Time to Abolish Gender Boundaries in Elite Sports? A plea for Structural Reflection

1 Gender Boundaries and the Intersex Body

In democratic-liberal societies, a diversification of gender affiliations can be observed for several years (Krämer 2022). Labels such as "non-binary," "queer," and "gender-fluid" stand for modes of existence outside the binary gender norm and, as political counter-designs, call for an expansion of the established spectrum of men and women. This process also puts increasing pressure on international sports federations and sports policy to reform traditional binary-organized sports and avoid structural discrimination.

In recent years, the question of an athlete's gender has been more controversial in no other sport than in elite track and field. This was primarily sparked by the outing of intersex/DSD athletes such as Caster Semenya, Maria Martinez-Patino, and Annet Negesa, who made public the discriminatory medical procedures on their bodies that were deemed necessary by the sports federations for participation in binary-organized sports. Against this backdrop, their criticism was directed at the gender policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Athletics (formerly IAAF), which, as the global governing body of elite track and field, define biological boundaries between male and female athletes and implement medical practices such as hormone-reducing therapies.^[1] Compared with other social systems, the unique feature of elite sports is that the binary segregation is justified by the ethical principle of fair play. In contrast to gender-inclusive sports such as horseback riding or motorsports, in track and field women and men compete in separate categories because, in the eyes of the sports federations, the male physique is considered more potent in leadership-relevant dimensions such as body size, muscle growth, or oxygen turnover (Rogol and Pieper 2017). In contrast, critical authors have argued that the notion of physical superiority not only reproduces a binary gender norm, but furthermore discriminates against non-binary people under the guise of a seemingly legitimate concern. One of their main arguments is that elite sport represents a male-dominated social sphere "that combines economic and cultural influence to reinforce and perpetuate gender inequity" (Travers 2008: 79). The challenge is that within the binary structures of sport, intersex/DSD athletes are therefore considered in need of regulation "because it is feared, their intersex/DSD condition confers an unfair physiological advantage over cisgender women." (Gleaves and Lehrbach 2016: 2) In recent years, scholars, mainly from gender and sports studies, have argued that the sex testing performed in elite sports is not an objective but objectifying practice that naturalizes a Western conception of two different bodies by identifying specific organs as "true markers of difference" (Heggie 2010). They emphasized that the knowledge which determines what counts as "true" gender is a heteronormative practice and subject to constant historical change. Against this backdrop, the binary division underlying sex testing stands for a modern understanding of objectifiable bodies, showing how an empiricist notion of the nature of bisexuality as a physiological fact is solidified (e.g. Laqueur 1990). In contrast, approaches that have traditionally existed in interdisciplinary research include those that position themselves against an exclusively binary understanding of gender, emphasize the continuity and fluidity of gender boundaries (e.g. Fausto-Sterling 2000).

A peculiarity in the history of sex testing is that gender has been unilaterally elucidated in biomedical terms, while sports federations have disregarded multi-categorical and gender-inclusive approaches.

2 Naturalization of Binarism

In order to maintain the binary structures, sports federations such as the IOC act as "gatekeepers" (Henne 2014: 799), defining physiological requirements for participation in women's sports. For concreteness, sex testing can be divided into a formalized (1), naturalized (2), and moralized (3) classification.

2.2 Naturalized Classification

Moreover, the compulsion to categorize bodies in binary terms implies that other genders and their bodies remain invisible. This aspect becomes particularly significant when one illustrates the natural variability that genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones can indicate. Figure 1 provides an overview of the dominant classification methods and distinguishes between three paradigms of binary segregation.

Figure 1

Paradigms of Gender Classification (*based on Krämer 2020; Prader 1957; Rupert 2011; Stokowski 2009)

• Genital-based classification dominated gender segregation from 1946 to 1966, based on the notion that gender assignment could be made based on two different norm types of external genitalia. Endocrinologist Andrea Prader translated this approach into an official taxonomy in the mid-20th century, called the "Prader Scale," which still plays an essential role in the medical treatment of intersex/DSD children (Prader 1957). Mandatory genital-based classification was first performed on-site at the British Commonwealth Games and the European Athletics Championships in Budapest in 1966. Athletes who intended to participate in the women's category had to undergo a genital examination prior to the tournament. Due to the fundamentally cross-border nature of this procedure and the different cultural and religious shame attached to nudity, some of the athletes described the treatment as "invasive, embarrassing, and inappropriate [...] nude parades" (Blithe and Hanchey 2015: 494).

• In response to massive criticism, genital-based sex testing was replaced as early as 1967 by chromosome-based classification. For this purpose, a tissue sample was taken from the athletes before the tournament by oral mucosal swab and then examined in the laboratory regarding the chromosome combination. Figure 1 shows a distinction between different test forms performed in the 1967 to 1998 period. Notably, the eligibility of intersex/DSD athletes depended less on the actual chromosome combination than primarily on which test was performed and which syndrome could be identified with that particular test. For example, intersex/DSD athletes with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY karyotype) could be excluded from three tests while passing the Barr body test due to the second X chromosome.

• Testosterone-based classification indicates the current interpretive authority of hormones in the binary gender division. At the heart of the policies published in 2011 is establishing a tolerance range for testosterone levels. Figure 1 points out three essential aspects: the high number of updated policies in the relatively short period of ten years; the tightening of the tolerance range from ten to 2.5 nmol/L testosterone; and the restriction of disqualified athletes from formerly "All athletes" (2011) and "46, XY Intersex Athletes" (2019) to specific intersex conditions.

3 Inclusion of Gender Variations

In recent years, scholars from gender and sports studies have discussed moving away from sex-segregated categorization. Their commonality is to avoid discriminatory exclusion and realize inclusion through alternatives to categorization and other approaches to competitive sports. However, they raise unresolved questions about categorization. In the following, I present four forms of categorization that have significant influence in current discussions.

Table 1

Gender-Inclusive Categories

• Athletic Gender stands for a classification model developed significantly by Joanna Harper (Harper 2018). At its core is the approach of softening the rigidity of binary categorization through gradual differentiation of biological characteristics deemed relevant to performance. Similar to differentiation by weight in boxing, Athletic Gender is about establishing categories based on testosterone-levels by setting minimum and maximum levels, thus allowing athletes with similar testosterone levels to compete against each other. This way, the practice of hormone lowering envisaged in the case of intersex/DSD athletes could be avoided. At the same time, an inclusive system could be established that is not based on establishing one of two potential gender classes but on separating athletes according to an alternative indicator. Critically, however, this approach is based on a one-sided understanding of performance, and it categorizes athletes into new groups. Harper must also face the critical question of why a distinction should be made according to testosterone levels. In the case of various intersex/DSD conditions, it is not even possible to measure the influence the determined testosterone-level has on performance. For example, in the case of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), due to the functioning of specific receptors, testosterone cannot be utilized by the body at all or only to a minimal extent.

• The Move-Up Category builds on the study "Sex equality in sports" published by Jane English in 1978 and stands for the idea that "talented athletes do not always need category protection" (Martinkova 2020a: 2). Instead, it calls for athletes to be free to compete with opponents considered superior and to realize inclusive sports through "openness" – a self-determined assignment to a gender category. Her starting point is the position that the gender binary implicitly represents the subjugation of female athletes to the notion of male-biological superiority. This is substantiated by the fact that, so far, only women are sex tested in sports while there are no tests for men. The basic idea of the Move-Up category is based on professional boxing, where lighter boxers can compete in higher weight classes, but not vice versa. This aspect becomes particularly relevant when women's performance exceeds that of men in some sports and are excluded from men's sports despite having higher ambitions. This idea implies leaving it up to intersex/DSD athletes to self-assign to a category.

• The Delimited/Denaturalistic Category takes the essentialist approach that differences between athletes like all living beings are natural and do not require structural differentiation. Guiding this approach is the principle that a binary division reproduces social inequality in the face of increasing social gender diversification. In sports, the delimited perspective becomes relevant as it calls for understanding that it is not women or men who prevail in the respective sports disciplines but athletes with particular potentials (Bianchi 2019). In this regard, it calls for rethinking the differentiation by sex and thus, recognizing the existence of non-binary athletes as a natural fact. This also means that the regulation of intersex/DSD athletes should be dropped. At the same time, this basic idea relates to current developments in sports, although in a limited way. For example, in elite track and field intersex/DSD athletes are currently free to compete with men without undergoing testosterone reduction. However, they can only compete in the women's category if they receive medical treatment. A limiting factor is that not all non-binary people experience their gender identities as non-binary and can define themselves as unambiguously male or female. This points to the fact that delimited approaches, like sports categories in general, have so far aimed at breaking down binary categorization from the point of view of the body alone and have left aspects such as gender identity unconsidered.

• The Mixed-Sex/Unisex Category is based on the fundamental idea of a "gender-neutral-sport" (Martinkova 2020a: 6) that replaces the binary division with the idea of shared sports. Similar to the delimited category, the goal is to create a category that covers all athletes regardless of gender. This approach is based on modes of classification as found in sporting events such as gender-mixed teams in tennis and beach volleyball or unisex sports such as equestrian. The mixed category represents a suitable alternative that softens the rigid two-gender order in various sports disciplines by replacing the competitive comparison between genders with that between athletes. The concept of "mixed," thereby, brings together various current developments, especially in informal and popular sports, and appears under terms such as "mixed-gender-competition" or "gender-integrated-sports." At the same time, the underlying egalitarian approach lacks a concrete approach to how fairly sports should be organized when there are biological differences in performance. Inclusion and the non-discrimination of non-binary athletes are indeed imperative to ensure. However, it remains unclear whether removing boundaries in a social system based on competition and aimed at identifying a few successful athletes produces new forms of discrimination.

4 Conclusion

The article has shown that so far, no category satisfies all parties. This is less due to the categories of and more due to the basic idea surrounding competitive sports, which strives to realize inclusion in a social system where aspects such as evaluation, competing, and ranking function fundamentally. Moreover, it can be said that all categories are inclusive and exclusive, and belonging to one group always implies not belonging to another.

The practice of sex testing clarifies this: In a binary system that differentiates women and men based on changing biological characteristics, non-binary athletes can only ever appear as illegitimate or in need of medical treatment. This primarily concerns intersex/DSD athletes, who pose a problem for the binary system of sports by birth and by biology. Concerning the issue of gender classification in sports, there is the additional particularity that binary differentiation appears increasingly obsolete given the social visibility of non-binary genders, whose classification into a binary system is ethically prohibited. Against this backdrop, sports currently face the challenge of being as inclusive as possible while considering the societal pluralization of gender.

The history of sex testing outlined here and the four alternative categories presented can serve as suggestions for realizing a non-discriminatory approach to non-binary genders. However, these come with their limitations, such as gender identity or the biological individualities of bodies. The basic inclusive idea at their core, however, of not harming people by forcing their bodies into a rigid binary system can serve as a helpful starting point for developing future categories.