|  | Current Issues | No.60 October 2010 |

Eligibility and Fairness in Sport - The Role of Science and Education
Margaret Talbot
Eligibility and Fairness in Sport - The Role of Science and Education[1]
As a multi-agency, international organisation for sport science and physical education, ICSSPE is committed to inter- and multi-disciplinary research and enquiry. Its major functions are summarised as science, education and advocacy – science for better informed, more rigorous examination of experience and evidence; education, for dissemination and explanation of information, as well as development of the skills for informed choice; and advocacy, for promoting sport and physical education and their positive contributions in policy formation.
Hence, speaking as scientists, we use facts, logic and reasoning - rationalism; as educators, we use knowledge and skills to develop others and to encourage belief; and as advocates, we use rational argument and belief to promote causes and values, or to influence decision-makers and policy makers.
Academics frequently concede the necessity to relate to others’ disciplines and fields of study and to understand each other’s data and text. The same is true, between researchers, educators and policy workers. Pure research, ungrounded in practice or unapplied to policy; pure advocacy rhetoric or policy development, divorced from practice; and practice uninformed by research or shared experience – all fall short of professional standards; and all are less convincing than they could be, if integrated into a dynamic relationship:

When regulating for fairness in sport competition, choices may not be straightforward. The categories of physical attributes that form the basis for equal competition are commonly accepted as means of protecting and promoting “fairness” in sport competitions – indeed, they help to sustain the uncertainty of outcome which is a prerequisite for competition.
Hence, sport accommodates differences in physical attributes, to promote fairness and to prevent unequal chances of winning, in selected categories, for example:

- Weight categories, especially in combat sports, eg wrestling, boxing, karate, kung fu;
- Chronological age, mainly in children’s and veterans’ sport;
- Sex – male/female categories. Many sports are administered as single-sex for competition, even when the rules are the same, eg men’s hockey, women’s hockey, swimming; or with the same rules but different expectations of length of play or challenge (eg tennis, golf). This differentiation is often supported by national legislation’s recognition of sex differences in strength, speed and stamina, which are then generalised to provide the rationale for separate competition; these sex differences may also be further distinguished by gender expectations, so that some sports have evolved with different forms and rules, as in men’s and women’s gymnastics. In many cultures, recreational play, too, is organised for single sex groupings.

It is commonly assumed that these categories are based on arbitrary, ie non-negotiable, boundaries. An 11-year old whose birthday falls after the arbitrary date set, may not compete as a 10-year-old. A heavy-weight boxer may not fight a welter-weight, and weighing in before a match determines whether the boxers’ weights are within the defined category. And men may not compete against women in those sports which are organised as single sex competitions. These categories appear to ensure that no competitor has an unfair advantage over another. It is assumed that a woman football player will be at a physical disadvantage against a man; and that a younger or lighter competitor would be at a disadvantage against a more mature or heavier one. In some sports, a member of the “disadvantaged” category, who shows particular talent, may be allowed to compete in the category above his or her normal category – but not vice versa.
At first sight, these conventions seem simple and “fair”, with differences in these physical attributes controlled to enable fair competition. Yet there are questions about this:

- Why is chronological age used, rather than maturational age, especially for children? Consider the enormous range of development shown among a group of 11-year-old boys and girls, and the fact that academic test scores are often weighted at this age to prevent domination by girls!

- Why is height, or other physical attributes, not used, for example in sports like basketball, and events like high jump?
- Why do some sports, like equestrian sports, hold their competitions for men and women competing equally against each other; while others, which arguably depend less on physical strength, are organised as single-sex competitions, like darts or diving?

Of course, sporting conventions and rules have developed within social and cultural contexts, generally, with normative and often stereotyped notions of female and male capacities and abilities.
Competition categories are often defined by arbitrary limits (age, weight); and sex has been assumed similarly to be capable of being defined arbitrarily, using “scientific” methods. In the vast majority of cases, this tends to be true. But there has been inadequate recognition in sport, of the effects of culture and context on its practices. Sport regulators have also confused two important concepts – sex and gender, and apparently have failed to recognise the genetic complexities of sex identity.
One expectation of science is conceptual clarity. The following definitions help to clarify thinking about categories of competition in sport, for males and females:
SEX – the status of male or female, as conferred by chromosomes at birth. Sex is relatively immutable and unchangeable. It is used by sport to categorise competition, on the basis of assumed and proven differences in physical attributes, for “fairness”.
However, even with such a definition, there are complications (see Reeser 2005), and there are several genetic combinations which define a person’s sex status and identity. Sport has recently followed social (and inaccurate) use of language and has begun to use gender as a category for competition – a term which is much more complex and problematic to define, than sex.
GENDER – a social interpretation of normative behaviour associated with the sex status of being male or female. Normative gender can (and does) change over time and across cultures.

Hence, the way women behave now may be different from the way her mother and grandmother behaved; and the ways in which all men and women play their gender roles differ, according to culture, age and social influences. It follows that, if sport competition is categorised to equalise physical attributes, it is inappropriate to use gender, which is largely a social construct. The term “gender verification”, therefore, is destined to confuse, when used to make arbitrary distinctions between male and female.
The blurring of the concepts of sex and gender, along with debates about the respective influences of nature and nurture, provide the basis of further confusion.
STEREOTYPE - the attribution of characteristics to a person by category, rather than by observed behaviour, eg “women aren’t interested in sport”, “boys don’t like dance”, “older people can’t climb mountains”.

Stereotypes are closely related to myths – and help to redefine myths, rather than challenging them, as science should (Popper 1963). Acceptance of stereotypes and myths, especially where behaviour contradicts them, is anti-scientific! In sport, stereotypes and myths are further entrenched by the physicality and masculinity of sport systems, power structures, “conventional wisdom” and value systems. Stereotypes and myths should be of central concern for educators, because:

- They affect and restrict expectations according to category – both for individuals and by society;
- They deny individuality, diversity and ranges of behaviour;
- They constrain (& deny) achievement;
- They polarise between categories;
- They affect the ways in which rules are made and services are delivered.

Understanding the limitations of stereotypes is vital for anyone working in the development of sporting opportunity; and similarly, it is vital to have the evidence required to challenge the use of stereotypes, when they label people and limit their opportunities.
This can be demanding, when sport organisations themselves institutionalise stereotypes. The most extreme example is beach volleyball, which has framed sexualised stereotypes into the rules and governance of the sport. International beach volleyball is the only Olympic sport which regulates a maximum size of female uniform, which overtly discriminates between men and women. This regulation has been criticised as provocative, its main purpose apparently to use sexualised presentation of female players to “sell” the sport to television and commercial sponsors. The rules allow no freedom of choice for women players who are reluctant to wear such revealing clothing; and make no allowance for religious or cultural customs which prevent millions of women from participating. Compare this aspect of sports governance, with the recent FIFA ruling that female football players may wear an adapted hijab, to accommodate religious and cultural norms.
International federations have an important role in ensuring the conditions for fair play. It is the role of sport scientists and educators to identify and point out lack of logic and consistency in the formulation and implementation of rules which should be protecting fair play and equal access to participation. Sports educators and sport scientists can also bring to administrators’ attention, issues which are not being addressed with sufficient rigour, and which could cause problems, not only in relation to access and fair play, but also expensive and time-consuming disputes, appeals or litigation.
Consider the body suit adopted by Cathy Freeman when she defended her Olympic title; and compare it with the athletic clothing adopted by women athletes from some Muslim countries. Both cover the arms, legs and head, yet allow for freedom of movement. They are adopted for different reasons but look very similar. It is important for international federations to accommodate different cultural dress code requirements, with the objective always to enable and not to prevent women`s participation. Hence, normalised practices in sport need not be “forever”: it is clearly possible for dress codes, and hence participation, to be made more inclusive.
The IAPESGW “Accept and Respect” Declaration (2008) calls upon international federations to assess their own rules and practices, towards extending the franchise of participation to more people.
As mentioned previously, there are many examples in sport, of blurring between “sex” and “gender”. When sport competition is supposed to be organised into single sex groupings for the sake of fair play, then such conceptual confusion matters a great deal. This blurring between sex and gender, and the effects of stereotyping, are illustrated by Mary Douglas’ work on anomaly. She provides a framework which can demonstrate the effects of gender stereotyping in sport: “It is not the act itself which has absolute value, but the social classification of it” (Douglas 1966). Douglas identified 5 broad types of anomaly, for which sporting examples are provided, below.

- Place in category & deny other attributes - “women can’t play soccer”, “men can’t dance”;
- Remove by physical control or rule structures - “women must not box/wrestle; men must not be synchronised swimmers”;
- Avoid as abhorrent - “sportswomen are masculine, male dancers are effeminate”;
- See as dangerous, not to be associated with - “not real women, lesbian; men playing “girls’” games”;
- Use ambiguous symbols (eg humour) - “not to be taken seriously”.

Anomalies are problematic, both for the law and regulating for “fairness” in competition. They call into question, the basis of justice and fairness – especially categories on which judgements and decisions are made.
It is important to remember that much of the law is based on normative assumptions and behaviours, ie acceptable cultural behaviour – which, as previously mentioned, can change over time and between cultures. Both sex and gender are used commonly in sport as differential bases of fair treatment and competition. For example, single-sex competitions are often based on notions of GENDER, but competitors must meet conditions related to SEX category, ie they are eligible only if they are biologically male or female (the process of proof, erroneously termed “gender verification”).
Yet in society, many national legal systems, including those of the European Community, are based on values in human rights, and consciously use GENDER as a category – ie, individuals’ perceived and lived identity – culturally defined, lived gender. This poses a potential conflict, and at least, confusion, for competitive sport and recreation, whose eligibility rules are based on biological sex. In turn, there are important implications for the autonomy of sport, when it occurs in countries with potentially conflicting human rights laws.
The case of Caster Semenya appears to be an example of the confusion arising from the realisation that biological sex is less easy to identify clearly, than many people realise. There are many recorded cases of biological anomaly in relation to male and female identity, even without the complication of socially constructed notions of gender. The ongoing issues around Caster Semenya’s eligibility and performance as a woman athlete were complicated by sport’s own confused regulations; and by apparent failure to afford this athlete the same level of care and confidentiality as athletes suspected of drug abuse. (See the statement by WomenSport International 2010). This issue will be addressed by the IOC at a special conference in January 2011.
“Fairness” in sport depends on competition in categories (eg, weight, age, sex). Yet sex categories are not always absolute: biological anomalies are complex individuals who may be unaware of the anomaly and have well-established gender identities. The situation is further complicated by the fact that international sport has taken decisions which are based on blurring between sex and gender. The IOC Medical Commission has indicated that gender transition athletes should be able to compete in single sex events, when certain conditions have been met.
Those working in sport therefore need not only to be aware of these anomalies, which give rise to double standards, and try to avoid replicating or perpetuating them. They also should be prepared to challenge and change them, whether by re-examining notions of “performance”, “science”, “evidence” and revisiting ideas of “ability” and “achievement”; by challenging generalised and stereotyped views of male and female achievements; by questioning why some kinds of experience are more valued than others; and by acknowledging the structural inequalities which exist in sport.
There remain further challenges of the potential collisions between “fairness” through single sex competition in sport, and “fairness” in human rights – the rights of the athlete to participate and compete. These need to be properly understood and addressed by sport leaders. Currently, a transgendered golfer, who was born a man and became a woman, is suing the sport`s American professional body because it will not allow her to enter its tournaments, on the grounds that the golfer has an unfair advantage (Swain 2010).
In 2004, the UK parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act, which stemmed from judgements in the European Court of Human Rights. In relation to transsexual people, the UK had been in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act enables transsexual people to gain full recognition in their acquired gender. Surgical intervention is not a pre-requisite, since there is recognition of sexual dysphoria as a reason for changing identity. Individuals must live in their acquired gender for two years to gain a new birth certificate. They are entitled to privacy and to marry.
During the same period, the IOC Medical Commission reached consensus (May 2004) that sex reassignment before puberty should be recognised for competition. Sex reassignment after puberty would also be recognised for competition, on condition that: surgical anatomical changes would be complete; there would be legal recognition of the acquired sex; that there would be appropriate hormonal treatment, over a verifiable and sufficient length of time; and that the minimum period for recognition would be 2 years after gonadectomy.
In the UK, there are some exceptions in this legislation for sport, but some are as problematic for sport, as the full legislation. Section 19 rules that prohibition is allowed, only if the sport is a “gender affected” one and the prohibition is on grounds of fair competition or safety of competitors: this will be a contested area. Each case will be on its own merit and their will be no “blanket” bans. Lastly, UK law will take precedence for international events taking place in the UK.
There will be challenges, for both sport’s ruling bodies, and for the legal system, including:

- A possible return to gender verification for international competitions, despite the recognised flaws. While it was the women athletes themselves who asked for the test to be discontinued, on the grounds that they were unfair and caused undue distress and offence, some female athletes are now calling for its reinstatement.
- It is assumed that only international level competition is affected. But the issues will also affect recreational sport.
- With sex/gender conceptual confusion and pre-post puberty differences in physical “advantage”, competition by transexual athletes may cause appeals.
- The whole basis of single sex competition will be open to question, and could affect access. The question will more frequently be asked, why some events are single sex and not others? For example, why should shooting be single sex competition, when show-jumping is not?

These points raise more questions than answers. They deserve and merit the application of science and consideration using informed values. Sport leaders must therefore be informed, understand the issues, and manage tensions with care for fairness in competition, and care and compassion for individual athletes – and ensure that everyone in the system does the same.
References
Douglas, Mary (1966) Purity and Danger Harmondsworth, Penguin.
International Association of Physical Education and Sport for Girls and Women (2008) Accept and Respect Declaration www.iapesgw.org.
Popper, Karl (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge London, Routledge p 66.
Reeser, JC (2005) Gender identity and sport: is the playing field level? British Journal of Sports Medicine 39, pp 695-699.
Swaine, Jon (2010) Transgendered golfer suing after tournament ban Daily Telegraph 13 October.
Talbot, Margaret (2006) Women and Sport: a Gender Contradiction in Terms? In Alan Tomlinson (ed) The Sports Studies Reader London, Routledge.
Womensport International (2010) Statement on Case of Caster Semenya www.womensportinternational.org.
Contact
Prof. Dr. Margaret Talbot
ICSSPE President
Rawdon, Leeds, UK
Email: margaret.talbot@btconnect.com

[1] Some of the material in this article was presented at the 2009 Congress of the European Fair Play Movement in Azerbaijan

http://www.icsspe.org/