Competing ideas about gender are not new. Consider David Bowie’s lyrics from his 1974 hit song “Rebel, Rebel:” “You’ve got your mother in a whirl. She’s not sure if you’re a boy or a girl.” Or notice the popularity of “gender reveal” parties. Maybe you live in one of the ten states in the U.S. that now includes three gender-marker options on birth certificates: M, F, and X. These examples illustrate how gender – and sex and sexuality along with it -- vary by geography and generation. Today, we observe the growing visibility of trans, gender nonbinary, intersex, and queer youth, while U.S. legislatures debate over whether such gender and sexual minority (GSM) youth can participate in sports and physical education classes.

As an anthropologist, I understand that the sex-gender-sexuality concept is widespread, although, when present, not universal in its application. In other words, how many genders are recognized, whether sex is distinguished from gender, how sex-gender-sexuality converges in meaning, what role(s) they play in organizing society, and how the sex-gender-sexuality system interacts with other classifications (e.g. race/ethnicity), will vary. Yet, although there are embodied elements to gender, “[t]he reality of human biology is that males and females are shockingly similar. There is arguably more variability within than between each gender, especially taking into account the enormous variability in human physical traits among human populations globally” (Mukhopadhyay and Blumenfield 2020, 235). Sex-gender-sexuality is culturally constructed, a human invention, which we are socialized into – and may embrace or resist - throughout our lives. That said, as a sociolegal and justice studies scholar, I also understand that social categories such as sex-gender-sexuality are neither static nor contained within state borders. Ideas travel, as does their regulation. Binary-based approaches to gender, as well as rejection of non-heterosexuality, have been exported from the U.S. and the U.K., mainly to formerly colonized nations. As a result, we find anti-GSM laws and policies in many states around the globe (ILGA 2017, 2019). Yet, much of what we know about the regulation of sex-gender-sexuality and sports centers on individual professional athletes, and technicalities such as testosterone levels. Biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling (2014) argues that this tends to reproduce “how scientists nonconsciously wove cultural concepts of gender into the production of scientific and technological knowledge.”

Instead, the proposed pilot project examines contextualized perspectives on and advocacy strategies associated with GSM youth in sports. I will analyze how the overarching state apparatus of legal gender recognition and criminalization of consensual same-sex relations shapes the ability of GSM youth to play sports (law and policy analysis). I will then use these results to compare how local arguments regarding GSM inclusion in sports are framed (content analysis). Based on findings from this exploratory stage, I will produce a journal article and a messaging primer on effectively talking about these contested issues, akin to those produced by Movement Advancement Project. Ultimately, I envision that the long-term project would measure how the exclusion of GSM youth from sports contributes to long-term education and health disparities.

Last updated April 2021.