguably discriminatory in its own right.
So how does one take these nascent steps towards social change in sport whilst still recognising the economic and social viability needs of the sport? This paper suggests that one approach might be through the formation of mixed-team events. Before embarking on such a discussion, a brief overview of what gender is in society and what intersexuality means in biology may be useful for the non-scientific reader (see grey box)
Gender Identity
Gender identity is a combination of physiology and social influence. Based on current acceptance, gender identity is the sense one has of being either male or female. This is a complex and socially nuanced matter and the authors’ purpose here seeks only to explain some very broad overviews of how a biological continuum is fitted into a social binary.
In very generalized terms, there is a conservative expectation that individuals should be attracted to the opposite gender, and this is termed heterosexuality. When an individual is attracted to another from the same gender, this is termed homosexuality. However, if an individual identifies oneself as of the opposite gender to one which the physical phenotype (observable characteristics) suggests –for example a person with a male phenotype identifying themselves as female– then it is termed Gender Identity Disorder; or more commonly transsexualism when this is associated with an overwhelming compulsion to undergo phenotype transformation into the experienced gender by means of hormonal and/or surgical treatment. There is debate if a phenotypic male self-identifying as female and attracted to a male is homosexuality or heterosexuality.
There is also currently still no widely accepted consensus as to whether gender identity is a biological, psychological or social phenomenon and this is a highly charged and complex debate on any number of levels. But if gender identity discussions confined to known phenotypes of male and female are complex, even greater confusion arises when the phenotype itself is in question.
The physical phenotype of an individual is the result of the sex genes (chromosomes; genotype) as well as the hormonal effects during development. A typical male would have an X and Y chromosome pair (XY), while a female has two X chromosomes (XX). Difficulty arises when there is only one X chromosome (XO), an additional X or Y chromosome (XXY), or having combinations of XX, XO and XY. But phenotypic sex determination does not stop at the genetic level, a series of events need to occur for that gene to manifest into physical form to create the phenotypic sex.
Conditions of Intersexuality
Various signals from the X and Y-chromosomes govern the formation of the gonads (ovaries and testes) during development. A disruption of the X and/or Y-chromosome signals may result in ovaries being formed instead of testes and vice versa. Once that gonad is formed, the presence or absence of testosterone first determines if the internal sex organs develop into male or female organs: this process may be modulated by the relative levels of testosterone (“male” hormones), estrogen (“female hormone”) and other hormones in the fetus’ system. After the internal sex organs are formed, the external sex organs (genitalia) are then determined. Again, the hormone levels in the fetus’ system influences if male or female genitalia are formed. If this process is interrupted by a change in hormonal levels, the visible external genitalia may fall anywhere in the spectrum between what we identify as male at one end, and as female at the other. These were what were commonly termed “intersexuality” or hermaphrodite conditions. Although currently labeled as disorders of sexual development (DSD), some individuals, with the condition, understandably reject the medicalization of the issue as a “disorder” and may prefer the term intersexuality in the hope of socially normalizing the phenomenon.
For various social and cultural reasons, and because of the expectation of parents, children born with intersex conditions are historically given either a male or female gender and brought up based on that gender stereotype. Depending on the external genitalia appearance, sometimes the parents also request gender assignment surgery. Additionally, intersex individuals are preferentially brought up as females in some societies due to the unequal social pressures placed on males and females in their cultural environment.
Gender and Sports
There is at present insufficient scientific evidence to show that testosterone level alone is a true predictor of sporting performance excellence. Whilst it is generally accepted that males have greater physical strength and endurance than females, and are therefore generally better at physical sports, this is not necessarily always true. Depending on the sport in question, sporting performance is a result of not just physical potential, but also mental prowess, technical proficiency and efficiency for any endowed set of physical characteristics, and environmental conditions during competition (including the quality of the fellow competitors) are also significant factors.
A female athlete that sits high on a sporting performance excellence spectrum could well be better than a male athlete that sits low on that same spectrum for their respective genders. In addition, it should be noted that, especially for females and at the elite level of sport, other factors might also influence outcome. Social opportunities, support for training and tailored nutrition all might potentially affect sporting performance. For instance the level of provision of facilities and opportunities for female participation in sport worldwide is undeniably less than that afforded to men. Our current legacy of male supremacy in sports may therefore be as much to do with social opportunity, as it is to do with physiology.
If gender and testosterone levels are not accurate predictors of sporting performance, how then can we design sporting competition to ensure fairness? Conscious of the fact that sports events such as the Olympics are as much about a competition between “equals”, as they are about the entertainment and financial business value they bring, how does one work within the established system to bring about social change without doing irreparable damage to the existing business model?
Fairness and Equity
The Paralympic model of classification is a good example. In the disability sports events, competitors are grouped together based on a combination of physical function and physiological deficits. While not perfect because of the heterogeneity of conditions, having such a model provides a closer approximation of a fairness ideal (than conventional male/female events) by enabling equitable physical capabilities to compete as a cohort.
Grouping equitable athletes as an approach has a philosophical ideal that is more appropriate to the aim of genuine sporting competition based upon sporting performance rather than social or physical characteristics. This principle of fairness makes competitors “equal” by ensuring that similarly equipped competitors are grouped together. Such an ideal for competitive sport is not as radical as it first sounds, even for able-bodied sports. For example, competitors in a swimming event are grouped together based upon swim stroke; boxing at the Olympics is organized into weight divisions so athletes confront opponents of similar size.
If gender as a category is becoming less of a true differentiator of sporting fairness –either as a result of the performance improvement of female athletes previously explained, or due to an increased awareness and sensitivity towards intersex athletes– how then can we best approach the issue? How can we begin to be more inclusive of gender at the elite sporting level whilst retaining the existing business model? One achievable way forward is to include a mixed-team category in sports.
Mixed Teams
Because of the low prevalence of intersex individuals in the general population, it may not be pragmatic to create a specific category of sport just for them. There are also very real and practical issues (including economic concerns) with implementing a specific intersex competition category for something like the Olympics. A feasible starting point, with the potential for future expansion once it becomes more established in the mainstream conservative public’s psyche, is to have a mixed-team event. Interestingly in swimming, which is generally an individual sport, the governing body, FINA, has recently introduced mixed relay events with rules requiring teams to include equal numbers of male and female athletes. This is not an entirely new event in swimming. Australia and the US have an event called ‘Duel in the Pool’ that includes a mixed-relay team format. It was in one such event in 2007, that Libby Trickett (then Libby Lenton) became the first woman to beat the 53 seconds threshold in the 100m freestyle whilst racing against Michael Phelps. Importantly that feat would have earned Trickett a spot in the semi-finals of the 2004 Olympics and the finals of the 2000 Olympics in the men’s events.
A similar mixed-team event could be designed to accommodate intersex athletes in team sports. Soccer for instance could easily absorb mixed teams. In field hockey in the UK mixed team event are common place and extremely popular. Whilst half the team might be, for example, male, the remainder could comprise of female and/or intersex athletes. Perhaps a mixed peloton at the Tour de France may also address the opposing views of how best to accommodate a more gender inclusive format for cycling’s premiere event.
Because of their physiological nature, it may be to the advantage of nations with elite intersex athletes to have them on the mixed-team if their sporting performance is better than some of the other male and/or female athletes. They would then become “prized” assets. We see an equivalent concept in Masters events where a team is required to have a minimum combined age in order to compete: older athletes that have the requisite skills are prized both for their sporting performance and for their contribution to the overall combined age count.
Future of Sports
Gender identity and intersexual issues are complex and are closely linked to the degree of development and sophistication of social and cultural rights. But gender identity and intersexuality should not be an issue in sport. Sports should not be in a position that places extra and unnecessary burdens on athletes through implicit or explicit gender conformity measures. It certainly should not be the role of sports to dictate to athletes that hormonal and/or surgical interventions are necessary in order for individuals who are different to compete at the elite level.
If there is one ideal that the Olympics embodies (or promotes through its brand image) it is that of social inclusion through sport. Explicit exclusion or complicit discrimination runs counter to that fundamental spirit. Creative and imaginative thinking can help to bridge the gap between existing opportunities for intersex individuals and their legitimate expectations. Sports policies need to extend beyond “accommodating” individuals who do not fit into conservative notions of gender stereotypes and be truly integrative and inclusive of all athletes.
Leadership is required in embracing diversity and true inclusion. The goal of Olympism is to:
place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.
Any form of discrimination, on any grounds, be it of race, religion, politics or gender is repugnant and against the universal fundamental ethical principles of human rights. It is also incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement. In that context, should elite sports now progress from merely having an environment that accommodates non-males in sports to a truly acculturated environment that recognizes sporting performance beyond gender and sexual stereotypes?
As we make our choices at the polls tomorrow, we should remember that fairness and equity affects real people: in sports and in society. Choose wisely!
With credit to Dr Ben Koh, Phil Gibbs and Kristen Worley.