Kirsty Coventry is not progress

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has elected a new president, Kirsty Coventry. Coventry is the first woman to earn the position. While this appointment has generated celebration among those who see it as progress in an organization with a history of male leadership, it raises important questions about representation, policy direction, and the true meaning of progress.

Why do people continue to peddle the idea that women in leadership equals progress. That gender essentialism--especially regarding women's "nature"--is still so prevalent despite soooo many examples to the contrary astounds me. But this is about Coventry so let's go there. 

She is a former Olympian (not unlike past presidents). She swam in five Olympic Games and won seven medals. This makes her the most decorated African athlete. Coventry is from Zimbabwe and has served on various IOC committees and on the Zimbabwean Olympic Committee. She is the youngest person to serve as IOC president as well. 

Coventry's stated policy positions raise significant questions about her leadership direction. Her support for a total ban on transgender women in sports represents a shift from previous Olympic policy, which delegated gender eligibility decisions to individual sport governing bodies. This was not a good policy, but it was not an outright ban. Will Coventry pursue a ban that comes from the IOC itself? 

Reminder: these bans are sexist. They rely on a discourse of protecting white women and maintaining standards of white Western femininity. They reinforce a belief that women are inferior--the very same belief that has kept women out of leadership positions. 

But Coventry is African, no? Yes, she is a white woman with a British last name in a country that is a former British colony. In what ways does she represent Africa? How is she positioned—or expected—to represent an entire continent? The failure to examine leadership through an imperialist lens misses crucial context, particularly regarding how her policies might affect athletes from the Global South. 

Of particular concern is how Coventry's stance on transgender athletes might affect policies regarding intersex and DSD athletes. With World Athletics recently announcing a return to chromosome testing of women athletes—a practice that has disproportionately targeted women from the Global South—will the IOC under Coventry follow suit? Her proclaimed commitment to "maintaining neutrality" raises questions about whether she will advocate for athletes' rights, particularly regarding protest and human rights issues, or address geopolitical concerns for examples those involving Russia, Israel, or U.S. policies. 

Despite claims that the IOC presidency is "the most powerful position in sport," the Olympics face declining relevance amid recurring scandals, excessive costs, and hosting interest largely limited to countries with questionable human rights records. Coventry's most enduring legacy may ultimately be securing the first Olympic Games on African soil, should she accomplish this goal.

No NIL for you!

  This much belated post about the administration's reversal of Biden (out-the-door) era guidance on distribution of NIL monies is cross-posted at the Title IX Blog. 

I feel a lot of anger...I feel, and not just anger because of a [military] ban, I feel anger and disappointment at large, just you know trans and non binary people have become public enemy one; and once you start taking away the rights of trans and non binary people, the rest of the chips begin to fall.  

            Sam Rodriguez, Petty Officer US Navy (Today, Explained; Vox Podcasts)

This has clearly come to bear already and I would hope most of us are not surprised. Appalled, yes. Surprised, no. The Kennedy Center canceling the Gay Men's Chorus performance is just one example of how public acceptance for violence against trans people.

Denying women athletes equitable shares of NIL monies is another chip. This news is old by now. (Though to be fair these days news seems to get old within hours.) But the presidential administration basically scoffed at the idea that women athletes--those folks so in need of protection that bills and executive orders galore have banned transwomen from sports--will get anything resembling what men will receive. I have yet to see much from the save women's sports folks about this. In a somewhat paradoxical commitment to ideological consistency The Independent Women's Forum, via lawyer Beth Parlato, has said that Title IX does not apply to NIL and that the left needs to stop trying to expand and distort Title IX's original intent. I am not convinced she knows what the law's original intent was or who was supporting it. Also, what group that has Independent Women in its title is arguing against greater economic power for women?? I mean, this one, it seems. I did not see any mention of this on the web pages of Champion Women, the Independent Council on Women's Sports or any of Riley Gaines's socials. 

This is the memo from the Department of Education website (which still exists at the time of this writing). It is short and the case is not compelling. Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil right, called the Biden guidance "burdensome." We have heard this before. Probably in a lot of places. But it was a sentiment many white men expressed when Title IX was passed. Certainly we cannot give women the same number of opportunities or the same amount of money, they protested. And Title IX did not require that. Those protests are the reason the three-part test exists. It was so opportunities for participation do not have to be 50/50. Budgets do not have to be equal. Coaching salaries do not have to be equal (though I still think there is more to be done in this area). Things need to be equitable; needs--for medical care for example--need to be met. And financial aid does not need to be equal--but it needs to be equitable. 

The issue is not that is it burdensome to work toward equality. The issue is that it is hard for some people to fathom giving up their privilege. 

What can be done?

1. Lawsuit(s). As soon as things start getting divvied up, someone(s) is going to sue. This seems like a class action type of thing so I predict a campaign around it will emerge. Word of advice to athletes: choose your lawyers and your allies carefully. Make sure you know what their commitment to equality looks like; make sure they understand intersectionality. 
2. Strikes. Withhold your labor, women athletes. I know this is a sacrifice. But a lot of people make a lot of money off of women's collegiate sports these days. Leverage that. 
3. Solidarity. If you are one of those women athletes who gets a lot of attention--use your platform. If the women's golf team's strike is not going to draw eyes because people do not care about women's golf where you are, but they do care about seeing the softball team go to Oklahoma City and you are a member of that softball team...stand with them. Women basketball players are in a great position right now and there are notable activists among them (hey there, Paige Bueckers!). Take a lesson from your comrades in the WBNA and all they have done (and maybe WNBAers should head back to their alma maters and do some strategizing). Also--MEN--some of you are getting screwed by this too. Stand together. Also, also--men who are benefitting--your presence and voice in the name of equality is required. 

Is it a no-win for women hockey referees?

 My N of one today is yesterday's ECAC quarterfinal game between Cornell and Union. It was game 2 and a must-win for Union who lost Friday night to the Big Red. 

That was a very testy meet-up with (near?) fights. Certainly the most physical-after-the-whistle game I had seen all year. (I missed previous Union/Cornell games earlier in the season but knew they had been close.) At Friday's game I thought the refs had let things escalate. Chances when they could have given matching roughing penalties they let go. I assume "warnings" were given but even if they were, there were no discernible follow-ups on those.

One linesperson from the Friday night game was back on Saturday afternoon and the two new refs and one new lines person joined her; it was an all-women crew. (Friday night had been two women and two men who issued 3 penalties against Cornell and two against Union--much to the dismay of the crowd.) I assumed that whomever comprised the four-person team would have known the tenor of the game Friday night and thus would work to shut that &*%^ down early.

Nope. Within minutes there was a post-whistle gang shoving behind the net. And nothing was called. And so it went for most of the game. One stern talking-to led seemed to lead to a tripping call a few minutes later but overall there was a lack of consistency in the calls and a lot of whistles that got close to lips but never blew. In the end, 5 penalties were given to each team though the last Cornell penalty came at minute 20 of the third period in an almost laughable epitome of the officiating that afternoon. 

Of course number of penalties assigned does not really tell us anything (take that quantitative research!!). But when they are given and what they are matter. The refs yesterday did not call the right penalties early enough in the game. 

Here is the gender dilemma. They clearly did not have control of the game. Thus many would view them as incompetent--because they are women. But did they refrain from making calls because they did not want to be seen as too conservative, i.e., not letting the players be aggressive? It is possible. My past research on women's DI ice hockey players informs some of what I witnessed this weekend. 

One, women hockey players want to be allowed to play aggressively. Some want to be able to check. Since I did that research, rules have allowed for more contact so it is unclear where most players now stand on level and type of contact they are allowed to engage in. 

Two, some women spoke of wanting to play for men coaches rather than women because they believed they had more experience. Some did not have a preference; but no one said they preferred women as coaches. In the course of this convo, one person (a former Olympian) said she did not like women referees because they did not know what they were doing. (Because I was focused on coaching I did not pursue this, but the same player said she preferred men as coaches even though she had gone to a college with a woman coach.)

Three, a lot of the players I spoke with during my research talked about women coaches being worse than the men they had had in terms of compassion (for injuries for example) and yelling (and sometimes throwing things). Things that might be categorized as "toughness." I theorized--and maintain--that in a sport that is categorized as masculine women who become leaders have to compensate for their perceived femininity by enacting masculinity. And sometimes it is of the toxic variety. This was on display when Katie Stone's history during her tenure at Harvard came to light. 

The situation with refs is different of course. Though certainly teams and coaches get to know refs to a certain extent, the relationship is not the same. So basically every ref is judged on each "performance" and very few performances can cement a reputation. Because women are relatively new to officiating at the elite level (because of the system not because of them as individuals) and because there are fewer of them overall, they are combatting multiple and contradictory stereotypes at once. I do not envy them. But I still want better officiating because what I saw this weekend bordered on dangerous--in an unnecessary way, i.e., beyond the risks one takes when playing hockey. 

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX]

The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams. 

The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at. 

This is the synopsis at the top of the press release: Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses.

But it is not accurate. 

The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's category but lowering natural testosterone is not enough to qualify someone for participation. So does testosterone matter or not, NCAA?? It is admitting there is no coherent logic or philosophy for participation--and certainly no science. 

Also of note is this statement: The policy permits student-athletes assigned male at birth to practice with women's teams and receive benefits such as medical care while practicing. 

This statement is not for the benefit of transwomen--this just means that basketball teams can keep using men as practice players. It is weird how some people who have gone through "male puberty" are allowed to compete with women without an outcry about them being hurt or dire warnings about how dangerous it is. 

Finally, someone assigned female at birth who is taking testosterone may practice. 

So is testosterone only dangerous in a competition setting? Does it get turned off during practice? 

The Hope Post

Things are bleak and despair is high. I hope folks are doing what they can to fight the fights they think are worth fighting and finding ways to care for themselves and others. I have compiled below videos, websites, fact sheets that I have found helpful in 1) learning more about what is going on from experts and folks on the ground and 2) getting some comfort from the work that is being done and 3) figuring how where to put my efforts and how. 

• This video from GLAD Law about what an executive order and is not. Following them on Instagram may be helpful as they are in the midst of many legal battles. 
• GLAD Law (not be confused with GLAAD which is also doing great work--see below) is fighting the trans military ban and GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi reported that during the hearing in which GLAD asked for emergency relief from the military ban the judge asked pointed questions of the government including the rationality of a policy that says simply being transgender--while meeting all the other standards for military service--is a violation of the values pf honors, truthfulness, discipline, selflessness, and humility
• The work being done by the National Women's Law Center. This fact sheet about current rights for students under Title IX and a side-by-side comparison of the 2020 rules and the now overruled 2024 rules. 
• I have been following Chase Strangio on Instagram and he is posting a lot of information and encouraging folks to keep fighting--including at a rally for trans youth. 
• Seeing and practicing ways to re-frame the discourse. 
• This piece from Strangio is about the "trans debate."
• I have also been reading Judith Butler's book Who's Afraid of Gender? about the "radical gender ideology" rhetoric and feel better prepared for so many debates.
• Being very overt about what DEI is. Maybe start saying *all the words* aloud* every time. Pointing out that the button for the automatic door opening is DEI; so are subtitles; extra time on exams; service dogs in public spaces; ASL interpreters; financial aid and need-based grants and scholarships...

One of the first really good books I ever read about sports was by Madeline Blais about a girls' basketball team in Amherst, Massachusetts called In These Girls, Hope is a Muscle. he phrase hope is a muscle has been used by others subsequently which makes sense because we all need to figure out how to strengthen that muscle--especially now. 

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports. 

[I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog.]

I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of amateur.]

One might ask how the NCAA is even still in existence. The NCAA fears its own demise and this ban moves their own doomsday clock away from the brink because it appeals to conservative fans, very loud white women shouting about protecting women's sports, and--of course--politicians. When President Charlie Baker went to the Senate Judiciary Committee in December, ostensibly to talk about legalized gambling, he would not take a stand on trans participation in NCAA sports saying that all the different federal rulings have created confusion and that basically the NCAA was forced to allow a trans volleyball players compete for San Jose State. (Oddly the TERFs at ICONS hated his testimony because apparently they could not see that he was basically asking the federal government to give him the ban so his life would be easier. They accused him of gaslighting the committee which makes them the winner of the Pot Calling Kettle Black Award. Congratulations.)

As for greater consistency...that is unlikely to occur.  For example, if a transwoman chooses to participate in practices and team activities even knowing she will not be able to participate in competitions, will she be allowed to access to the women's locker room? Some may say, "no, of course not" because the elimination of Biden's Title IX rules does not protect trans students. But some states have laws that ban discrimination based on gender identity. The Title IX changes and the executive order are not laws--they are executive actions, not approved by Congress, not voted on by the people. In short, more confusion is forthcoming. Title IX still protects students based on gender identity discrimination as established by prior court rulings. Additionally, all these bans are being challenged in courts and there is a possibility that the EO will be temporarily halted. Then what will the NCAA do? 

You can tell NCAA leaders what you think of the ban via email:

• NCAA President, Charlie Baker - cbaker@ncaa.org
• NCAA Managing Director of Inclusion, Amy Wilson - awilson@ncaa.org
• NCAA Chair, Board of Governors, Linda Livingstone (President, Baylor University) - Office_of_President@baylor.edu

 

The trans athlete ban: Part I

One post on the administration's executive order banning transwomen and girls from women's sports does not seem sufficient. I have so many things to say. I will do a separate post on the NCAA on the path it chose in issuing its own ban; and then probably another one on the all the contradictions contained in the ban; and then another about this bullshit discourse on the protection of women (the photo of the bill signing with a group of young white girls surrounding a sexual predator is gag-worthy); and the mess that is trying to categorize things as sex or gender. 

Here though I muddle through some initial (though not new) thoughts. 

I am on sabbatical this semester trying to complete a project on the influences of feminist ideologies of the 1970s (US context) on women's sports. And being (re)immersed in this literature has been somewhat surreal given the current discourse. Gender as a concept was not in circulation in the 70s but arguments over the role of culture, biology, political structures divided and re-divided and spawned different groups and activism within the movement that began in the late 1960s as women's liberation. Here we are, still focused on women's bodies and their boundaries and what makes a woman. (And here I thought Simone de Beauvoir had answered that question ages ago 😉.) 

Ideology is always a great place to start though and so I start with the strongest of recommendations for anyone who wants to more fully understand the weaponization of trans people via a "gender ideology" discourse and who wants to be prepared to fight against this weaponization. 

Read Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender?. And take notes. It is smart smart smart. They lay out how and where and who began peddling gender ideology. And if you are afraid of Judith Butler--don't be! It is a pretty accessible book--on purpose I surmise. Also--you can skip the things you don't understand. There is a lot to take from it--some of which I will  share here (and certainly use in the future).

First, I dislike have to enter into debates about biological fairness when we are talking about trans participation in sport. I have talked about this elsewhere: sports are not fair on many levels (biological, economic, political). And none of these things are regulated or paid much attention. 

But this emphasis on one aspect of biology --the thing that we call sex--compels me to address it. One, it is no longer clear which specific aspect of sex is being referred to. Certainly we are not talking about genitalia even though that those are--the majority of the time--what determines sex assigned at birth. And sex assigned at birth is the term being used to categorize children in this new ban. 

Hormones, specifically testosterone, had been used as a marker of sex categorization despite 1) its inaccuracies in determining "sex" and 2) no strict relation to athletic performance. 

The complexity of biological processes has been lost, discarded, ignored despite the fact that all the proponents of these bans hang their hats on biological fairness and then change their minds about what part of biology counts. Duke law professor Doriane Coleman was interviewed for a docuseries episode called Defending Champions (by Vice Investigates and available on Hulu) in which she agreed with testosterone regulations to determine sex for the purpose of sport. But she, professor of a Sex Law course, has changed her mind (along with the other Save Women's Sports folks) and say male puberty is now the standard. (Note that the executive order is simply sex assigned at birth regardless of puberty. Also important reminder: intersex athletes have been left in a dangerous place by the ongoing misbelief that sex is binary and best determined at first glance.)  

Let's see what Butler has to say about puberty, based on actual science.

"If we claim that a person is born with a specific hormonal constitution, or we identify what happened in infancy or in puberty, and conclude that what happens later in life--in sports, example--is determined by those prior levels, we fail to account for all the interactions that activated and made sense of those hormones in specific social relationships."

Just like genes--hormones are not destiny. And hormone levels are so variable even among elite athletes meaning that "those who claim that trans women have an advantage on the playing field because of their hormonal constitutions do not take into account the complexity of hormonal interaction with the environment or the range of endogenous testosterone levels. Undergoing male puberty does not suffice to make anyone into a great athlete." 

And in reality, we're not talking--for the most part--about "great" athletes. We are talking about children and young adults who want to participate in school-sponsored sports. [Also enough with the talk about scholarships being stolen when 1) there are sooooo few scholarship dollars and 2) men's sports still (illegally) receive the majority of those scholarship monies.]

I wrote all this but no one who is supportive of these bans cares about any of it. This is another reason why I dislike being pulled into a biology debate. So few people are participating in good faith.  As Butler writes "what drives the exclusion of trans athletes from sport seems driven by other sorts of passions, ones unsupported by the science at hand." 

But in case anyone is trying to talk about this in classrooms, with friends, family, etc. I hope this offers something--if nothing else a great book recommendation. Science-y folks with a platform--please help dispel the many myths about "biological sex" so we can all shift this discourse.