‘We Are Equal but Different’: Challenging Compulsory Heterosexuality by Intersexual Female Athletes in the World of Sport

Abstract

By using the method of Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA), this article examines how sport is a conservative institution so far as sexuality and gender identity of female athletes are concerned. The article enquires to know what it means for a sportswoman to be physically strong and active like a man. It explores how the process of binary sex segregation in competitive sports affects the non-heterosexual female athletes and how their sexuality and physicality are considered as a foil in the patriarchal domain of sports. It highlights how the ‘gender verification test’ as a discriminatory tool is used by the sports regulatory bodies to prove female athletes’ sexuality, especially heterosexuality and to maintain the system of patriarchal hegemony in the world of sport. The article looks into how the hegemonic masculinity within sport works to uphold male power, while subjugating the female athletes. It unveils the incidents, how the non-heterosexual female athletes fall victims of homophobia and go through mental stress to confirm to the societal norms of compulsory heterosexuality. More specifically, through in-depth analysis of two contemporary cases of intersexual hyper-androgenic female athletes, this article examines the status and challenges being faced by the non-heterosexual female athletes in sport and focuses upon how their sexuality are addressed in the field of competitive sports. The article also focuses on the agony as well as resilience of intersexual female athletes to break the gender stereotype in sport in postmodern era unlike before.

Keywords

Intersexuality compulsory-heterosexuality hyperandrogenism homophobia sex/gender verification test

Introduction

Sport has proved very often a bellwether of women’s emancipation. The active participation of women like men in organised sports has undoubtedly challenged the traditional myths about females’ physical capacities¹. However, sport is still considered to be a very conservative institution so far as the sexualities and gender identities of female athletes are concerned.

Even in the postmodern era,² a physically strong girl having a muscular build is commonly called a tomboy.³ And equally well-performing female athlete like her male counterpart usually attracts suspicions of either adopting fraudulent practice, as, for example, doping or not fitting under gender binary⁴ segregation norms prescribed for the elite sports competitions.

The character traits necessary for sports are so incongruent with the stereotypical female roles that sportswomen have had to counter numerous attacks on their sexual identity. Women athletes at many sporting events still have to submit to the notorious sex test,⁵—the test that is supposed to be given by women athletes only, in order to affirm their biological sex. Evidently, countless intersex female athletes were stripped of their careers, dreams and public identity as women due to this sex test. In addition, some of them committed suicide as a result. Some of the notable examples in the history of sex verification test are as follows: in 2001, Indian athlete and swimmer, Pratima Gaonkar (Prabhudesai, 2001) committed suicide after disclosure and public commentary on her that she failed sex/gender verification test. The Dutch athlete, Foekje Dillema (Ballantyne et al., 2011) was banned for life in July 1950 after she refused a mandatory sex test. Likewise, the latest cases of sprinter Caster Semenya (of South Africa) and Dutee Chand (of India) have raised eyebrow among all sports fraternity worldwide.⁶

Objectives and Methodology

The present article is a ‘Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis’ (FCDA)⁷ (Lazar, 2017). By purposively selecting two contemporary cases of elite female athletes with intersex variations (Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand) as samples for in-depth analysis and by using the feminist discourses as a framework of analysis alongside the advocacies of the feminist activists in favour of the cases, followed by the arguments and comments of scholars and researchers against the legal intricacies and other sociocultural issues of the cases, this article critically discusses and points out the following: how severely ‘sexist’ the sport world is; how the institution of sport is conservative and has a complete disregard of possibility of multiplicity of bodies; and how there is an overall insensitivity on the part of the concerned decision-makers/competent sports authorities and sports regulatory bodies (IAAF and IOC)⁸ towards the differences. More specifically, the article analyses the status of intersexual female athletes in sports; it enquires to know what it means for sportswomen to be physically strong and active like a man; what are the challenges they face to prove their sexuality, especially hetero-sexuality; how do the non-heterosexual female athletes relate to the institution of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ in sport; how do they challenge the assumptions that their involvement in sports and anything they do, is for the purpose of serving men physically, sexually and emotionally (Rich, 1980); how do the women’s sexuality affects the way they relate to other women and to the men; how their rights are violated; and how the issues relating to their sexuality are addressed in the field of competitive sports.

Keeping the above-mentioned objectives in mind and by using the secondary sources of data, this article examines two critical cases of female sportspersons with intersex variations who were publicly humiliated, socially condemned, their efforts were misprized, their intensions were suspected and after all their gender identities were questioned for being born different. Finally, this article ends with feminists’ discourses, logical and scientific arguments of scholars and researchers, based on some feminist theories and concepts and the advocacies of feminist activists for the intersexual female athletes to protect their human rights, and to provide them equal space and opportunities for hassle-free participation in the elite sports competitions.

Overall, this article provides a unique forum for discussion and helps stimulate further works and research in this area and also paves the way for a more inclusive and fairer sporting culture.

Historicity of Sexism in Sports

The history of sports is generally one of masculine domination. Traditionally, it is considered that the domain of sports and physical activity are not appropriate for women and not compatible with feminine roles. The reason is more sociocultural than anything else. No wonder, even in Greek Olympics, in the land of Diana, women risked death penalty if they peeped into games. Women were debarred from even witnessing the game, and anyone breaking the rules was thrown down from the nearest cliff (Scanlon, 2004). There is the evidence that the only woman who broke the law and yet escaped the punishment was Kallipateria who happened to be the daughter, sister and mother of Olympic heroes (Hay, 1983; Mukerjee, 1980).

Thus, women’s participation in sports is a history marked by division and discrimination. Women were perceived as being too weak for sport, particularly in endurance sports. It was often argued that sports was harmful to women’s health, particularly women’s reproductive health. In 1986, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, founder of modern Olympics remarked: ‘No matter how toughened a sports woman may be, her organism is not cut out to sustain certain shocks’. To Coubertin, ‘Sports is against the law of nature’.⁹

The traditional society did not accept sportswomen as normal human beings. There were deep-seated suspicions that vigorous sports would cause health hazard for women. The prevalent folklore persists since long back, which explains about how sports might be injurious to the child-bearing capacity of women. The social more of masculine–feminine sex roles was a powerful influence in discouraging women from participating in sports, particularly in highly competitive activities (Metheny, 1970). The ethi-aesthetic arguments (Bonn International, 1973) like sports destroys the natural charms of women, that women’s place is at home, etc., are used to keep sports as men’s privilege.

Patriarchal Hegemony in Sports and Sportswomen

A hegemony is an ideological system that has overarching influence over the way we think, so that it basically blocks out other ideas that do not fit with its ideology. In the case of a patriarchal hegemony,¹⁰ the meanings people express cannot deviate from the meanings of the patriarchal ideology. For instance, in the patriarchal notion, only men are strong, while women are necessarily weak. Women, as a result of hegemonic masculinity, continue to be oppressed in various ways. The hegemonic masculinity within sport works to uphold male power, while subjugating female athletes into two ways: through the reification of both the binary gender system (Lorber, 1993; Messner & Bozada-Deas, 2009) and compulsory heterosexuality (Kolnes, 1995).

Adding to the armoury of patriarchal hegemony in sport is the strong heterosexism and homophobia that exist. Women who are superior athletes, especially those who do not conform to a feminine and/or heterosexual prototype, threaten male hegemony and, subsequently, are ridiculed and deemed unnatural, deviant and/or lesbian (Fink, 2013, pp. 331–342; Griffin, 1992; Satore & Cunningham, 2009). The threat of being considered deviant, and especially being labelled as lesbian, affects all female athletes, gay or straight, as they have to carefully navigate this heterosexist and homophobic terrain; they must vigilantly monitor how they look, what they wear, who they spend time with, etc., in order to avoid the dreaded lesbian label (Fink, 2012; Nyland, 2007).

Unlike previously, women have begun to participate much more frequently in a wide variety of sports and even in many sports which were traditionally considered as male sports, for example, today, some of the fastest-growing female sports are aggressive team sports like football and rugby; combat sports like boxing and judo; those sports where power and musculature are important, for example, body building, weightlifting and throwing events (Hargreaves, 1994). Associated with this move has been a change in the self-concept of many women athletes. And the patriarchal concept of femininity is being undermined (Bray, 1983, p. 13). The sense of satisfaction and exhilaration they get today from frequent participations in a vast range of sports (which requires strength and stamina like males), can be comprehended from the conviction shared by a sportswoman as follows:

Myriam Lamare, a World Boxing Association’s Light Welterweight Champion from Marseille, France said, ‘The punches that I land shake my adversaries as well as the foundations of our society’. She further said, ‘I am strong and feminine, vulnerable and active’, ‘Women are no longer handicapped by their vulnerability’.¹¹

Although the account of Lamare vividly proves what Hargreaves observed that the traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity in sports are slowly fading, and women are actively redefining the concepts of women’s sports (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 274), yet the question arises here: how far would their active participation in the competitive sports challenge the cultural notion of women’s sexuality/ heterosexuality and so-called femininity in the postmodern era?

Sports and Women’s Sexuality/Femininity Conflict

We can understand women’s sexuality as the way women think and behave as women in relation to men, other women and children or more simply as their ‘femininity’. Today’s image of female sexuality or femininity is one of passivity. Women are stereotypically seen as inactive, weak, quiet and often helpless. On the other hand, the stereotypical notion of masculinity includes aggressive, dominant, strong and active traits, which are commonly associated with athleticism. The primary myth surrounding female sports is that there is a conflict between sports and femininity (Bray, 1983). In this context Bray (1983, p. 12) further says that we should rather recognise the fact that myth is founded upon a patriarchal belief in ‘two opposite and separate sex roles’ through which men naturally dominate women.

The myth has also contributed to a modified version of sports in which women do participate, and as far as possible, masculine behaviours are avoided in women’s sports. Thus, we have the truncated sort of sports for women. Different patterns, rules and procedures are followed specially for women’s sports. Distance and time are shortened, and the specific rules of women’s sporting events delimit the movement pattern of female athletes more rigidly (Bray, 1983, p. 12). For example, in gymnastics, some of the events are different for men and women. Rhythmic gymnastic events (dance like floor movement with a long ribbon) and powerful muscular events are categorised for female and male gymnasts, respectively (Pfister, 1998). Male gymnasts grow up to be muscular and mature unlike female gymnasts since ‘slim wiry prepubescent girls’ and not mature women are allowed for gymnastics. Even little girls would be disqualified as soon as they grow up (Lorber, 1993, p. 571). Bray (1983, p. 12) observes that women athletes are intentionally kept away from demonstrating their physical prowess like their male counterparts in a truncated version of sports, which explicitly proves that sport is a primary means of exhibiting the notion of sexual inequality.

Compulsory Heterosexuality Versus Non-heterosexual Female Athletes

Adrienne Rich (1980) popularised the phrase ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ in her essay, ‘compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence’. According to Rich’s theory, compulsory heterosexuality is in service of and emergence from the subjection of women to men. Rich argues that the patriarchal, male-dominated society insists on the institution of compulsory heterosexuality because the men benefit from male–female relationship. The concept of compulsory heterosexuality carries the implication that heterosexuality is neither inborn nor chosen by the individual, but rather is a product of culture and thus is forced. Rich reiterates that the patriarchal society romanticises the heterosexual relationships through its arts and popular culture (television, films, advertising), which reinforce the heterosexuality as the only normal behaviour in patriarchal society. She observes that individuals are taught to believe that they must comply with heterosexuality, which enforces patriarchy, and those who fail to comply, especially women, are considered deviants and face numerous negative consequences like physical torture, imprisonment, psychosurgery, social ostracism and extreme poverty (Rich, 1980).

Kidd (1983, p. 62), in her study, highlights that the traditional female identity in sports has been tied closely to the institution of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’. She enquires to know how women athletes challenge the assumptions that their sports involvement and everything else they do are for the purpose of serving men physically, sexually and emotionally. She points out that women’s involvement in sports and physical activity is often not for their own human development but for the moulding of a fashionable body and a set of skills for their future roles as wife and mother (1983, p. 64). Kidd (1983, p. 63) explains that the Barbie Doll is a fitting description of women’s traditional role in sport. Kolnes (1995) observes that the sportswoman’s appearance, her sexual desirability (towards men) and her status as wife and mother, which are more congruous with the archetypal feminine stereotype, become the focus for female athletes. This was the reason Sally Gunnell¹² was considered as an outstanding athlete of her time and a national pride like many male athletes of her country since she was (hetero)sexually attractive and had a boyfriend and wanted to have children—the qualities proved her truly feminine.

Griffin (1992) argues that in sport, the word ‘femininity’ is really a code for heterosexuality. When female athletes behave in a manner incongruous with archetypal heterosexual femininity, the lesbian label is very often applied to them in an attempt to ostracise and disempower them (Blinde & Taub, 1992; Griffin, 1992; Krane, 1997; Veri, 1999). Cahn observes even in an era of relatively greater freedom, the societal taboo on lesbianism remains strong, even more so in the sporting world (Cahn, 1994, p. 265).

There are many instances where women athletes have had to endure questions about their sexual identity. Kidd (1983, p. 64) observes, since women athletes challenge so much traditional definition of womanhood, they also have to endure the nagging about their sexual orientations. For example, whether or not they have had sexual relations with other women. Such similar kinds of defamatory rumours and derogatory remarks through the organised network, popularly known as the ‘whisper campaign’, has usually been enough to terrify them into silence.

Some of the negative consequences of the lesbian label include lack of or adverse media attention; fewer sponsorship opportunities; negative treatment from coaches, judges, officials and sport administrators; and verbal harassment from sports fans (Kolnes, 1995; Krane, 1999). Any of these alone could potentially ruin a sportswoman’s career. For example, the tennis superstars Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova lost millions of dollars in endorsement money when they openly admitted to lesbian relationships in the 1980s (Cahn, 1994, p. 266).

The fear of lesbian label creates a very heterosexist and homo-negative environment within women’s sport, which creates disharmony among the sportswomen, thereby weakening the threat to patriarchy. It has also been observed that although very often hurt by the lesbian label, none of the women challenged it for the fear of drawing attention to themselves and revealing their sexual identity (Choi, 2000, p. 41).

From the above-mentioned discussion, it is apparent that although sexuality is intensely personal, it is constantly mediated by structured practices and experiences. Pressure is put on sportswomen to display heterosexual signals and to fear the stigma of masculinisation (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 261).

Thus, fear, intolerance and hatred of gay men and lesbians—known as ‘homophobia’—has been described as the glue that holds sexism together in the institution of sport (Griffin & Genasci, 1990, pp. 213–214). The basis of homophobia is the assumption that to be heterosexual is ‘normal’ and to be lesbian is deviant—an attitude that becomes consolidated and reproduced everyday in sports. Heterosexist discourse alienates and marginalises gay men and lesbians; it is a form of harassment that usually goes unnoticed (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 261).

There are also instances that most lesbian sportswomen respond to homophobia and harassment by hiding their sexuality and passing as heterosexual (Hargreaves, 1994). For example, one soccer player reports that she has kept long hair because she is a soccer player, that short hair looks boyish, and by having long hair, she can compensate for playing in shorts, gear and socks (Kolnes, 1995, p. 66). Kolnes (1995) has termed this gender performance, which is similar to Butler’s (1990) concept of ‘ performing femininity’ and Ussher’s (1997) ‘negotiating femininity’. From Kolnes’ (1995) study and from various examples cited earlier, we can very well understand why most of the sportswomen and lesbians consciously and actively choose to perform heterosexual femininity (Choi, 2000, p. 42).

Thus, homosexuality is systematically denigrated in sport (Pronger, 1990). In many countries, homosexuality remains illegal and frequently sanctioned by criminal prosecution, including the death penalty. In these cultures, gay and lesbian sportsmen and women stay deeply closeted, fearful of exposure for their safety. Troubles and struggles have been amplified for those who are transgendered or intersexual athletes (Hargreaves & Anderson, 2014, p. 5).

Issues of Intersexuality in Sport

Before discussing the controversies and challenges surrounding intersex female athletes in elite¹³ sports competitions, we need to know what it means to be Intersex? And who are intersex people?

The term intersex has replaced the term ‘hermaphrodite’. Since the term ‘hermaphrodite’ is considered stigmatising, the physicians and advocates use the term intersex or refer to the condition of (disorder of sexual development (DSD),which stands for either a disorder or a difference of sexual development. This intersex term was used extensively by medical practitioners during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the medical field, this term is used to describe anyone whose sex chromosomes and internal or external sexual anatomy do not fit into the binary of male/female norm (Lenhart, 2015).

It is very hard to determine how many intersex people exist or the frequency in which the intersex conditions occurs. The medical field agrees that about 1 in 1,500–2,000 births result in an infant having atypical genitals (Intersexual Society of North America). However, not all atypical genital anomalies neither show up at birth nor is this the only indication of intersex conditions, and that makes the estimate inaccurate. The intersex condition can occur in multiple forms (Lathrop et al., 2014; Lenhart, 2015). For some individuals, the differences may exist between their internal and external sexual features. For example, a female at birth may have external genitals that resemble the female anatomy, yet also have internal undescended testicles. Another example may be within the chromosomal make-up in which a person has something other than an XX and XY pattern.¹⁴

Controversies and Challenges of Intersexual Female Athletes in Sports

Since the beginning of organised sports, the competition is cemented in the idea of fair play, where both male and female participants would get an equal chance to win the game. Therefore, we find that sports competitions are organised on the basis of two sex-segregated category, that is, male and female.

The controversy surrounding intersex female athletes is that they are actually men and, therefore, should not be allowed to compete with other women. The controversy comes with many questions. Should we let intersex athletes compete? If so, under which sex category (male or female) they would compete? What sex the intersex athlete is embodied with? Such a kind of controversy in sports drew our attention, in the recent past, in 2014, when Indian female sprinter, Dutee Chand, challengd the Hyperandrogenism Regulations, 2011, of International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) on the basis of which she had been suspended from international competitions after her hormone testing, reportedly revealing that her body produced excessive natural levels of testosterone (at the range of male), a clinical condition called ‘Hyperandrogenism’,¹⁵ which was deemed unacceptable to compete under the female category.

In addition to that, the argument was made in the popular press that intersex athletes have an advantage in the women’s world of sports (Viloria, 2014), and, therefore, sex testing is necessary to see if there is an unfair advantage. The advantage being that some female athletes have more testosterone and therefore are better performers. The sex testing is something that only applies in women’s sport and is a technique used by the larger sports governing bodies like IAAF and IOC to prove that an athlete is female. This sex testing completely disregards the experiences and identity of a person, being scrutinised at such intense level (Schultz, 2011, pp. 228–243). There were many instances where the International Sports Regulatory Bodies (IAAF and IOC) implemented a mandatory genital check of every woman competing at international games. All female athletes at the international level of competitions were supposed to undergo through the sex test, the so-called nude parade, where each woman participant appeared underpants down before a panel of doctors, and in some cases, the gender test involved women lying on their back and pulling their knees to their chests for closer inspections. Thus, the ‘gender verification test’ or the ‘sex test’ is not new in the history of sports. The rationale behind the decades-old practice of gender verification test/sex test in sports was to catch male athletes masquerading as women. Although the competent sports authorities could never discover an imposter even once; rather, a number of athletes snagged in those efforts have been identified as intersex women (New York Times, 2016).

Thus, amid complaints about sex test for women athlete, IAAF and IOC, tried to implement the sex verification tests as an objective method to root out not only imposters but also intersex athletes who its officials said need to be barred to ensure fair play in women’s sports and considered the sex test as a marked attempt to ensure that males were not trying to compete as women in elite competition. (Sanchez et al., 2013, pp. 112–115).

To comprehend how the intersex female athletes face challenges because of their sexuality, this article cites two contemporary cases of intersexual female athletes—namely South African athlete, Caster Semenya and Indian Dutee Chand—who have been victimised by gender regulations of IAAF and IOC in the name of fair play in elite sports. These two cases have undoubtedly created controversies and discourses in the world of sports and received the unprecedented attention worldwide.

The Case of Caster Semenya

Caster Semenya, South African Olympian middle-distance runner, whose gender was questioned in 2009 and was forced to undergo sex test during the World Championship in Berlin, where she had won the athletics gold medal in 800 m by reportedly lowering her time significantly, but she was banned by IAAF, the governing body of world athletics, from competing any championship after falling short of IAAF’s policy in the year 2009, having high levels of natural testosterone (hyperandrogenism) in her body and was advised to lower it down below the normal male range, that is, 10 nmol/L (10 nmol testosterone per 1 L of blood) through medication or through hormone therapy. After nearly a year of negotiations (the details which are not public), the IAAF cleared Semenya to run again in 2010 (New York Times, 2015). Consequently, Semnya could become Olympic title winner in 2012 and 2016. It was evident from the case that Semenya’s sex was scrutinised due to her ‘male appearance’ and quick rise to success in athletics. Though the result of Semenya’s ‘gender verification test’ was kept confidential by the IAAF then (Behrensen, 2011), the story was leaked to the popular press that Semenya had the external genitalia of a female and the internal genitalia of a male (The Daily Telegraphs, 2009).

One of Semenya’s competitors, Elisa Cusma of Italy said, ‘These kind of people should not run with us’. For me, ‘she is not a woman. She is a man’ (New York Times, 2016). The IAAF’s General Secretary, Pierre Weiss said of Semenya, ‘She is a woman but may be not 100 percent’. South Africa fielded a Human Rights complaint with the United Nations, arguing that IAAF’S testing of Semenya was ‘both sexist and racist’. Semenya herself said in a statement, ‘I have been subjected to unwarranted and invasive scrutiny of most intimate and private details of my being’ (New York Times, 2016).

It became worse when, in May 2019, the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS)¹⁶ in Lausanne dismissed Semenya’s appeal against IAAF’s new DSD regulations of 2018,¹⁷ which required athletes with specific DSD, having testosterone levels of 5 nmol/L and above (5 nmol testosterone per 1 L of blood or above) and certain androgen sensitivity (which may provide athletes to have unfair advantage over other competitors) have to regulate their conditions by lowering down their testosterone levels (to less than of 5 nmol/L) through medical therapy/surgery, which was effective from 8 May 2019), if they wish to compete as female in 400 m to 1-mile race event at International level competitions. Even Semenya’s appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court against the CAS verdict on DSD regulations (request for suspension of IAAF regulations) was finally rejected (by its order in 29 July 2019) as it revoked its ‘Super Provisional Order’ of 31 May 2019 and reversed the prior ruling of IAAF (DSD Regulations, 2018) upon Semenya’s case. So, till date, Semenya has been suffering due to IAAF’s stance on hyperandrogenic female athletes or those with DSD. So Semnya, at present, is only allowed to compete in long-run events, that is, more than 1 mile or in short-distance run (i.e., 100 m and 200 m) only, but not in middle-distance events, viz. (400 m, 800 m, 1,500 m and 1 mile), which were claimed to be most affected due to elevated testosterone levels. In support of this decision of CAS, the IAAF insisted that the rules were necessary to have a level playing field and ensure that all female athletes can see ‘a path to success’.¹⁸ In July 2019, in an interview with BBC Sport’s Ade Adedoyin in California, Semenya said the impact of the long-running case (from 2009 to 2019) against IAAF and its rule, destroyed (her) mentally and physically. She added to her statement and said, ‘why do you have to drug someone? So you want them to fit in…’. She expressed her agony by saying, ‘we are talking about human rights, we are talking about people being freed, people living their lives for who they are. Its wrong to judge people. Its wrong to discriminate people and and also to devide people’.¹⁹ The deeper examination of Semenya’s case reflects how the IAAF’s gender regulations not only affect athletes’ sporting career but also their mental health which is a human rights concern.

The Case of Dutee Chand

The Indian athlete—Dutee Chand—was unceremoniously dropped from the Indian team/contingent in 2014 at Bengaluru for the Commonwealth Games and eventually for the Asian Games as she was diagnosed positive (in hormone testing) for androgen levels of male sex hormones—testosterone at typical male range—that is, 10 nmol of testosterone per 1 L of blood. Though Chand’s level is not publicly known but assumed to be above the 10 nmol/L threshold, which was not acceptable as per Hyperandrogenism Regulations of IAAF, 2011. As per this new regulations of IAAF, 2011, women with high testosterone levels should seek medical advice for further treatment and should lower her testosterone levels in order to be eligible to complete as women. The decision followed a controversial stance on female hyperandrogenism, that is, the female athletes with high androgen levels have an advantage over other competitors. Diagnosed as positive in the hormone test (with elevated nature of natural testosterone level), Dutee Chand was consequently banned by IAAF and suspended from all international competitions. She boldly refused ‘hormone-suppressing drugs’ to lower her testosterone levels and rejected medical surgery, which would have curbed its production in her body and could have been fatal and irreversible with short-term and long-term health effects. She went through the humiliating process of gender test by the Athletic Federation of India (AFI) in 2014 (when she was suspected to be male for the first time). Sharing her agony with the media news reporters, Dutee said that the test left her confused and ashamed. She told Hindustan Times, ‘I was not told by anyone, not even the doctor from SAI (Sport Authority of India) who conducted several tests on me, what they were for, I was confused. The papers were calling me a man. How does one turn into a man overnight?’. She told, in an interview with the BBC that she has lost all her honour she had earned.²⁰ Dutee complains that there was no case of doping or lack of fitness or even underperformance, but it was a last-minute ‘gender test’ that involved doctors taking her blood test, visually examining her naked body and sending her for a magnetic resonance imaging examination to see what is inside. What is worse, she had no clue what was happening.²¹ Dutees’ story sheds light on how the sex-testing process is a humiliating practice for elite athletes and gender insensitive in nature.

So Dutee challenged the IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulations of 2011 and appealed to the CAS by raising questions to the IAAF to prove that the elevated level of natural testosterone in her body had the competitive advantage over other female competitors in the elite sports competition. In fact, Dutee’s question was against the IAAF’s claim that the high testosterone level in an athletic body determines his or her athletic performance. CAS heard both sides of the argument (for and against Dutee’s appeal) presented before it. One of them was the British long-distance runner, Paula Radcliff, who backed the IAAF and believed that many athletes agree with her views that there is a huge gap in athletic performance between elite men and elite women athletes, and that the difference in performance (between males and females) is predominantly because of increased levels of testosterone found in males. She strongly kept her views before the CAS that the elevated testosterone levels make the competition unequal in a way greater than simple natural talent and dedication of a female athlete. On the other hand, countering the views of Paula Radcliff was Australia’s former 800-m runner—Madeleine Pepe—who said that there is a diversity of ways in which an athlete may enjoy a competitive advantage over other athletes and the Hyperandrogenism Regulations of IAAF exhibit a profound failure to appreciate those many different ways of unequal performance among athletes in track and field events (Times of India, 2015).

The IAAF claims that since the male body produces ten times of testosterone than the female body, we always find there is a significant difference in the level of performances between a typical male and female athlete in elite sports competition (males perform better than females). On the basis of this assumption, the IAAF asserts that higher the testosterone level, better is the performance. Therefore, it is argued that there should be two exclusive sex-segregated category in sports in order to provide women an equal and a fair chance to excel in sports like their counterparts. Applying the same testosterone principle, IAAF, in its Hyperandrogenism Regulation of 2011, expects that the hyperandrogenic female athletes (having high levels of natural testosterone at the range of male) should also be debarred to compete in the female category in order to provide a level playing field to all female competitors in elite sports competitions. In this regard, Katrina Karkazis, an ethicist and anthropologist at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, California, said that Hyperandrogenism Policy, 2011, is not based on scientific evidence but rather on strong scientific consensus that testosterone levels determine athleticism. It is because there was no evidence to support the claim that the hyperandrogenic female athletes had an advantage from their natural testosterone (Times of India, 2015). CAS also acknowledged the fact that besides natural testosterone levels, there are other variables that might affect female athletes’ performances Centre for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, California such as nutrition, access to specialist training facilities, and coaching and other genetic and biological variations. The CAS in its verdict (July 2015) said that IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Policy of 2011 was not justified on the ground that IAAF could not provide the satisfactory evidence that the degree of advantage derived from natural testosterone is more significant than the advantages derived from numerous others variables, acknowledged by CAS, which must be proved by the IAAF.

CAS further announced (in July 2015) that unless IAAF will be able to provide evidence by 2 years’ time limit (i.e., by July 2017) that naturally high testosterone level confers an advantage, the policy of hyperandrogenism will be banned for good, and in the meantime, the CAS permitted all hyperandrogenic women who did not dope to compete as they are. So it was the first time in July 2015 that CAS found IAAF’s stance to be devoid of scientific evidence and set aside its Hyperandrogenism Regulation of 2011 (New York Times, 2016). It was a verdict with global repercussions. Dutee was finally cleared and became eligible to compete once again after winning her appeal against IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulation of 2011.

So the new rules was announced by IAAF in April 2018, that is, new DSD regulation—‘Eligibility Regulations for the female classification for Athletes with Differences of Sex Development (DSD)’ that required athletes with specific DSD having testosterone levels of 5 nmol/L (5 nmol of testosterone per 1 L of blood) and above, and certain androgen sensitivity, have to take medication to lower their testosterone levels or change to another distance (i.e., less than 400 m and more than 1 mile), which finally came into effect from 8 May 2019. This new DSD rules of IAAF is now applicable for only those DSD female athletes who compete at the international level in the 400 m to 1 mile race events (middle-distance racers). This new DSD regulation of IAAF left out Dutee from its ambit as she competes in 100 m and 200 m running event.²²

Soon after the relief from the IAAF’s suspension in July 2015, Dutee set new national and international records and became the third Indian woman to ever qualify for the women’s 100-m event at the Summer Olympic Games, 2016.²³

Though Dutee Chand as an intersexual female athlete won the legal battle over IAAF’s hyperandrogenism case in 2015, her plight did not stop there because of her open revelation about same-sex relationship, which was disapproved and blamed by her family and village community. She became the first female athlete to openly admit to same-sex relationship. Dutee revealed, ‘I believe in individual freedom and have rights to decide how and with whom I will live my life’.²⁴

It is reported that the residents of Dutee’s village—Chaka Gopalpur of Odisha—condemned her same-sex relationship. Mr. Benudhar, the President of Gopalpur Weavers Co-operative Society said, ‘were proud that a weaver’s daughter (Dutee chand) from here won medals. But all of us are shocked to know about her relationship’. Even Dutee’s own family has been brutal in their criticism (Times of India, 2019).

Whatever may be the consequences of Dutee’s open confession of same-sex relationship, it has immense symbolic importance to India’s LGBTQ community, which has overcome its legal hurdle but still has a long way to go in terms of rampart homophobia embedded in its code. Chand is very much optimistic that her personal decision about the same-sex relationship will definitely encourage more men and women to openly embrace their sexuality, which will help erase the binary precept of sex. Dutee has, indeed, broken the glass ceiling on many fronts—from the right to queer love in a country that is yet to legalise LGBTQ marriage and adoption, to the rights of women who have to ascribe to traditional ideas of identity, ability and competitive fairness in sports (Mitra, 2019).

Dutee’s case history shows how successfully Dutee, as an intersexual female athlete, challenged IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulations, 2011, on many rational grounds and won the legal battle that forced the governing body to come up with new regulations (DSD Regulations, 2018), which came into effect from 8 May 2019. Though, on the one hand, IAAF claims that its new DSD regulations have adopted more scientific and gender just approach as it provides a level playing field to all female athletes, its critics, on the other hand, say that the new DSD Regulation is gender insensitive (Pepe, 2019).

The case analysis of Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand shows how the intersexual female athletes are condemned everywhere, both on and off the field, because of their ambiguous sexual identity. Their cases are just like the cases of many other intersex athletes like Santhi Soundarajan,²⁵ Bandana Pal,²⁶ and Pinki Parmanik,²⁷ who were put under a microscope due to their biological variance, and their sexual identities were questioned for being born different. It has now been proved that non-normative sexual identity has no space not only in the competitive world of elite sports but also in the patriarchal society at large.

Feminist Discourses Regarding the Cases and Concluding Remarks

Feminist sports scholars and activists question, why the male athletes with genetic advantages have been eulogised, whereas female athletes with genetic advantages have always been looked at with suspicion? Their another related question concerning the competitive advantage (as claimed by IAAF/IOC) is whether there is any difference between the possible competitive advantage gained due to height or longer upper body or limbs and the advantages gained by producing excess natural testosterone? They raise the questions against the essentialist binary sex model, whether the strict male–female division in sports should be replaced with some just approach based on other physical attributes (Mitra, 2014).

Many of the scholars have pointed out the issues of how, at many instances of suspicions, the female athletes only have to undergo the gender verification tests to confirm their heterosexuality (unlike male athletes). They also criticise IAAF/IOC’s stubborn attempts to maintain a sex binary model through its regulations as if this model exists universally. The historian—Nivedita Menon (Menon, 2011)—argues that the binary sex model was not integral to the culture of traditional Indian society. The process of de-legitimisation of the third category of gender/sex began in India during the period of colonisation (Reddy, 2005).

The feminist critics raised objections against the hyperandrogenism stance of IAAF/IOC that hyperandrogenic female athletes are not eligible to compete in the women’s events unless their hyperandrogenism is treated and lowered to a certain level for ensuring a level playing field for all female athletes. Their treatment may include hormone therapy and, in some cases, even gonadectomy.²⁸ Using the same logic, the feminist critics claim that the IOC and the IAAF should also provide a level playing field to male athletes like Yohan Blake, Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay and therefore should either ban Usain Bolt from competing or recommend that he (Usain Bolt) will only be eligible to play when he cuts his legs off a few inches so that he does not have any unfair advantage on the basis of his height or long strides (Plainspeak, 2014).

Mitra (2014)²⁹ observed that there is a deep conservativeness and the complete disregard of the possibility of multiplicity of bodies on the part of sports officials, which affects the female athletes with intersex variations. Mitra comments that most of the nodal officers, assigned by the national sports governing bodies to deal the case of female atletes’ hyperandrogenism case of their respective countries, are not gender sensitised enough to maintain confidentiality, nor even bothered to take consent from athletes for sex tests (Mitra in Plainspeak, 2014).

Mitra finds the policy discriminatory since it attempts to single out female athletes who do not appear feminine. From this discussion, it is implicit how sport produces and sustains exclusion frequently along sex/gender lines. As Haugaa and Potgieter (2018) pointed out that sport has social and cultural significance precisely because it provides an avenue for reproduction of normativity of embodiment, gender and sexuality. They critically examined how South African discourses on sport reproduce heteronormative and racialised ideas about women’s sport and women athletes. Furthering the discussion on how ‘compulsory heterosexuality’is a threat for non-heterosexual women, it reminds us the culture of ‘corrective rape’ in South Africa and the consequences the non-heterosexual women face since they defy gender norms of the society. The case of South African woman footballer Eudy Simelane is a bright example of this. To elaborate the corrective rape, it may be mentioned here that corrective rape, also called curative rape or homophobic rape, is a hate crime in which one or more people are raped because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The common intended consequence of rape as seen by the perpetrator is to turn the person or to enforce conformity with gender stereotype. Thus, corrective rape is the use of rape against people who do not conform to the perceived social norms regarding human sexuality or gender roles. The goal is to punish perceived abnormal behaviour and reinforce social norms. This crime was first identified in South Africa, where it was reported that the incidents sometimes occur under the supervision of victims’ own family members or local community.³⁰ From this discussion, it is distinctively clear how corrective rape is used as a therapy for perceived sexual abnormalities of women, which are considered as non-heteronormative sexuality in a patriarchal society. This practice of curative/corrective therapy is worth mentioning here in order to prove how the patriarchal society never gives sanction to sexuality that goes beyond gender binary and uses various techniques to maintain the stereotyped gender binary ideology. Like the corrective rape therapy, various procedures of gender testing are applied from time to time by IOC and IAAF through its regulations to maintain the fair play in elite sports competitions.

Hercher (2010) pointed out that the gender test, originally supposed to catch cheats (refere to Note 33) has subsequently become a clumsy model for detecting disorders of sexual development. Mitra opines that the earlier gender verification tests used to tell us if someone was a woman, but, at present, this test tries to tell us if someone is ‘woman enough’. She further points out that, in India, athletes’ rights are very often violated, and no action is taken as most of the Indian athletes come from very ordinary backgrounds and have very little awareness about their rights and entitlements. The federation officials, sports bodies, coaches and other stakeholders take advantage of their weaknesses (Mitra in Plainspeak, 2014).

Feminist scholars now apprehend that heteronormative values in our patriarchal society are reinforced by the corrective family, matrimonial structure (since laws do not deem gay marriage legal yet), non-binary sex education at schools and misrepresentation of homosexual values in the media. Further, in our patriarchal society, there is a general discomfort for discussing homosexuality because of overall negative perceptions of society towards homosexuality. Consequently, homosexual people in a patriarchal society become victimised at a higher rate (Mitra, 2019).

Feminist scholars criticise that despite the use of different techniques, the gendered verification practices could not provide evidence of a clear binary between women and men. They only confirm that sex is complex, even scientifically undetectable (Henne, 2015, p. 88). Today, despite sports being more inclusive, there is still a desire to preserve boundaries between the sexes and the belief that binary division is normal, if not natural (2015, p. 94).

Thus, naturalness is a normative expectation to which elite athletes are held, and regulations reinforce the idea that naturalness is possible. But on the other hand, the feminist critiques say that the athlete body, however, is inherently unnatural. As a category, the athlete is dependent on bodily modifications and various technologies to achieve these changes, a dependency that repudiates the regulations’ attempts of sports organisations to purify sport (Henne, 2015, p. 20).

In this context, studies found that there are various factors—biological, technological and subjective factors—at work in the formations of athletes’ identities and bodies. These factors are interconnected and inseparable. Therefore, race, gender, sexuality, nation, class and a gamut of physical, social and technological appendages, all play some role in shaping an athlete’s body. Even various technologies, whether they are prohibited or permitted, are also integral to the creation of athletes and their programming. The scholars argue that analysing these athletic bodies as ‘cyborg’ can help us develop more robust understanding of the embodied nature of science in relation to embodiment (Henne, 2015, p. 20). Extending Donna Haraway’s works on Cyborgs, feminists provide detailed accounts of how the athlete body is a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction, living in and among other cyborgs that are always already contaminated far from pure biological forms (2015, p. 21). Under such conditions, determination of bodies as 100% human (pure biological form) is restricted to the limitations of the scientific instrument used to make evaluations (Henne, 2015, p. 157).

With the Olympics onset, it becomes pertinent to revisit the new DSD regulations of IAAF, that is, new eligibility regulations for female classifications (effective from 2019), which has certainly devastated the career of Olympic champion, Caster Semenya.³¹

It is a matter of regress that even today, the discrimination has not stopped insofar as women’s participation in sports is concerned, but, rather, the course of discrimination has been altered like the old wine in the new bottle. For example, as per the old regulation, initially, it was mandatory for all female athletes to go through gynecological examinations like visual inspections and genetic testing (as part of gender test) to prove their womanhood. But, now, as per present regulation, only suspicious females are called out for testing. So the new regulation discriminates against women, based on their apperence and gender presentations. It has been pointed by the feminist scholars that it is a giant flaw in IAAF’s attempts at monitoring a strict binary division of the sexes in sports even if it is not practically possible (Koonthamattam, 2018).

Feminists’ arguments are also that we do not hear about men’s loosing races because of hypoandrogenism, so women winning them because of hyperandrogenism is a sexist idea that should not be encouraged.³² The scholars point out that though it has been scientifically proven that all humans, whatever their sex, will have the hormone of both, it is incredibly unfair to prove that a woman is not a woman simply by the level of her testosterone (Koonthamattam, 2018).

The critics say that though CAS acknowledges the repercussions of hormone treatment to control the testosterone level, it does not consider that this contention is sufficient enough to outweigh the contentions in support of DSD regulations (LSE, 2020). They also blame the panel of CAS as it is unable to conclude whether DSD regulations are compatible with various domestic and international human rights laws. Caster Semenya maintains that DSD regulations unfairly discriminate on the basis of physical, genetic or biological traits, as well as sex, gender and physical appearances. The DSD regulation is criticised for violating the fundamental human rights of women since the process of treatment of female athletes can lead to psychological harm caused by stigmatisation, where the affected athletes might be labelled as intersex or sexually atypical (refer to Note 37).

So its apparent that such negative impacts of regulations would contradict the popular notion of positive benefits women get from their participation in sports that it can facilitate good mental health, especially for women of all ages, including the management of mental disorders like Alzheimer’s disease³³ and can promote psychological well-being through building self-esteem, confidence and social integration, as well as help reduce stress, anxiety and depression (World Health Organization, 2007). Further, it is worth mentioning here that the World Medical Association issued a statement advising physicians around the world not to implement the new DSD regulations and calling for their withdrawal on the basis that it has strong reservations about (their) ethical validity. A number of global organisations that promote women’s sports have also written to the IAAF, stating that regulations enforce gender inequality.³⁴

Thus, the cases of non-heterosexual athletes in general, and intersexual female athletes, in particular, in the world of sports have many irreconcilable contradictions, which are important to be answered. We desperately need to care for our sportspersons, especially those athletes who are suffering as a result of multiple oppressions in our society because of their class, gender, sexuality and physical disability. We should extend support to them by creating an environment that promotes and encourages their hard work, not needlessly create obstacles. Feminist sports activist Payoshini Mitra says we need to update our knowledge and be more open to diversity. Most importantly, we need to think and act ethically. We should make our sports system inclusive by working on a standard system of analysing everyone’s performance/ability where all people will have equal chance/privilege to participate (Mitra in Plainspeak, 2014). So, it should be the concern for all of us to respect the rights and feelings of intersexual athletes who beg to be treated equally though born different.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Agarwal

(2020, May). Sexual identities and sports: A level of playing field. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2020/05/01/sexual-identities-and-sports-a-level-playing-field/

Ahmad

& Khatun

(2008). Gender relation in postmodern societies: Impact of globalization on women’s position. Research Gate. htpps://www.researchgate.net/publication/25441722

Ballantyne

K. N.

, Kayser

, & Grootegoed

J. A.

(2011). Sex and gender issues in competitive sports: Investigations of a historical case leads to a new view point. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(8), 614–617.

Bhabani

(2012, July 14). Athlete Pinki Pramanik is not a woman, claims expert after gender tests. https://www.indiatoday.in/buzztop-sports/strory/athlete-pinki-pramanik-not-a-female-medical-reports-109405-2012-07-14

Blinde

E. M.

, & Taub

D. E.

(1992). Women athletes as falsely accused deviants: Managing the lesbian stigma. The Sociological Quarterly, 33(4), 521–533.

Bonn International (1973). The male legend about the weak sex. Deutschlandlied, 4/73.

Bray

(1983). Sports, capitalism and patriarchy. Canadian Women’s Studies, 4(3), 11–13.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Cahn

S. K.

(1994). Coming on strong: Gender and sexuality in twentieth century women’s sports. Free Press.

10.

Choi

P. Y. L.

(2000). Femininity and the physically active women. Routledge.

11.

Eckert

(2014). ‘The problem with binaries: Coding for gender and sexuality. Language & Linguistics Compass, 8(11), 529–535.

12.

Fink

J. S.

(2012). Homophobia and the marketing of female athletes and women’s sport. In Cunningham

G. B.

(Eds.), Sexual orientation and gender identity in sport. Centre for Sports Management Research and Education.

13.

Fink

J. S.

(2013). Female athletes, women’s sport and the sport media commercial complex: Have we really ‘come a long way, baby’? Sport Management Review, 18(3), 331–342.

14.

Griffin

(1992). Changing the game: Homophobia, sexism and lesbians in sports. Quest, 44, 251–265.

15.

Griffin

, & Genasci

(1990). Addressing homophobia in physical education: Responsibilities for teachers and researchers’. In Messner

, & Sabo

(Eds.), Sport, men and gender order. Human Kinetics.

16.

Griffin

(2010, January 26). IOC releases ‘new’ ‘gender’ verification policy (LGBT Sports Blog). http://ittakesateam.blogspot.com/2010/01/ioc-releases-new-gender-verification.html

17.

Hargreaves

(1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’s sports. Routledge.

18.

Hargreaves

, & ‎Anderson

(Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of sports, gender and sexuality. Routledge.

19.

Hay

(1983). The evaluation of women in sports. SNIPES Journal, 6(4), 22–25.

20.

Haugaa

E. M.

, & Potgieter

(2018). Hetero sexing athlete: Public and popular discourses on sexuality and women’s sports in South Africa. Acta Academia, 50(2), 34–51.

21.

Henne

K. E.

(2015). Testing for athletic citizenship: Regulating doping and sex in sports. Rutgers University Press.

22.

Hercher

A. L.

(2010). Gender verifications: A term whose time has come and gone. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 19, 551–553.

23.

Kidd

(1983, May). Getting physical: Compulsory heterosexuality and sports. Canadian Women Studies, 4(3), 63–65.

24.

Kolnes

L. J.

(1995). Heterosexuality is an organizing principle in women’s sports. International Review for the Sociology of Sports, 30(1), 61–67.

25.

Koonthamattam

(2018, August 30). Dutee Chand: A sportswoman who broke all barriers. https://feminisminindia.com/2018/08/30/dutee-chand-sportswoman-broke-barriers/#:~:text=Dutee%20Chand%20is%20the%20second,at%20the%20Summer%20Olympic%20Games

26.

Krane

(1997). Introduction to special theme issue: Sexualities, culture and sports. Women’s Sports and Physical Activity Journal, 6(2), 1–6.

27.

Krane

(1999, September). Challenging hegemonic femininity. In Krane

, & Choi

P. Y. L.

(Eds.), The body beautiful and physically active women (pp. 22–26), Colloquium at the 14th Annual Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Sports Psychology.

28.

Lathrop

, Cheney

T. B.

, & Hayman

A. B.

(2014). Ethical decision making in the dilemma of the intersex infant. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 37(1), 25–38.

29.

Lazar

M. M.

(2017). Feminist critical discourse analysis. In Flowerdew

, & Richardson

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 372–87). Routledge.

30.

Lenhart

(2015). People born with intersex conditions. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 15(3), 453–463.

31.

Lorber

(1993). Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology. Gender and Society, 7(4), 568–581.

32.

LSE (2020, May 1). Sexual identities and sports: A level playing field? https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2020/05/01/

33.

Messner

M. A.

, & Bozada-Deas

(2009). Separating the men from the moms: The making of adult gender segregation in youth sports. Gender and Society, 23(1), 49–71.

34.

Metheny

(1970). Symbolic forms of movement: The feminine image in sports. In Sage

G. H.

(Eds.), Sports and American society: Selected readings (pp. 291–303). Wesley Publishing Company.

35.

Mitra

(2014). Male/female or other. In Hargreaves

, & Anderson

(Eds.), Routledge handbook on sports, gender and sexuality (pp. 384–394). Routledge.

36.

Mitra

(2019, May 21). Here’s why Dutee Chand coming out is such big deal. https://qrius.com/heres-why-dutee-chands-coming-out-is-such-a-big-deal/

37.

Mukerjee

(1980). The Olympics games. Lancer Publishers.

38.

Nyland

(2007). Beer, babes and balls: Masculinity and sports talk radio. State University of New York Press.

39.

New York Times (2016, July 3). The humiliating practice of sex testing female athletes. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html#:~:text=After%20a%20chromosomal%20test%2C%20her%20three%20world%20records%20were%20annulled.&text=The%20first%20athlete%20to%20protest,too%20late%20for%20her%20career.&text=Stripped%20of%20a%20medal%20won,humiliated%20Indian%20runner%20attempted%20suicide

40.

Patel

(2015). The IAAF’S hyperandrogenism regulations suspended. Eligibility, World Sports Law Report, August, 2015, p 8–11.

41.

Pepe

(2019). Expertise and non-binary bodies: Sex, gender and case of Dutee Chand. Body and Society, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X19865940

42.

Pfister

(1998). Sports and gender. In Sergiant

A. J.

, & Siddons

(Eds.), From community health to elite sports. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Congress of the European College of Sports Science, Liverpool. Health Care Development. In Choi

P. Y. L

(Ed.) Femininity and physically active women, (Woman & Psychology), p. 23, Routledge, 2000.

43.

Plainspeak (2014, September 1). Interview: Dr. Payoshni Mitra by Tarshi Team. https://www.tarshi.net/inplainspeak/interview-dr-payoshni-mitra/

44.

Prabhudesai

(2001, October 11). Mystery of Pratima’s suicide. Goa News.

45.

Pronger

(1990). The arena of masculinity: Sports, homosexuality and the meaning of sex. GMP Publishers Limited.

46.

Pundir

(2019, December 11). How sprinter Dutee Chand is smashing patriarchy in sports and society in India. https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xwwmg/how-sprinter-athlete-dutee-chand-is-smashing-patriarchy-in-sports-and-society-in-india

47.

Reddy

(2005). With respect to sex negotiating Hizra identity in South India. University of Chicago Press.

48.

Rich

(1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In Simpson

, & Person

(Eds.), Women, sex and sexuality (pp. 631–660). University of Chicago Press.

49.

Sanchez

F. J.

, Patino

M. J. M.

, & Vilain

(2013). The new policy. Journal of Sex Research, 50(2), 112–115.

50.

Satore

M. L.

, & Cunningham

G. M.

(2009). Gender sexual prejudice and sports participation: Implications for sexual minorities. Sex Roles, 60, 100–113.

51.

Scanlon

(2004). Games for girls. Archaeological Institute of America. http://www.archive.archaeology.org/online/features/olympics/girls.html

52.

Schultz

(2011). Caster Semenya and the question of too: Sex testing in elite women’s sports and the issue of advantage. Quest, 63(2), 228–243.

53.

The Daily Telegraphs (2009, September 11). Caster Semenya has male sex organ and no wombs or ovaries. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frxni-1225771672245

54.

Times of India (2015, August 8). Our special supplement of sports excess; top stories, right to run cutting-edge angles (Trends, tactics and the guys and gals, Narain.swamy@timesgroup.com). https://indianexpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/indianexpress.com/article/sports/sport-others/sprinter-dutee-chand-wins-right-to-compete/lite/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16191843263286&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Findianexpress.com%2Farticle%2Fsports%2Fsport-others%2Fsprinter-dutee-chand-wins-right-to-compete%2F

55.

Times of India (2019, March 6). Dutee’s village turns its back on favourite child (Delhi edition, Sudehna.Ghosh@timesgroup.com). https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F06%2F03&entity=Ar01005&sk=0A95798C&mode=text#

56.

Ugra

(1999, December 25). A battle more in the mind. The Sports Star.

57.

Ussher

J. M.

(1997). Fantasies of femininity: Reframing the boundaries of sex. Penguine Books.

58.

Veri

M. J.

(1999). Homophobic discourse surrounding the female athletes. Quest, 51, 355–368.

59.

Viloria

(2014, September 18). Stop freaking out about female intersex athletes. The Advocate. https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/09/18/op-ed-stop-freaking-out-about-female-intersex-athletes

60.

World Health Organization (2007). Physical activity and older people: For people of all ages, physical activity improves the quality of life in many ways. http://www.who.int/moveforhealth/advocacy/information-/sheets/elderly/en/index.html

61.

YouTube (2012, July 12). Want my honour back: Pinki Parmanik to NDTV. YouTube.