Unisex/unigender sports (and related issues).

[ruby sparks]

I am posting this in the politics thread on the basis that it has to do with gender politics.

What would be the pros and cons of doing away with (at least some of) the traditional, binary sex/gender categories in most (not necessarily all) sports?

These ideas are explored here by Czech sports academic Irena Martínková, in the following two papers from May & June of this year respectively:

Unisex sports: challenging the binary
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2020.1768861

and

Open Categories in Sport: One Way to Decrease Discrimination
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2020.1772355

(The second link leads only to an abstract from the paper, unfortunately).

An important (possibly crucial) starting point is to say that by and large most sports developed because of the 'accident' of male physical superiority, and because this, perhaps along with traits such as greater aggression, conferred social dominance in general (and may even have naturally led men to develop competitive activities) and so for example in ancient Greece, only men were allowed to compete and women were not even allowed to spectate. Many sports were either based on actual combat (war) skills or were designed to showcase the qualities required for such things and/or were seen as 'training' (preparation) for them. So in a way, sports were designed by men, for men. With exceptions I feel sure.

So that is the historical development and the 'rationale' (possibly not the best or only word, hence inverted commas) behind most sports. Sports evolved from male societal dominance (and possibly partly because men had more leisure time to play or watch them, in tandem with a natural disposition for competing with other men). Hypothetically, if women had been dominant, for whatever reason (let's say they were cleverer, or wealthier, or just more important, or had more leisure time, or their capacities and abilities were more crucial to survival, or were seen as such, and being able to give birth is an obvious biggie) then 'sports' might have come to mean something different. Because in that case most sports would have been designed and promoted to suit women, most champions would have been female, and men would be complaining that they were not getting fair treatment, because merely being able to run faster or throw something further would not be an advantage in most sports, or the ones which were considered major, or were most popular. Imagine a sport where either small size of itself (ie without accompanying strength) or perhaps having small hands, was an advantage, for example. In broad terms, 'things women do better' would have been incorporated into the 'rationale' of what constituted a 'sport' in the first instance. Breastfeeding competitions, anyone? Or safe driving? Medals for living longer? Multi-tasking games? Most orgasms in 15 minutes (a potentially great spectator sport, surely, assuming ways could be designed to counter cheating)? Parenting skills leagues? Patience-testing events?

Arguably slightly whimsical examples aside, unisex/unigender sports might involve a new, different kind of 'rationale'. Not one dictated by brute strength or aggression merely gifted to some people (eg men) at birth, but by a more nuanced (and possibly more valuable) 'social rationale', one that encourages co-operation, inclusivity and an appreciation of a range of abilities, physical and mental. Existing sports could be adapted (either the rules of the games themselves or the way leagues and competitions are run). New sports could be developed. Some sports could have segregated competitions as well as integrated ones. The issues would be different for each sport. Throwing all existing sports (with their existing rules) open to everyone, regardless of sex or gender (as suggested by one poster here in another thread) would only be one extreme, blanket approach, and of course it would mostly favour men, because most sports were originally designed mainly for men by men, possibly both in terms of participating and spectating.

I have not thought this through and I am only opening it up for discussion. At first I thought the idea was daft, and then I thought it might have some merit, at least as a discussion that might throw up some interesting points.

It might be worth noting that the suggestion begs further related questions (hence the latter part of the thread title, in brackets) regarding people with disabilities, and other categorisations, such as age (specifically lower age limits I think).

 

[ruby sparks]

One type of approach is to have mixed teams (of men and women). Korfball is a good example. Teams have 8 players, 4 of each, right up to World Championship level (as far as i know, there is no non-unisex korfball).




This of course does not get around the transgender issue specifically. Nor do other mixed team events, such as mixed doubles in tennis, or, hypothetically, a 4 x 400mm running race consisting of teams of 2 men and two women. In other words, such things essentially retain the binary distinction.

 

[ruby sparks]

Another possibility, already to some extent partly in existence, would be unisex marathons. The outright winner might be a man, so that person would be both the overall champion and the men's champion. The first woman across the line could be awarded women's champion. In a hypothetical race of 1000 competitors, 500 men and 500 women, she might finish, say, 30th overall. So she would have beaten 471 out of 500 men. In that scenario, the women's category might be only for biological females (the current segregated category in other words) with perhaps some transgender women being included if they pass certain criteria. The main point would be that it would be an open race for everyone (including transgender) with only one outright winner, and the main emphasis being on that. That person would be the world champion, not just the men's or women's world champion. Equally, the man who came in 30th man would only be 31st, behind a woman. So to some extent the current segregation protects most men (471 out of 500 in that hypothetical example*) from being ranked below a woman.

This model could hypothetically be applied to other athletic events too.

Certain individual sports, such as equestrianism, already aren't segregated. Others might not need to be (shooting competitions for example).

I think the issues would be different for individual and for team sports.

Could boxing (and other violent combat sports) be integrated? They already are by weight (and I think age, and possibly also by the amateur/professional criteria) as well as by sex. Suppose the arguably rather clumsy weight categories were combined with muscle mass. Is there any reason a woman could not then fight a man in the same category and compete in that category only? I suppose there might need to be a rule about punching the chest (as well as the existing rule about the groin). Or maybe hitting in the groin could be allowed. Would that give a woman a useful advantage over a man?

That reminds me of a minor but famous incident at my school. The female biology teacher asked the class why testicles hung outside the body, and apparently a boy in my year (whose nickname was 'gook', I can't remember his actual name, and he wasn't asian and I'm not sure that term was understood in that way in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s) answered 'for kicking, miss'. I wasn't in that particular biology class but I soon heard the story. He had a reputation as someone who got into physical fights a lot. I personally was scared of him. I think everyone including the teacher laughed and he did not get a detention.



* hypothetical is a bit flawed because if the 1000 runners were selected on merit (previous race times) alone, there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between men and women participants. But by the same token, Serena Williams could beat most people in the category 'male tennis player', and the segregation means they don't have to be beaten by her.

 

[ruby sparks]

One thing to note, and touched on in the OP, is men's natural tendency for greater aggression, and how this might manifest in their increased competitiveness in general (even in non-physical sports or non-physical ways). This might help explain why there even are such things as sports in the first place. Sport can of course be played for other reasons, such as recreation, staying fit and healthy, and socialising, but I think that at the core of most sports that have developed over history is competition.

Quite how this fits into the discussion, I'm not sure. Times change. The original priorities may not be the same as they used to be. I think I am only saying that the sphere of human sporting activity is certainly not just about male dominance over women, not in the political sense, not in all ways. In some ways, perhaps, as already alluded to.