Why are men taking part in women’s hockey competitions run by Hockey ACT? And why aren’t women being asked if they agree to that? WAAC was sent this story by a Canberra woman, and we have permission to publish it, here.
I am a woman playing social grade hockey in the ACT. I have played hockey for around 30 years, from State Representative Teams, First Division (Capital League) and master’s level hockey. I have enjoyed playing mixed social competitions and have even been lucky enough to play alongside both male and female Olympic players in these friendly competitions.
However, a few weeks ago was the first time I played against a male player without anyone’s asking if I agreed to that. Our women’s team played against a trans-identified male because Hockey ACT, unbeknownst to most people, follows Hockey Australia’s rules, which base the placement of athletes in team’s according to identity, not sex.
At quarter time our very capable and talented full back said to the rest of the team, exasperatedly, “I don’t know what’s going on?” after the trans-identified man had just easily scored his second goal before the quarter time whistle. After some silence and obvious feelings of discontent from all the female players, one woman responded, “because we’re playing against a man”.
We were playing against a man, without our consent, and women say no – this is not fair and I argue that allowing males to compete in female sport can be interpreted as indirect discrimination against females.
Firstly, I am going to appeal to emotion here and attempt to express what the lack of consent coupled with the current anti-woman culture does to our psyche. As a group of ordinary and diverse women, we are inclusive – we come from a range of backgrounds, sexuality, presentations and life experiences yet we share something in common, and that is being female in a male-dominated world. Women’s sport has always been a way to exclusively connect with a group of women, without considering the presence, needs or interests of men.
Women are acutely aware of being female in a male-dominated world, especially those of us who play sport. We’ve seen the way a competition draw favours the male competition, that the crowds, resource and financial incentives favour male players/clubs. We’ve seen how male athletes are placed on a pedestal at every level. We recognise the performance advantage conferred by male puberty through witnessing the skill and strength of a hit, drag flick (see graph, below) or overhead, that even the youngest and/or least experienced male players outside of junior comps are able to perform.
Women and girls are also affected by a regular menstrual cycle, the impact of which physically and emotionally ranges in severity for each female athlete. We know our bodies are important and different from men’s and that to deny this or believe that our sex is irrelevant to our participation in sporting competition, is a denial of our rights as women and girls.
In addition to the denial of a difference between the sexes, people now wish to claim that women are exclusionary and seek to exclude even the most gender atypical woman from sport. Despite these absurd claims, any girl or woman who has played sport can attest that women do not exclude other women from sport. We are the diverse, proud women who are encouraged to be themselves, who are embraced. Where our sexuality, gender expression and appearance or any status is inconsequential to women as a group. Women are accepted whether they are butch, masculine, feminine, adhere to gender stereotypes or reject them – women can be ourselves however we appear. Even the celebrated, ‘inclusive Pride Rounds’ are not taken up by men’s sporting codes. It wasn’t until women participated in these events that there was even (tepid) mainstream encouragement/expectation for men to do the same.
We’ve seen how differently men treat men on the sporting field, we’ve seen how, from a young age, difference is not embraced, homosexuality is repressed and any form of effeminate gender expression is stripped from maleness and masculinity and subject to ridicule and stigma. Men do not embrace, celebrate, accept their homosexual teammates. Yet, there is no disadvantage to men by embracing and including homosexual men, effeminate men, men who claim to be women, still these exclusionary attitudes persist. Why is that?
We know women and girls are different from boys and men, in body and attitudes, and that females are deserving of maintaining our single sex spaces and to protect this space for future female athletes. We know we have been subordinated to men in sports and many other facets of life, and we are now being forced, yet again, to accept this subordination, without exception.
But we say no, we do take exception to this.
Including male players in the female competition is an unreasonable expectation imposed on the female class; we are told it is to treat everyone equally, however it does not, in a sporting capacity, treat girls and women equally.
It has the effect of disadvantaging girls and women across all sporting codes due to the protected attribute of sex (what is and ought to remain a distinct and separate category) being subordinated to the identity and sex of males, who, as part of the other different sex class, have a distinct physical advantage in sport where strength, stamina and physique is relevant.
The category of sex (whether female or male) is distinct and cannot be overridden by claims of identity, when — in a sporting capacity — strength, stamina and physique are always relevant. Claims of a gender identity from males do not remove the physical advantage over females, whether the competitive activity is elite or non-elite. Men have a huge advantage over women in all sports and when you remove the category of sex, you take away the principles of fairness and justice, you eliminate accessibility for women and therefore female participation in sport diminishes.
This is discrimination. Knowing all of this, can we really continue to call this inclusion and progress?
Even the ACT Human Rights Commission (HRC) appears to stay silent on the indirect discrimination as its own best practice policy heavily favours the uncritical inclusion of intersex and transgender identified players into what is widely understood to be single-sex activities, without thought to how this disadvantages or effects girls and women.
The ACT HRC does not address or provide guidance to sporting organisations about managing concerns from girls and women about fairness, safety (physical and psychological) and the real disadvantage due to adopting a practice that favours identity over sex. However, the ACT HRC acknowledges that lawful discrimination remains for single-sex elite competitions, so how do such institutions conclude, by implication, that all other girls and women playing in every other level of competition ought to be discriminated against?
This inconsistent policy was helped along by a change to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 , which effectively erased what are significant material differences between male and female people under the guise of ‘inclusion’, ‘progress’ or ‘modernisation’. However, collapsing these two groups leaves no legal recourse or protection for women and girls when matters of sex (not gender identity) lead to, or result in, our disadvantage, harm, exclusion or discrimination.
The rights we assumed we have on the basis of sex are now legally subordinated to boys and men’s claims of a gender identity. The subordination of females is neither inclusion, progress nor modernisation.
It is the reification of regressive and sexist gender roles and stereotypes, creating the same hierarchy that the traditional system of gender enacted – one that ensures male interests and needs continue to be elevated in society and women and girls continue to be subordinated to their demands. Removing our legal protection has generated modern day structural sex-discrimination.
Surely these inconsistencies in law and policy should be publicly discussed in an effort to address the conflicting rights? However, it appears it is easier to demonise and shame girls and women across the global north as bigoted and unkind. None of this will alleviate the material issues and structural inequality this is creating. Institutions will be required to, at some point, address their failings to centre, nay, even to simply consider, the rights of girls and women.
As we cannot rely on institutions to do the right thing, we must call on the male class, on male athletes, coaches, sports administrators (of which, we know, are many), to show leadership and accountability and demand from their clubs and organisations that all male players compete in the male competition.
If sporting clubs and organisations can embrace, affirm, even celebrate male athletes of past, present and future with all their faults, misogyny, homophobia, violence, cheating and doping scandals; perhaps they can show leadership on actual inclusion and state that all male athletes will be embraced, affirmed, celebrated as their identity, accepted — without exception — because it is the fair thing to do and will cost them NOTHING.
