While policies across the United States exist to provide gender equity in college sport, they fail to protect trans participants (Harry et al., 2022). Trans college athletes are subject to limited protections and heavy regulation under inconsistent policies. Laws such as Title IX, mandating gender equity at federally funded schools, and gender equity policies established by sport organizations, provide either ambiguous protections or stringent regulations dictating trans college athletes’ participation (Title IX, 1972). Indeed, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)—college sport’s leading governing body—and other national/international sport organizations face criticism for discriminatory policies against trans competitors (Harry et al., 2022). In 2022, the NCAA dissolved its rules on trans athletes and deferred to the national/international sport governing bodies’ (SGB) policies for each sport (Sanchez, 2022).
An alternative for protecting and including trans college athletes exists through gender identity policies beyond the federal government (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). Ratajczak and Teut (2023) conducted a policy analysis to “queer” Title IX, examining the inclusiveness of the statute for trans students. They audited the occurrence of feminist jurisprudence perspectives that were/were not found in Title IX documents across the lifetime of the statute (1972–2022) and highlighted opportunities for increased protections.
Our study extends the work of Ratajczak and Teut (2023) with an analysis of gender equity policies of the NCAA and leading SGBs regulating trans college athletes. This examination is important. Sport, particularly intercollegiate athletics, is a significant cultural phenomenon and serves as a microcosm for greater societal issues (Coakley, 2021). Sport inclusion policies have the potential to promote a more inclusive society while exclusionary policies do the opposite (Coakley, 2021; Spade, 2011). Support for trans college athlete participation may lead to stronger developmental outcomes for sport participants such as development of human capital (McLeod et al., 2022). Not supporting trans college athlete participation may limit developmental outcomes and lessen the impact of athletes’ human capital development (McLeod et al., 2022). Arguably, this developmental opportunity is, as stated by the NCAA, the purpose of college sport participation (NCAA Division I Manual, 2022–2023).
With the above in mind, we investigated current gender equity and eligibility policies in eight sport organizations to address the following research question: How can the NCAA and national/international SGBs’ queer gender equity policies to further protect trans college athletes?
College SGBs
The NCAA oversees over 1,000 institutions and 520,000 participants across its three levels of competition (Media Center, 2022). The governing body is robust, powerful, and controversial (Coakley, 2021), making examination of trans-inclusive/exclusive policies impacting NCAA athletes worth exploration. The highest profile level of NCAA competition is Division I and thus is the focus of this manuscript. These athletic programs have the largest budgets, offer the most athletic scholarships, and are prominently featured on television and in the national news (NCAA, 2020).
Still, SGBs with influence in intercollegiate athletics include not only the NCAA, but also other national and international sport regulatory groups. The NCAA established their initial trans athlete inclusion policies in 2011, which were contingent upon trans women athletes’ hormone replacement (Buzuvis, 2021). This is likely due to the misconception that trans women, who may have biologically male hormones and physical features, are more physically dominant than cisgendered women they compete against (Sanchez, 2022). With the NCAA’s policies, trans women athletes could be eligible to compete in a women’s sport after 1 year of hormone suppression treatment to decrease their production of testosterone (NCAA, 2011). These policies were significantly different for trans men athletes who were eligible for competition immediately without required medical interventions (NCAA, 2011). Again, this immediate eligibility was likely due to the notion that trans men athletes, or those who may have biologically female hormones and physical features, are not as physically capable as their cisgender peers they are competing against (Brink, 2022).
In 2022, the NCAA’s policies for trans athlete inclusion changed from policing athletes’ hormones to deferring to the policies of national and international SGBs (Sanchez, 2022). With this shift, the NCAA forced trans athletes to follow their sport’s national or international governing body’s policies (Sanchez, 2022). With one action, the NCAA created different standards for trans athletes in different sports. Critics of the NCAA’s decision voiced concerns on how this change furthers inequity for trans college athletes across the association (Harry et al., 2022). Proponents of the decision noted the diversity of the NCAA’s sponsored sports, advocating that one sweeping trans athlete policy does not account for the uniqueness and idiosyncrasies of each sport (Sanchez, 2022).
Trans College Athletes
Despite the breadth of opportunities for sport participation, the field has a limited understanding of the number and experiences of trans college athletes (Klein et al., 2019). A few popular media outlets have attempted to determine the number of trans athletes, with the most recent numbers placing the entire NCAA trans athlete population at <40 (Brink, 2022; Zeigler & Webb, 2023). Importantly, this number is indicative of athletes who are competing while “out.” Trans athletes often fear for their well-being and safety, and thus, may not disclose their trans identity while in college (Buzuvis, 2021; Klein et al., 2019). The number of NCAA trans athletes could be higher.
The culture and climate of intercollegiate sport, and the broader sports world, are often not conducive to trans athletes expressing their authentic selves (Coakley, 2021; Knoester et al., 2023). In fact, sport spaces are often dangerous—emotionally and physically—for trans athletes (Coakley, 2021). Research shows the number of assaults on trans individuals is 40% higher than assaults on nontrans individuals (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011). These assaults are predominantly done in more secluded areas connected to athletics, such as locker rooms and bathrooms (Herman, 2013). Additionally, verbal assaults are common in these same sport spaces, along with competitive areas such as courts, fields, tracks, and pools (Hargie et al., 2017). Similarly, assaults on trans students and athletes are often perpetrated by cisgender peers. This is counter to anti-trans activists’ belief that trans-inclusive policies will lead to increased assaults by trans students and athletes on their cisgender peers (Gray et al., 2018; Herman, 2013). This fosters a paradoxical understanding of the danger posed by including trans athletes in sports: Who is at risk of experiencing danger? Trans athletes or their cisgender peers?
While limited research exists in this area, some sport spaces may be more dangerous or toxic for trans athletes compared with others (Coakley, 2021; Knoester et al., 2023; McDonald, 2015; Nelson, 1994). It is well documented that traditionally male-dominated sports, like football, are not accepting to women athletes (or women-identifying athletes), who have been coined “invaders” (Coakley, 2021, p. 203; Harry, 2021; Nelson, 1994). For example, (Harry, 2021) used a feminist lens to explore Instagram commentary about Sarah Fuller, the first woman kicker in the most elite Division I conference, to kick a field goal for the Vanderbilt University football team. Fuller, a cisgender athlete, was still subjected to anti-feminist harassment when she invaded a sport formerly considered off-limits to women, actions routinely done by trans athletes. Similarly, there were no open trans athletes on Out Sports’ list competing for more high-profile sports such as football, men’s basketball, or baseball.
Football and male-dominated sports promote hegemonic masculinity or the patterns of practice perpetuating men’s dominance over women (Connell, 1987; Nelson, 1994). Hegemonic masculinity in sports literature was originally employed to understand violence in contact sports (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Over time, hegemonic masculinity has grown to include other components outside of physical prowess including homophobia and transphobia (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Coakley, 2021; Hargie et al., 2017; Klein et al., 2019).
Conversely, women’s sports often promote more traditionally “feminine” ideals of grace, subservience, and thin appearances (Harry, 2021; Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). When athletes, including trans athletes, challenge these norms, other competitors and sports leaders may become uncomfortable/offended that the trans individual does not align with longstanding criterion (Hargie et al., 2017). Such attitudes perpetuate hegemonic masculinity (Coakley, 2021). Additionally, trans athletes may have this uncomfortability weaponized against them (Hargie et al., 2017), further discouraging them to be authentic in athletic contexts. The fear of exclusion and potential negative reactions has led many athletes to “self-exclude” from sport participation (Hargie et al., 2017, p. 232).
Authenticity is further challenged considering intersecting identities of trans athletes, like those from racially and ethnically marginalized backgrounds and those outside the heterosexual norm (Coakley, 2021; Crenshaw, 2010). Intersectionality highlights overlapping systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, and heterosexism) and distinct realities created by existing at the nexus of multiple identities (Crenshaw, 2010). It is not unreasonable to consider that trans athletes with multiple marginalized identities (e.g., Black trans women) may experience more inequality and hide or downplay their trans identities (Messinger et al., 2022). However, there is even less research on the experiences of trans athletes from marginalized backgrounds (Klein et al., 2019).
There are a handful of studies centering trans athletes and their experiences, mostly during their transition. For example, Hargie et al. (2017) interviewed 10 trans athletes through the lens of minority stress theory and exclusion, finding four significant themes: (a) locker room intimidation, (b) alienation from team sports, (c) fear of public spaces, and (d) denial of social, mental, and physical benefits of sport. The themes were particularly prominent for trans women.
In a case study of one trans athlete, Klein et al. (2019) explored the transition experience of a Division I cross-country athlete as he moved from the women’s team to the men’s team. In interviews, the athlete described the highs and lows of his transition process. For example, the athlete became sad when some peers did not support his transition to the men’s team, yet relieved when the coaching staff offered their full support (Klein et al., 2019). Support or lack of support is often tied to individuals’ previous experiences, or lack thereof, with trans individuals or athletes (Goldbach et al., 2022). Klein et al. (2019) findings align with other scholarships noting the mixed emotions cisgender peers and others have toward trans individuals when they “come out” or transition (Gray et al., 2018; Hargie et al., 2017; Herman, 2013).
Still, many trans athletes view their journey as guidance for the next wave of trans athletes. One such athlete was NCAA Division I women’s swimming champion and former University of Pennsylvania athlete, Lia Thomas. Thomas received extensive backlash after becoming the first openly trans athlete to win an NCAA Division I championship across all the NCAA’s 24 sponsored sports (Sanchez, 2022). This resistance was strongest from other cisgender women athletes and competitors. In fact, multiple of Thomas’ competitors and other cisgender athletes filed a suit against the NCAA in March 2024 claiming that the SGB violated their Title IX rights by allowing Thomas, a trans athlete, to compete against them (Associated Press, 2024). While the case remains pending, trans athletes encounter resistance in a host of other ways, such as through anti-trans practices and policies in place by SGBs.
Theoretical Argument
The framing of this study combines neoliberalism and feminist jurisprudence (Gayles et al., 2018; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). Neoliberalism is a socioeconomic and political perspective favoring government deregulation, free-market capitalism, and competition (Harvey, 2005). These components further promote a societal culture that normalizes individualism, meritocracy, racism, sexism, and power; all are present in intercollegiate athletics (Gayles et al., 2018). The entrenchment of neoliberalism in athletics undermines the well-being of college athletes, with the focus of this research demonstrating how neoliberalism particularly dismantles support for trans participants.
Neoliberalism connects with particular types of feminist jurisprudence. While traditionally applied to laws, we employ jurisprudence to SGB’s rules/regulations as they behave similarly to laws. There are penalties for violation of these SGB rules/regulations, and the society of athletes, coaches, officials, and spectators codify them through adherence and deference (Vamplew, 2007). Feminist jurisprudence is the “analysis and critique of women’s position in patriarchal society” (Weisberg, 1993, p. xxvi). This perspective notes men, particularly White cisgendered men from affluent socioeconomic statuses, benefit from laws created to favor them (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). Importantly, feminist legal theories are not feminist because they center women; rather they are feminist because they attempt to dismantle patriarchal laws (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). For the purposes of this study, there are three categories of feminist theories, the first category bolsters neoliberalism and the second and third challenge neoliberalism. See Figure 1.
The first category of feminist jurisprudence theories is essentialism which maintains that being a man or woman entails possessing fixed, intrinsic attributes and qualities (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). In this way, essentialism upholds gender binaries and ignores the fluidity present in gender categorizations. Essentialism encompasses subperspectives of liberal, cultural, and dominance feminism (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023).
Liberal feminist jurisprudence is the most common essentialist perspective and emphasizes the sameness of women and men before the law. Through this perspective, laws and regulations prioritize equal treatment of men and women because they view them as “the same” despite acknowledging biological differences between sexes (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023, p. 105). Any differences in experiences between women and men occur because women do not receive equal access to resources including athletics, education, and protection under the law (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Weisberg, 1993). Theoretically, once laws and regulations are redesigned to remove structural barriers to equal access, experiential differences between women and men will dissipate (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Weisberg, 1993).
Many scholars argue against liberal feminism stating that inherent differences between women and men necessitate different protections under the law (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rothenberg, 2008). Those arguing for this “difference” have adopted a cultural feminist approach. Therefore, cultural feminists believe that women need equitable access and resources, not necessarily identical access and resources (Alcoff, 1988; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). The focus of cultural feminism is equity rather than equality. Cultural feminists argue that through an equality stance, laws, and policies emerge as seemingly gender-neutral, which does not lead to positive outcomes for women. Ratajczak and Teut (2023) expanded on this idea: “One reason this occurs is because gender-neutral policies are designed in a society where the norm is male” (p. 106). This norm is particularly ubiquitous in sports as male athletes generally receive heightened media attention, more athletics scholarships and resources, and an enhanced athletic experience (Coakley, 2021; Harry, 2021). Thus, the hunt for equity—despite the norm being male—is a common hurdle for women-identifying athletes to overcome (Anderson & McCormack, 2018; Coakley, 2021).
The third essentialist lens is the dominance approach. The dominance perspective argues women exist in a subordinate relationship with men and laws maintain male supremacy (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rothenberg, 2008). With this feminist approach, it is not that women and men are the same or different, but rather that women live in a system perpetuating their subordination. It is the laws and policies men created that allow for perpetuation of subordination and male supremacy (Alcoff, 1988; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rothenberg, 2008). Throughout history, social institutions, such as sport, have excluded women’s voices, which maintained patriarchal values and norms. With this, the dominance approach advocates that laws and policies, including those in sport, need reconstruction to reflect women’s lived experiences.
Notably, the dominance perspective perceives women as a monolith, ignoring intersecting identities and maintaining neoliberal ideals. Criticism exists for sects of radical feminism, like the dominance approach, which promote “essentialism and biological reductionism. Essentialism suggests that there is an essence to being a woman thus emphasizing women’s perceived natural or biologically determined qualities” (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013, p. 99). Thus, there are two common feminist perspectives to challenge essentialism: anti-essentialism and postmodern/queer theory.
An anti-essentialist lens can counter neoliberal perspectives, specifically because of its intersectional underpinnings. The anti-essentialism approach argues that womanhood or the female existence has no essential or universal experience since the development of essentialism was based primarily on the experiences of White, middle-class, heterosexual, cisgendered women (Crenshaw, 2010; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). In counter, anti-essentialism incorporates the lived experiences of marginalized women to broaden the accepted understanding of womanhood. In sports, anti-essentialism magnifies the intersectional effects of race, sexuality, class, and other identities on the women’s athletic experiences (Crenshaw, 2010). Feminists with this perspective note that White, cisgender, and economically privileged women dominate available legal, political, and sport spaces, thus limiting access to women who exist beyond those groups (Crenshaw, 2010; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rothenberg, 2008). Thus, anti-essential feminism promotes inclusivity for all people identifying as women.
Finally, postmodern/queer feminist theory offers a stronger rebuttal to neoliberal essentialist ideals. Similar to anti-essentialism, postmodern/queer feminism posits there is not one objective truth to being a woman. Postmodern/queer approaches question the purpose of defining a singular truth/explanation since the world and our understanding of it is constantly changing (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). For feminism, this approach highlights how political and social forces continuously shape our understanding of gender and sex. Thus, classifications of gender, sex, and sexuality are socially constructed and individually performed (Ebert, 1991). In sport, this manifests when gender-fluid athletes attempt to compete in a binary-defined competition class wherein SGBs require athletes to meet strict “truths” regarding their sex, gender, and eligibility. This construction is particularly evident through discourse, including the language of jurisprudence (Ebert, 1991; Rosenbury, 2019).
Discourse is central to Title IX and the gender equity policies of SGBs (Ebert, 1991; Harry et al., 2022). A postmodern/queer feminist lens extends feminist legal theory in important ways by dismantling myopic definitions of sex and gender, and challenging the gender binary which, in turn, conveys relational components of identities (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rosenbury, 2019). Furthermore, this perspective highlights how social structures actively oppress and commit acts of violence against individuals who do not meet gender, sex, and sexuality norms (Rabinowitz, 2002; Spade, 2011). In the context of this study, queer theory holds that the gender equity policies of the NCAA and sport organizations can promote symbolic and actual violence against trans athletes.
Methods
To address how the NCAA and national/international SGBs can queer their gender equity policies to further protect trans college athletes, we used a combination of document analysis and critical discourse analysis (CDA). Previous scholarship in this area has used such methods and bolsters the validity of our findings (Jakubowska, 2023; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023).
Data Collection
The gender equity documents and statements of the sport disciplines in which out-trans athletes competed at the NCAA Division I level, as reported by Zeigler and Webb (2023), were selected for review. Data sources included 10 documents collected from eight SGBs overseeing five distinct sport disciplines. These documents/statements are all publicly available through the websites of the SGBs. Given the focus of our study on queering gender-related policies, the documents included in this sample addressed gender equity and gender eligibility. If an organization did not have such a document, we deferred to its diversity/inclusion statement. If a national SGB did not have a statement/policy regarding trans athlete participation, the international SGB’s rulebook was consulted. In the event that the international SGB did not have a statement/policy about trans athlete participation, the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) 2021’s Framework on Fairness was reviewed. Additionally, we reviewed the NCAA’s 2022–2023 manual, examining all sections regarding gender equity and inclusion of trans athletes (see Table 1).
Reviewed Policies and Statements by Sport and Governing Body
| Sport | Governing document and sport governing body |
|---|---|
| Basketball | Division I Manual (NCAA, 2022–2023) Sexual Violence Prevention: An Athletics Tool Kit for a Healthy and Safe Culture (NCAA, 2023) General Provisions (FIBA, 2023) Framework on Fairness (IOC, 2021) |
| Bowling | Division I Manual (NCAA, 2022–2023) Sexual Violence Prevention: An Athletics Tool Kit for a Healthy and Safe Culture (NCAA, 2023) Gender Classification Policy (USBC, 2022) |
| Cross-country/track and field | Division I Manual (NCAA, 2022–2023) Sexual Violence Prevention: An Athletics Tool Kit for a Healthy and Safe Culture (NCAA, 2023) Statement Regarding Transgender/Transsexual Policy (USATF, n.d.) Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism (IOC, 2015) |
| Diving | Division I Manual (NCAA, 2022–2023) Sexual Violence Prevention: An Athletics Tool Kit for a Healthy and Safe Culture (NCAA, 2023) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (USA Diving, n.d.) Policy on Eligibility for the Men’s and Women’s Competition Categories (World Aquatics, 2022) |
| Swimming | Division I Manual (NCAA, 2022–2023) Sexual Violence Prevention: An Athletics Tool Kit for a Healthy and Safe Culture (NCAA, 2023) Athlete Inclusion Procedures (USA Swimming, 2023) |
Data Analysis
Analysis of the collected sources included a hybrid of document and CDA (Keaton, 2021; Mullet, 2018). Document analysis is the systematic process of reviewing and interpreting materials as a way to give the documents meaning. Indeed, Atkinson and Coffey (2004) noted that documents are “social facts,” often created, disseminated, and employed for social and political purposes (p. 47). We took a deductive approach with the documents (Miles et al., 2020), using the five aforementioned feminist jurisprudences as guides to uncover meaning behind the gender equity statements/documents and analyze how they maintained the status quo or supported trans athletes. In this process, we heeded the advice from Atkinson and Coffey (2004), viewing the data as social facts. Thus, we also employed a critical perspective, through CDA, when examining the “real” or intended meaning behind these data sources.
In alignment with documents as “social facts,” scholars consider discourse “language as a social practice” (Mullet, 2018, p. 119). When extending discourse analysis to CDA, scholars consider the ways in which language establishes and preserves inequalities (Keaton, 2021; Mullet, 2018), such as those experiences by trans college athletes (Hargie et al., 2017). Thus, discourse is a power tool connected to dominant ideologies such as gender binaries, heteronormativity, and masculinity. CDA exposes undercurrents of power, whether those are explicitly or implicitly communicated (Mullet, 2018). Moreover, Trans Scholar and Athlete Activist Roc Rochon noted that “language is part of extending dignity” (Rochon, 2024), further connecting CDA to the study of trans athletes’ experiences and the queering of sport policies.
Documents were first read by both researchers for general understanding and without a critical eye. In the next phase, the critical lens was applied to the documents, considering the power and control SGBs elicited over their participants, particularly those identifying as trans college athletes. During this process, the following questions were considered and reflected on by each researcher separately through memos, and together, via discussions: (a) What does the text accomplish and (b) How does the text represent certain actors and contexts? Complementing this critical lens, we engaged with the queering process.
Queering involves re-interpreting a source, such as SGBs’ trans inclusion policies, from a lens that challenges and rejects normalized and longstanding categories, particularly related to gender and sexuality (Marshall et al., 2014; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). Thus, we not only considered how the texts of the SGBs embedded and perpetuated gender norms and values (i.e., gender binaries, femininity and masculinity, heteronormativity, and cisgender privilege), but also reflected and memoed opportunities for more inclusive language demonstrating an authentic value and appreciation of trans college athletes’ and their experiences. In coupling CDA and queering, we destabilize and resist longstanding gendered assumptions and attitudes within sport structures policies, making space for more authentic policies and practices that encourage individuals and athletes of all identities. This queering process was particularly beneficial in establishing our conclusions below.
Given the subjective nature of research and discursive nature of trans-centric scholarship, we felt it pertinent to memo and constantly reflect on the topic and study (Miles et al., 2020). Any dissent was discussed at length until a consensus on discourse meaning was achieved, giving more reliability to our study. In this second phase, we also engaged in values and descriptive in vivo coding (Saldaña, 2013).
Values coding is appropriate for research examining cultural attitudes and beliefs (i.e., gender binaries, equality, and homophobia), which unite these collected policies (Saldaña, 2013). This was coupled with descriptive in vivo coding of the content and language used within the policies. Descriptive coding summarizes topics within qualitative data; it is beneficial for comparing content and values from disparate entities, such as the various SGBs (Saldaña, 2013). In vivo coding centers the exact language within the documents to describe the content accurately while highlighting the power within language (Saldaña, 2013). Deduction was pertinent in the coding phase as contents within the documents and statements were coded based on neoliberalism and feminist perspectives: essentialism and anti-essentialism.
In the final stage of CDA, we connected the discourse to larger systemic power dynamics and ideologies in American society and sports at large (Keaton, 2021). So, codes were then placed into smaller categories and themed to reflect the five feminist lenses: liberal feminism, cultural feminism, dominance approach, anti-essentialism, and postmodern/queer theory (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Saldaña, 2013).
Findings
The gender equity discourse used by the NCAA and national/international SGBs was categorized based on the feminist jurisprudence underlying this study (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023; Rosenbury, 2019; see Table 2). Throughout this section, we denote coded words, phrases, and concepts with italics which we added for emphasis.
Frequency of Codes in Reviewed Sport Governing Body Policies and Statements
| Feminist jurisprudence | n |
|---|---|
| Essentialism | |
| Eligibility (status and criteria) | 49 |
| Categories of men and women | 31 |
| High/elite level of competition | 26 |
| Fair/fairness | 17 |
| Inclusion/exclusion | 16 |
| Safety/well-being for all athletes | 16 |
| Advantages/disadvantages | 15 |
| Testing/treatment | 14 |
| Sex variations | 13 |
| Privacy and confidentiality | 10 |
| Nondiscrimination | 10 |
| Respect/support for all | 9 |
| Assigned at birth | 9 |
| Biological gender | 8 |
| Testosterone | 8 |
| Equity | 6 |
| Research and data | 4 |
| Changing back | 4 |
| Gender equity | 2 |
| Gender bias | 2 |
| Puberty | 2 |
| Equality | 1 |
| Anti-essentialism | |
| Gender identity | 15 |
| Gender | 13 |
| Transgender | 10 |
| Diversity | 6 |
| Sexual orientation | 3 |
| Identity | 4 |
| Bisexual | 2 |
| Cisgender | 2 |
| Homophobia | 1 |
| Transexual | 1 |
| Postmodern/queer | |
| Transitioning | 17 |
| Training and educating stakeholders | 8 |
| Gender expression and appearance | 5 |
Essentialism
The most prominent language emphasized components of feminist essentialism. Highlighting various essentialist components, the introduction to the IOC’s Framework on Fairness stated that “most high-level organized sports competitions are staged with men’s and women’s categories ... to ensure that competition in each of these categories is fair and safe and that athletes are not excluded solely on the basis of their transgender identity” (2021, p. 2). Additionally, eligibility criteria “must be set in order to regulate the participation in the women’s and men’s categories” (IOC Framework, 2021, p. 2). This essentialist language promotes categorization of athletes based within a strict gender binary. Additionally, this statement indicates the categorization of men and women is only important when the level of competition is high (e.g., college athletics). The U.S. Bowling Congress even classified competition as “elite” and “non-elite,” only restricting trans women athletes in the elite category (2022, p. 1).
While essentialism, as an umbrella, appeared the most in the sample, each of its subcategories appeared with marked difference. Liberal feminism, hallmarked by affinity for equality and fairness, appeared frequently across the sample but in specific ways. All policies used language such as “all,” “any,” “every,” “no athlete,” and “everyone” to express who SBG invite to engage in sport and to imply the value of inclusivity. The sample stressed the notion of fairness in primary relation to competition. World Aquatics (2022) articulated this most succinctly as “competitive fairness must remain the primary objective” (p. 3). This pushes up against the liberal conceptualizations of fairness and equality for all if the underlying goal remains winning, which is the goal of collegiate athletic programs.
Cultural feminism and the dominance approach overwhelmed the essentialism portion of the codes and often appeared simultaneously. For example, all policies upheld the need for separate men’s and women’s categories for participation, aligning both cultural and dominance approaches. World Aquatics (2022) separated competition categories “according to scientifically grounded, sex-based criteria” (p. 5) to preserve the “physical safety” (p. 1) of athletes within each category. This could indicate either cultural or dominance approaches since the policy’s rationale did not provide insight. World Aquatics’ safety concerns may stem from women’s historic lack of access to elite training (cultural) or in the perceived dominance of male-bodied athletes (dominance; Posbergh, 2023).
Similarly, the IOC’s Framework (2021) noted the importance of “preventing a risk to the physical safety of other athletes” (p. 4). This discourse assumes trans athletes pose a risk to the “other athletes” they are competing against, which are predominantly cisgender competitors. While the explicit idea behind this concept was the safety for all competitors (liberal), through a CDA perspective (Mullet, 2018), one could infer the implicit meaning behind safety for all competitors was, once again, the protection of cisgender athletes (cultural), particularly cisgender women (dominance). Previous and recent literature perpetuates this broader essentialist conceptualization of immutable sex-based traits, bolstering the notion that cisgender women need protection from cisgender men and trans women (Knoester et al., 2023; Posbergh, 2023).
concentration of testosterone in the athlete’s serum has been less than 5 nmol/L (as measured by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry) continuously for a period of at least thirty-six (36) months before the date of Application. This must include at a minimum three (3) separate blood tests within the past three hundred sixty-five days (365) days preceding the Application, with the last test conducted within ninety (90) days prior to the athlete’s application. (p. 61)
These requirements indicate an underlying belief that male bodies dominate female bodies and need regulation as such. So, this and similar policies perpetuate the biological essentialism which undergirds the dominance approach (Harry, 2021; Posbergh, 2023; Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). Interestingly, this eligibility component of USA Swimming’s policy simultaneously promotes liberal feminism, as it aims to make trans women athletes more biologically similar or aligned with cisgender men athletes.
In line with previous scholarship on trans athlete policies (Posbergh, 2023), another important vein of discourse present within most of the documents was the reference to using research and/or data to make informed decisions on trans athletes’ inclusion, particularly for trans women. Posbergh (2023) argued: “the veneer of scientific ‘objectivity’ underlines efforts to regulate women’s bodies under discourses of ‘fairness’ and ‘protection’,” (p. 2). The sixth principle of the IOC’s Framework (2021) notes the “Evidence-Based Approach” (p. 4) of this SGB. The principle outlines how an athlete’s eligibility “should be based on robust and peer reviewed research” (IOC, 2021, p. 4) that (a) demonstrates an athlete’s consistent and disproportionate competitive advantage challenges the physical safety of other athletes, (b) is mostly collected from a similar demographic group with similar eligibility criteria of the athlete in question, and (c) shows that a disproportionate competitive advantage for an athlete exists in a specific sport, discipline, or event.
SGBs’ emphasis on research is essentialist as it indicates research gathered holds the answers to the questions of the trans athlete’s legitimacy and competitive eligibility. Furthermore, the notion that an immutable truth exists is essentialist, failing to acknowledge the inherent subjectivity and biases within all research (Mullet, 2018). Indeed, whoever is collecting and analyzing the research and data for the IOC can select certain lines of scholarship (e.g., anti/pro-trans athletes) that dictate results and ultimately this principle in the IOC’s greater framework.
Anti-Essentialism
Next, some documents promoted more anti-essentialist feminist perspectives. Using terms like “gender identity,” “transgender,” and “cisgender,” organizations promote the concept that athletes may not identify within the gender norms or categories which sports historically ascribe (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). All documents reviewed used anti-essentialist language. While some may view the use of these terms as superficial, their mere presence in these regulations indicates a more accepting environment for trans college athletes.
Postmodern/Queer
Postmodern/queer feminist jurisprudence appeared the least across the documents in this sample and was also superficial. Acknowledging the existence of trans athletes by articulating pathways for their eligibility was the most common code within this theme. USA Swimming (2023) eligibility policy broadly invites “all athletes who wish to compete in a competition category (e.g., male or female) different than the biological gender assigned to the athlete at birth” with criteria for inclusion (para. 2).
SGBs noted the importance of educating stakeholders about the experiences of trans competitors. USA Diving stated that “[i]t is our responsibility as the national governing body ... to lead the charge in identifying and removing the barriers that prevent USA Diving from being the diverse, equitable, and inclusive community that we know it can be” (USA Diving, n.d., para. 6). Similarly, educating and/or training stakeholders on trans athletes and their inclusion was the next most popular postmodern/queer code included across the documents. For example, USA Diving (n.d.) outlined not only the need to “cultivate and support an inclusive culture and environment, through programming and education” (para. 3) but articulated ways to accomplish it: “Increase the availability of training resources/materials for members of USA Diving focused on equity, diversity and inclusion” (para. 9). Additionally, a passive education can happen through engagement with these documents as they provide terminology, definitions, rationale, and reflection of SGBs’ values. Education through the policies’ discourse can be part of the queering process, providing dignity to trans athletes (Rochon, 2024).
While these documents reflect progress in the acceptance and inclusion of trans college athletes, an ultimate finding is that SGBs are still not fully invested in supporting trans competitors. For example, in its Athlete Inclusion Procedures, USA Swimming stated they are “committed to the inclusion of transgender individuals in the sport of Swimming subject to the eligibility requirements set forth in this Policy” (2023, p. 65). They stated a tolerance of trans athletes while simultaneously limiting participation based on eligibility requirements, which many future and current trans competitors will not meet.
Similarly, USA Swimming states a no-tolerance policy for discrimination against an athlete based on their “gender expression, or transition to a different swimming gender category” (2023, p. 45) and the IOC’s Framework notes athletes will not be presumed to have an advantage based on gender expression or “physical appearance” (2021, p. 4). However, both policies still require some form of proof or verification that trans athletes’ gender expression, appearance, and/or transition is not only legitimate but also not giving them an “upper hand” against their competitors, mainly cisgender women athletes. So, while the terminology of “gender expression” and “transition” leans toward postmodern/queer perspectives, these concepts ring hollow—and essentialist—when considering other components of the policies.
Discussion
Analysis of NCAA and national/international SGBs manuals and rulebooks highlighted the difficult position in which trans college athletes exist. Their presence is permitted as long as stringent and often arbitrary rules are met under the guise of preserving fairness (Posbergh, 2023; USATF, n.d.). Importantly, the NCAA would not need to defer to external SGBs if association-wide guidelines for trans college athlete eligibility, regardless of sport, existed as they did from 2011 to 2022 (Harry et al., 2022; Klein et al., 2019). In lieu of such guidance, institutions/practitioners must consult external SGBs. Our analysis revealed that, while SGBs have statements of inclusion and equity, these statements are primarily performative and maintain essentialist feminist perspectives. As a result, trans college athletes are vulnerable to discriminatory and exclusionary policies and practices.
For example, the NCAA states that it operates with an educational and developmental mission, positing that athletics are an “integral part of the education program” of higher education institutions (NCAA, 2022–2023, p. 1). By punting trans athlete regulations to other SGBs, whose missions are not education and development but strictly competition-focused, the NCAA has signaled the mission of sport is not athlete education and development, but rather winning, especially when external SGBs’ regulations exclude trans athletes.
Furthermore, trans athlete exclusion in the NCAA Division I Manual, along with conceding oversight of trans college athlete participation to external SGBs, undermines the NCAA’s gender equity principle since they cannot ensure equitable experiences for transgender college athletes. The NCAA claims to be “committed to gender equity” (NCAA Division I Manual, 2023–2024, p. 2). However, the Association outsourced implementation of gender equity to SBGs with vastly differing eligibility criteria, creating undeniable gender inequity for NCAA athletes. Thus, the NCAA’s statements centering athlete education and gender equity are performative in nature.
The statements by the other SGBs were also performative. Under its safeguarding section, the International Basketball Federation noted it entitles all basketball participants to a “safe and enjoyable environment” free from “harassment and abuse” (FIBA, 2023, p. 36). International Basketball Federation’s policy also barred homophobia, expressing: “Homophobia may include without limitation antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred toward lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual individuals, or other individuals who identify with a non-binary gender” (FIBA, 2023, p. 37). However, this statement conflates different phobias, specifically homophobia and transphobia. By not directly addressing trans athletes and lumping their experiences together with LGBQIA athletes, International Basketball Federation signaled a misunderstanding of the trans athlete experience. Thus, the statement is performative and arguably continues to silence and exclude specific members—trans athletes—of the LGBTQIA in sports.
Other policies examined were also performative in describing support for trans participants. USA Swimming and World Aquatics designed eligibility criteria that force trans athletes to conform with the gender binary. This is acceptable for some trans athletes but unacceptable for others, potentially those who are nonbinary and/or gender diverse. By their mere existence in sport, trans athletes engage in disrupting the gender binary while simultaneously participating in its reification. The SGBs’ policies communicate that trans athletes can participate so long as they “fit” the status quo and maintain the gender binary. This aligns with the biological reductionism associated with essentialism (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013). However, a true educational and developmental experience for college athletes—trans and not—would allow and appreciate trans athletes’ participation in and contributions to their sport communities.
Researchers attempting to queer other policies described ways in which verbiage in policies are actually “distortions” of anti-essentialist feminist approaches (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023, p. 102). Through a CDA lens (Mullet, 2018), analyses revealed that distortions emerged as policies were strategically twisted to fit the needs of SGBs rather than the feminist approach—in this case postmodern/queer—or the trans athletes. Similarly, distortions occur when policies do not go far enough, superficially hinting at a particular lens, like postmodern/queer, but not fully embracing that perspective (Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). These distortions lend credibility to the performative nature of SGBs’ trans athlete inclusion policies.
For example, the collected policies mentioned gender identities and expressions beyond the traditional gender binary present in sport. However, these policies did little to promote honoring, valuing, and affirming such gender identities and expressions through sport participation. In fact, USA Swimming (2023) Self-Identity Verification policy superficially addresses anti-essentialism, yet language like their “transition ... is bona fide” and “consistent with the athlete’s gender identity in everyday life” (p. 60) is distortions of the openness to various identities that is necessary for more anti-essentialist lenses. In fact, upon closer examination of this discourse in the purpose statement of the verification policy, these phrases are more closely aligned with sentiments of essentialism that preserve gender binaries as the discourse bolsters the essentialist notions that gender is fixed and inherent rather than a socially constructed phenomenon with fluid characteristics (Scraton & Flintoff, 2013).
Similarly, in the verification process described by USA Swimming (2023), a trans athlete must demonstrate their gender identity and seek approval from the USA Swimming’s Senior Director of Legal and Membership Affairs. Bureaucratic processes to determine someone’s identity, and thus eligibility, highlight this continued distortion—assuming gender identity is objective—and the performative nature of this policy. The fact that an external entity must validate and legitimize an athlete’s gender identity challenges the anti-essentialism the policy was likely originally designed to foster (Mullet, 2018).
Conclusions
Considering the above, we offer three avenues for queering college athletic participation/eligibility policies and moving SGBs away from performative actions and toward meaningful change: centering trans college athletes, offering transparency, and disrupting the status quo. First is centering the trans athlete experience in decision- and policy-making spaces. Of the documents reviewed, only two SGBs shared their creation process for eligibility guidelines (IOC, 2021; World Aquatics, 2022). Of those, only one articulated the presence and role of trans athletes in their policy creation, inviting them to bring “to account their views and the views of their broader communities (World Aquatics, 2022, p. 3).” We recommend trans college athletes—current and former—be enthusiastically engaged as participants in policy review and creation. More importantly, SGBs should seriously consider and, whenever possible, implement recommendations of trans athletes, trans coaches, and their allies.
In addition to being in conversation with trans college athletes, SGBs can engage with third-party organizations to understand the campus climate influenced by their policies. The cultural and structural design of sport hinders participatory rights of trans athletes. It also deprives others—fellow athletes, coaches, and spectators—from learning from and engaging with those who are different, preventing knowledge about trans college athletes from expanding. Athlete Ally, a nonprofit working to end homophobia and transphobia in sports, is one such third-party organization. Athlete Ally developed the Athletic Equity Index (AEI) which provides annual “ranking of the LGBTQ inclusiveness of collegiate athletic departments” (Athlete Ally, n.d., para. 4) using robust methodologies to understand how “institutions are supporting their LGBTQ student-athletes, coaches, administrators, staff, and fans (Athlete Ally AEI, n.d., para. 1).” The AEI provides institutions with clear pathways to making campus climates more trans-friendly through policy and structural support (Athlete Ally AEI, n.d.). For example, 92% of Division I athletic departments do not have fully trans-inclusive policies as measured by AEI’s concrete metrics (Athlete Ally AEI, 2023), thus giving institutions data-driven opportunities for change. By being in continuous conversation with trans college athletes and understanding the campus climates writ large, SGBs and individual institutions can begin to transition toward more postmodern/queer feminist policies and practices.
Having more trans college athletes and allies involved in policy-making endeavors could move SGBs’ policies further toward anti-essentialism. Progress may include limiting biological testing and surveillance of trans athletes, an increase in gender-affirming discourse, curricular development for education/training opportunities to encourage a more inclusive sports culture, and the creation of open-competition categories or opportunities to compete outside of the traditional male–female sport gender binary (Coakley, 2021; Klein et al., 2019; Posbergh, 2023; Rochon, 2024). Such shifts toward authentic inclusion of trans college athletes increase postmodern/queer perspectives in sport while decreasing performativity.
Second is transparency in policymaking. This is the act of accurately telling the story of why and how policies were developed while articulating the values of the organization. Transparency in the creation of trans-inclusive policies helps ensure athletes, coaches, fans, and others can hold coaches accountable to developing and implementing policies that provide equitable, inclusive, and nondiscriminatory opportunities. Therefore, we recommend policy makers include contextual statements about the creation or revision of policies that are attached to the policy itself. Contextual statements encourage honesty from the author, which engenders trust from the reader. Yet, contextual statements can also expose an organization’s bias or exclusionary practices. In this way, transparency is important for building accountability and trust among stakeholders, trans or not. Transparency in policies further legitimizes their existence and works to further legitimize the presence and inclusion of trans athletes in college sport, which is key to queering sport spaces.
While some reviewed policies attempted to provide context by describing struggles encountered by trans athletes, none offered reflection on the underlying causes of these challenges. Therefore, key aspects of anti-essentialism—dismantling systematic oppression and longstanding biases—remained unaddressed. This avoids the necessary context and nuance provided by the participation and inclusion of trans college athletes for a more anti-essentialist feminist perspective in sport. Indeed, representation is a key component to anti-essentialism (Crenshaw, 2010). If policies take into account the narratives of trans athletes, there is more opportunity to challenge misconceptions and discriminatory beliefs, bolstering transparency. Similarly, such narratives humanize trans college athletes and influence anti-trans policies governing their sport experiences. Humanization is a particularly important consideration for those in sport who have “otherized” trans athletes and diminished their individuality, dignity, and humanity (Coakley, 2021).
Without transparency, SGBs have more opportunities to preserve essentialism in athletics through performative policies. However, transparency does not negate the need for disruption to the essentialist-laden eligibility guidelines currently in place.
Third recommendation is disruption, a foundational element to the queering process (Marshall et al., 2014; Ratajczak & Teut, 2023). Disruption is the act of disallowing the continuation of the status quo through disposition and action. Opportunities for disruption appear whenever scholars/practitioners encounter policies. For example, while SGBs provide pathways for participation, some require trans athletes to engage in strict hormone therapy to become eligible for competition. A disruptive approach would highlight to policymakers the assumption that all trans athletes have unfettered access and desire to use hormone therapy for eligibility. This assumption is essentialist, treating trans college athletes as a monolith and overlooking the reality that hormone therapy is not accessible to or desired by all trans athletes. In this way, the policy only addressed inclusion of trans athletes in a superficial manner. Through the queering and CDA processes (Mullet, 2018), our analyses revealed that superficiality of the language delays the true disruption required for authentic postmodern/queer approaches since the intent of policies is not easily discernible (Ebert, 1991; Rosenbury, 2019).
Disrupting is as simple as asking “why” and as complex as developing new avenues for trans athletes that attempt to decenter oppressive power structures. Individual actors such as coaches, trainers, and athletics staff partake in disruption at a micro level by questioning their own actions, language, and biases. To facilitate this introspection, we recommend engagement in trainings developed in consultation with or by trans athletes and their allies. Such programs can provide individuals the opportunity to personally engage with and practice discussing new, complex, and/or nuanced ideas. Additionally, having opportunities for others to hear directly from trans college athletes can be a powerful option for microlevel disruption.
For more macrolevel disruption, SGBs can create competition categories that are open, or not segregated by gender, interrupting the influence of the gender binary and the need for essentialist-based eligibility guidelines. Alternatively, SGBs can offer competition categories based on performance metrics. For example, anyone who swims a 100-m free-style in <1 min is eligible to compete in a specific race. This once again negates the power of genderism and cisheteronormativity while allowing for the athletic competition desired by collegiate athletes. In fact, some of the SGBs offer open categories but only in nonelite competitions (USBC, 2022) or not for prizes (USATF, n.d.).
In light of the drastic increase in state-level legislation regulating trans athlete’s participation in sport, having a national-level regulation tied to elite competition could ensure trans college athlete participation in sport, provide exemplary postmodern/queer language for legislators and SBGs, and help influence American sporting culture. None of these recommendations are novel nor are we the first to suggest them for college sport. However, considering the prevalence of anti-trans legislation at both the state and federal level, it is imperative to reiterate this refrain.
References
Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 405–436.
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2018). Inclusive masculinity theory: Overview, reflection and refinement. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(5), 547–561.
Associated Press. (2024, March 15). Riley Gaines among more than a dozen college athletes suing NCAA over transgender policies. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/riley-gaines-college-athletes-lawsuit-ncaa-transgender-policies/
Athlete Ally. (n.d.). About Athlete Ally. https://www.athleteally.org/about/
Athlete Ally AEI. (2023, August). Executive Summary. https://aei.athleteally.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/August-2023-AEI-Executive-Summary.pdf
Athlete Ally AEI. (n.d.). About the AEI. https://aei.athleteally.org/about/
Atkinson, P.A., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 56–75). Sage.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. Columbia University Press.
Brink, M. (2022, July 4). Protections for trans athletes in Title IX proposal still unknown. InsideHigher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/07/05/title-ix-transgender-athletes-be-consideredseparately#:∼:text=Transgender%20athletes%20make%20up%20a,competed%20openly%20in%20college%20sports
Buzuvis, E. (2021). Law, policy, and the participation of transgender athletes in the United States. Sport Management Review, 24(3), 439–451.
Coakley, J.J. (2021). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. McGraw-Hill.
Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.
Connell, R.W., & Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.
Crenshaw, K.W. (2010). Close encounters of three kinds: On teaching dominance feminism and intersectionality. Tulsa Law Review, 46, 151–189.
Ebert, T.L. (1991). The “difference” of postmodern feminism. College English, 53(8), 886–904.
Gayles, J. G., Comeaux, E., Ofoegbu, E., & Grummert, S. (2018). Neoliberal capitalism and racism in college athletics: Critical approaches for supporting student-athletes. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(163), 11–21.
Goldbach, C., Chambers-Baltz, S., Feeser, K., Milton, D.C., McDurmon, P., & Knutson, D. (2022). Transgender inclusion in competitive sport: Athletes’ attitudes toward transgender athlete participation in intercollegiate sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication.
Gray, A., Crandall, R.E., & Tongsri, J. (2018). Transgender student‐athletes and their inclusion in intercollegiate athletics. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(163), 43–53.
Hargie, O.D., Mitchell, D.H., & Somerville, I.J. (2017). ‘People have a knack of making you feel excluded if they catch on to your difference’: Transgender experiences of exclusion in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(2), 223–239.
Harry, M. (2021). More than a kick: A liberal feminist analysis of Instagram commentary on Sarah Fuller’s historic kick-off. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 14, 652–673.
Harry, M., Graves, E.I., & Hall, A. (2022). Ambiguity and conflict in practice: A conceptual model for the equitable implementation of Title IX. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 15(4), 332–350.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press Canada.
Herman, J.L. (2013). Gendered restrooms and minority stress: The public regulation of gender and its impact on transgender people’s lives. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 19(1), Article 65.
International Basketball Federation. (2023, September 10). General provisions. https://www.fiba.basketball/internal-regulations/book1/general-provisions.pdf
International Olympic Committee. (2015, November). IOC consensus meeting on sexreassignment and hyperandrogenism. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf
International Olympic Committe. (2021). IOC framework on fairness, inclusion andnon-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf
Jakubowska, H. (2023). Who counts as a woman? A critical discourse analysis of petitions against the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 59(2), 203–221.
Keaton, A.C.I. (2021). A critical discourse analysis of racial narratives from White athletes attending a historically black college/University. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 14(6), 969–986.
Klein, A., Paule-Koba, A.L., & Krane, V. (2019). The journey of transitioning: Being a trans male athlete in college sport. Sport Management Review, 22(5), 626–639.
Knoester, C., Allison, R., & Fields, V.T. (2023). Reconstructing, challenging, and negotiating sex/gender in sport: US public opinion about transgender athletes’ rights, rights for athletes with varied sex characteristics, sex testing, and gender segregation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 41(1), 12–15.
Marshall, D., Murphy, K.P., & Tortorici, Z. (2014). Editors’ introduction: Queering archives: Historical unravelings. Radical History Review, 2014(120), 1–11.
McDonald, M.G. (2015). Imagining neoliberal feminisms? Thinking critically about the US diplomacy campaign, ‘Empowering Women and Girls Through Sports.’ Sport in Society, 18(8), 909–922.
McLeod, C.M., Li, H., & Nite, C. (2022). What enables human capital investment sharing in elite sport? Sustainability, 14(17), 1–16.
Media Center. (2022, December 5). NCAA student-athletes surpass 520,000, set new record. NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/12/5/media-center-ncaa-student-athletes-surpass-520-000-set-new-record.aspx
Messinger, A.M., Guadalupe-Diaz, X.L., & Kurdyla, V. (2022). Transgender polyvictimization in the U.S. Transgender Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), Article NP18810-NP18836.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Mullet, D.R. (2018). A general critical discourse analysis framework for educational research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(2), 116–142.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011). NCAA inclusion of transgenderstudent athletes. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/inclusion/lgbtq/INC_TransgenderHandbook.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2020). Our three divisions. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/ncaa/101/NCAA101_Our3Divisions.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2022–2023). 2022–2023 NCAA Division IManual. https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4657-2022-2023-ncaa-division-i-manual.aspx
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2023). Sexual violence prevention: An athletics tool kit for a healthy and safe culture (3rd ed.). National Collegiate Athletic Association. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ssi/violence/SSI_SexualViolencePreventionToolkit.pdf
Nelson, M.B. (1994). The stronger women get, the more men love football: Sexism and theAmerican culture of sports. Harcourt Brace.
Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (1972). https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix-education-amendments-1972
Posbergh, A. (2023). Contradiction or cohesion? Tracing questions of protection and fairness in scientifically driven elite sport policies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 41(1), 1–11.
Rabinowitz, N.S. (2002). Queer theory and feminist pedagogy. In A.A. Macdonald & S. Sánchez-Casal (Eds.), Twenty-first-century feminist classrooms: Pedagogies of identityand difference (pp. 175–200). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ratajczak, K., & Teut, J. (2023). Queering Title IX: protecting transgender and gender non-conforming students from discrimination, harassment, and violence. Victims & Offenders, 18(1), 101–121.
Rochon, R. (2024). Transgender athlete inclusion in collegiate athletics [Panel discussion]. College Sport Research Institute.
Rosenbury, L.A. (2019). Postmodern feminist legal theory. In R. West & C.G. Bowman (Eds.), Research handbook on feminist jurisprudence (pp. 127–137). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rothenberg, P. (2008). Women studies—the early years: When sisterhood was powerful. In A.E. Ginsburg (Ed.), The evolution of American women’s studies: Reflections on triumphs, controversies, and change (pp. 67–86). Palgrave Macmillan.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sanchez, R. (2022, January 22). NCAA’s ‘sport-by-sport approach to transgender participation’ stirs debate. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/ncaa-lia-thomas-transgender-policy/index.html
Scraton, S., & Flintoff, A. (2013). Gender, feminist theory, and sport. In D.L. Andrews & B. Carrington (Eds.), A companion to sport (pp. 96–111). Wiley-Blackwell.
Spade, D. (2011). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits oflaw. South End Press.
United States Bowling Congress. (2022, March 31). USBC’s Gender Classification Policy. https://images.bowl.com/bowl/media/legacy/internap/bowl/rules/pdfs/TransgenderPolicy.pdf
USA Diving. (n.d.). Vision statement. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. https://www.usadiving.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion
USA Swimming. (2023). Operating policy manual. https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default-source/governance/governance-lsc-website/rules_policies/operating-policy-manual.pdf
USA Track & Field (USATF). (n.d.). USATF statement regarding transgender/transsexual policy. https://www.usatf.org/governance/policies/usatf-statement-regarding-transgender-transsexual-#:∼:text=This%20policy%20requires%20that%20certain,to%20help%20ensure%20fair%20competition
Vamplew, W. (2007). Playing with the rules: Influences on the development of regulation in sport. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 24(7), 843–871.
Weisberg, D.K. (Ed.). (1993). Feminist legal theory: Foundations (1st ed., Vol. 1). Temple University Press.
World Aquatics. (2022, June 19). Policy on eligibility for the men’s and women’s competition categories. https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2023/03/27/dbc3381c-91e9-4ea4-a743-84c8b06debef/Policy-on-Eligibility-for-the-Men-s-and-Women-s-Competiition-Categrories-Version-on-2023.03.24.pdf
Zeigler, C., & Webb, K. (2023). These 35 trans athletes have competed openly in college. OutSports. https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/1/7/22850789/trans-athletes-college-ncaa-lia-thomas
