LGBT Issues in Sport Blog: Theory to Practice

In the most recent Academy of Management Annals, Matthew Birdwell and colleagues discuss the relationship between employment relationships and inequality. They document how changes in the relationships between organizations and employees have, over time, resulted in larger gaps between the “haves” and “have nots.”

As one example, the authors show that employee benefits are no longer a given for many employees. In 1980, 70% of all employees had health insurance, but by 2009, that number decreased to 54%. Given that health-reated expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy (even among those with insurance), these figures are quite meaningful. Other organizational practices, such as changes in tenure, psychological contracts, and the way merit is constructed, have all served to promote income and social inequality.

By this point, you might be wondering how this discussion factors into a blog post about LGBT persons in sport. But fear not–the connection cometh.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, benefits account for about 1/5 of an employees’ overall compensation. Thus, the decision to offer things like domestic partner health benefits–or not–can influence inequality and well-being. According to the same report, 62% of all Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health benefits. Thus, in most of those workplaces, lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees are on equal footing (from a health benefits perspective) as their peers. I do not include transgender employees here, because only 25% of all Fortune 500 companies offer transgender-inclusive benefits.

So what do we make of these data. I suggest several points are noteworthy. First, these statistics are from Fortune 500 companies, meaning they have financial resources. Thus, the decision to offer partner benefits or not is not monetary-related one; all of these companies have the resources in place to make it happen. Second, then, the decision to offer partner benefits is a choice among these companies–a choice to treat LGB employees as equals with their other co-workers and to not financially penalize them or their families because of their sexual orientation. Third, there is also a conscious choice to eschew such policies. Places like Exxon choose to treat LGB employees differently, to penalize them financially, and to add additional strain of healthcare insecurity.

There are two last points. In their article, Bidwell et al. note that the organization is:

a site of conflict among different stakeholders, which include any party with a direct economic interest in the organization (e.g., shareholders and employees) as well as other parties in society that seek to influence the organization (e.g., state, professional, and social movement actors).

This view of the organization is an encouraging one. Because they are sites for conflict, changes can occur. The HRC report illustrates as much, as more companies offer domestic partner health benefits than ever before. And, the change is needed. That only 1 in 4 Fortune 500 companies offer transgender-inclusive benefits illustrates this point. And, change can come from us: the consumers. One of the best ways to influence workplace practices from the outside is through your consumption of those goods and services. If your fitness club, favorite sport team or preferred shoe company does not offer benefits or workplace protections, do something about it: change your membership, do not follow the team, or buy different shoes. As long as there are no penalties in place for deviant behaviors, such as failing to offer partner benefits, then the practice will continue. For more in this area, see here.

Joining the Game: LGBT Allies in Women’s Sport
Mallory Mann & Vikki Krane
Bowling Green State University

Much attention has been given to the recent announcements made by Jason Collins and Britney Griner (though the latter has received far less fanfare). Journalists, analysts, coaches, athletes, political figures, and religious leaders all descended on the latest coming out stories to weigh in on the impact they will have on sport and society. Having visible LGBT athlete role models is crucial. They serve as symbols of inspiration and hope for other queer athletes and sportspeople. But, by centering the individual and celebrating (or demonizing) personal accomplishment, are we missing an opportunity to discuss the importance of creating inclusive and supportive sporting environments?

Recent research supports that LGBT allies play a critical role in advancing sports equality by speaking out against homonegativism and transnegativism, and promoting inclusion and equality for all athletes. Lesbian college athletes are disclosing their sexuality when they feel their sporting environments are safe places to share themselves (Stoelting, 2011). Allies in the form of teammates, coaches, and administrators can be instrumental in cultivating an atmosphere where everyone is celebrated and encouraged to be themselves. The coming out process for LGBT sportspeople could be made easier with ally support. Sierra (2013) found, in interviews with gay male college athletes, that coming out to supportive teammates was relatively mundane (see his previous blog). In accepting climates, athletes no longer need to make grand declarations. They can simply be themselves, which includes being open about who they are dating or to whom they are attracted.

While coaches in the US and UK describe experiences with homonegativism throughout their careers, they also were able to create affirming environments (Kauer, 2009; Norman, 2011). These professionals recognized the need for positive, inclusive spaces for younger athletes and future coaches and used their positions to improve the situation for all participants. From youth to elite levels, LGBT allies play a vital role in facilitating healthy sport climates. In particular, supportive heterosexuals can help foster positive LGBT identity formation and reduce alienation. Many straight male athletes, in both collegiate and professional sport, recently have declared their support, publicly identifying themselves as athlete allies. But, as Pat Griffin suggested in her January blog entry, women allies have been “missing in action.” That is not to say that all straight women athletes and coaches are intolerant or unaccepting nor does it imply that women athletes are not already serving as allies on their teams. It is just that if they do exist, they remain, for the most part, invisible. Until now, that is.

In the last two months, four high profile professional women athletes have shown support for their LGBT peers. Alex Blackwell, a world champion Australian cricketer, became the first professional female athlete to join Athlete Ally, a non-profit organization committed to supporting LGBT athletes. A few weeks later, WNBA star Kristi Toliver became the first female professional athlete ally in the United States announcing, “I am an athlete ally because we all have the right to play the sports we love.” Toliver also remarked, “having the opportunity to teach a younger generation of people to treat everyone with respect and dignity, that’s pretty important.” And, most recently, in an April interview with Sports Illustrated, the three top selections in the WNBA draft discussed sexuality and sports. Elena Delle Donne, Skylar Diggins, and Brittney Griner have been the poster children for women’s college basketball the past two seasons. When asked how they would respond if Griner, who moments before disclosed her sexuality, was their teammate, both Delle Donne and Diggins immediately professed their acceptance. Delle Donne quickly responded, “I want everybody to be who they are. You shouldn’t have to lie, that’s not fair.” And, Diggins added, “We like [Brittney] because she’s herself…we don’t care…” These four high profile female athletes are doing what no one else in women’s sport has. These are the first public expressions of support for LGBT athletes from professional women athletes. And, we need visible women allies consistently countering negative LGBTQ stereotypes and discrimination to continue questioning and confronting the heterosexist sport climate.

Griffin emphasized, “we need the voices and faces of straight women athletes and coaches to help us transform sports for all women and men.” But, why are women allies, in particular, so important for LGBT sports equality movements? Historically, women’s sport has done everything possible to distance itself from anything associated with lesbians and lesbian stigma. So strong are these ties that even today we see few women in sport stepping forward as allies. This partially explains why no coaches or administrators in women’s sport have identified as allies. These athletes are changing history. Having visible heterosexual women allies sets a new tone in women’s sport – it is okay to be yourself, regardless of sexual orientation. And, importantly, you will be supported. We hope that more sportswomen step up and become visible allies.

Collins and Griner provide interesting media fodder, but their stories will fall short of creating lasting change unless we also emphasize the role of straight sportspeople in cultivating inclusive environments, particularly those in women’s athletics. As sport scholars and LGBT activists, we need to use this historical moment where professional athletes are coming out and being supported to teach other athletes and coaches at all levels of sport the importance of becoming visible athlete allies.

References
Kauer, K. J. (2009). Queering lesbian sexualities in collegiate sporting spaces. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 13, 306-318.

Norman, L. (2011). Gendered homophobia in sport and coaching: Understanding the everyday experiences of lesbian coaches. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47, 705-723.

Sierra, D. (2013). Singled out: A narrative exploration into sexuality, sport, and masculinity Master’s thesis. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Stoelting, S. (2011). Disclosure as an interaction: Why lesbian athletes disclose their sexual
identities in intercollegiate sport. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1187-1210.

The Maine Principals’ Association recently adopted a policy to allow transgender students to participate in interscholastic athletics according to their gender identities.  In so doing, the MPA, a voluntary organization of private and public high schools in Maine with jurisdiction over athletics, becomes the third such organization — along with the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association and the Colorado High School Activities Association — that I’m aware of to have taken this inclusive step.  Additionally, state law in Massachusetts and Connecticut has been interpreted to require school to allow transgender students to participate in athletics according to their gender identities rather than birth-assigned sex.

However, while seeking to be inclusive, the MPA’s policy differs from those in the aforementioned states in a couple of key ways.  First of all, it requires a transgender student to go through a gender-confirming procedure at the outset, as a condition of playing sports according to their gender identity rather than their birth-assigned sex.  Unlike other states with inclusive policies, transgender students in Maine must notify a school administrator, who will then request a hearing with a newly-formed committee made up of four high school principals and one medical or mental health professional with relevant experience.  The committee will hold a confidential hearing in order to determine whether to grant the student’s request.  In contrast, Washington’s policy also provides for the possibility of determining a student’s gender by hearing, but only in the event that a challenge is made.  In Massachusetts, the only thing a student must do to confirm their gender identity is sincerely held is to present a letter from someone who knows the student well, to vouch for the student’s sincerity in asserting that gender.  The MPA’s new policy, with its preemptive procedure, may operate to deter transgender students’ participation.  No other student is required to present evidence of their gender to a committee in order to participate, and transgender students could understandably feel uncomfortable about having to interface with bureaucracy in order to play sports.  Moreover, there is something undignified about having someone else pass judgment on a person’s gender.  The only evidence that should matter on the question of someone’s gender is the individual’s credible statement to this effect.

The other key difference between MPA’s and the other high school policies I have studied is that the MPA committee could deny the transgender student’s request if it is convinced that allowing the student to compete according to his or her gender identity would pose an unfair advantage or unacceptable risk of injury.  Moreover, it is possible that the committee could grant a conditional approval which reserves the right to reevaluate the possibility of unfair advantage/unacceptable risk of injury later in the student’s career.  In contrast, the policies in effect in Washington, Colorado, and Massachusetts, for example, have no such caveat for unfair advantage/unacceptable risk of injury, and there are a couple of reasons to be wary of it.  First of all, it again singles out transgender student for different treatment.  There is plenty of natural variation within each sex category — physical differences due to age, size, strength, speed — and no nontransgender students are excluded for advantages based on any of the above.  Nor do schools routinely exclude students based on concerns for safety.  More often, safety is addressed in generally-applicable ways such as requiring certain equipment for all players, or making unsafe contact outside the rules of the game.

Second, the unfair advantage/unacceptable risk caveat is a hugely subjective. It could easily be deployed in an unpredictable manner, or one that trades in gender stereotypes.   Finally, the caveat is not only unnecessary, but applying it to exclude a transgender student would, in my mind, constitute a violation of Maine’s antidiscrimination statute, which prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of gender identity (see 9-C).  In other words, Maine schools are supposed to treat a transgender girl like any other girl, and a transgender boy like any other boy.  Having confirmed that the student’s gender assertion is credible, excluding him or her for other reasons that don’t operate as the basis for exclusion of non-transgender student would seem to violate this principle of nondiscrimination.

In sum, I commend the MPA for taking proactive steps to allow transgender students to participate in athletics in the manner that is most logical and comfortable for them.  However, I urge the MPA — and others seeking to follow its lead — to keep pushing against unnecessary obstacles to participation.  Organizations like MPA exist because its members believe that athletics is beneficial to students.  As a result, they should work to remove every unnecessary barrier to participation, and ensure that the benefits of athletics are accessible to everyone who wants to play.

With Jason Collins’s announcement this week that he is gay, combined with the limited attention span we seem to have for news, I predict that we are this close to forgetting Brittney Griner’s recent announcement that she is gay. So before the moment passes I wanted to comment on her (kinda) coming out focusing on two issues related to her intercollegiate career and transition to professional basketball.

The first is more of a question related to all intercollegiate athletes: “what is ‘out’ in the context of contemporary sport?” The current generation of American youth, even in the midst of a visible mainstream gay rights movement (or at least loosely strung together activist campaigns), has largely eschewed the gay identity politics of previous generations refusing labels such as gay and lesbian. (Not that identity politics was without its issues.) There are so many things to consider here: culture, class, race, psychology, and political and physical bodies. But I am interested in how, or if, this translates to intercollegiate athletes.

In the past we have heard athletes make statements about privileging their athlete identity over their sexual identity, effectively segmenting their identity, a phenomenon examined in the sport context by scholars including Eric Anderson, Beth Cavalier, and Catriona Higgs and LeeAnn Schell. Others have said that they have “always been out.” Griner’s statements were reminiscent of this latter sentiment. Again, I am not suggesting that any one person—athlete or not—should not be allowed to choose the way she identifies or with whom she shares that identity. I am, though, inquiring about the coming out discourse and how it is employed—or not—in intercollegiate athletics.

I am reminded of the “identity management strategies” that Pat Griffin delineated in Strong Women, Deep Closets. She discusses the ways in which gay female coaches manage their sexual identities in the context of their profession. How might we use these strategies to understand the experience of the intercollegiate athlete? Does the phrase “well, I’ve really always been out” fall under one of these strategies? How do we talk about the ways young athletes are talking about sexuality? In some ways, this is a call for more research into how a post-identity politics era has affected student-athletes. Understanding how the larger culture’s growing acceptance affects sport culture, specifically intercollegiate sports, goes beyond just “yes, sport is ready for gay players.” What is the quality of gay athletes’ experiences? In what ways is their sexuality perhaps tacitly supported but not encouraged? How do coaches talk to their players about sexuality?

Ten years ago, I interviewed DI female hockey players for my master’s thesis research on coaching. Participants told me that either their coaches did not speak at all about sexuality or that they said they were fine with “whatever” so long as no one on the team was dating each other. [Respondents did report that some of their teammates did secretly date one another.] What has changed in the twenty years since Griffin interviewed gay coaches and the ten since I asked intercollegiate athletes about how their coaches—male and female, gay and straight—talked to them about homosexuality? The public, we are told, is more accepting, but is sport? What does “acceptance” look like in sport? Is it really just tolerance?

I continue to ask these questions, especially in light of Griner’s announcement. Because my second thought, after reading the news, was “how could she be ‘out’ at Baylor?” Baylor bans gay people from its faculty and staff. Apparently the prohibition on pre-marital sex means that it does not have to explicitly ban gay students in some odd logic, I suppose, that no sex means no sexuality.(?) This default does not, however, make it a welcoming atmosphere. The school has repeatedly tried to prevent a gay student group from forming. It took away the scholarship of an openly gay graduate student in 2004 and gay students get to hear—in the classroom—that homosexuality is like a “gateway drug.” How was Griner—how is anyone—out in that atmosphere?

It was too hard for Emily Nkosi who left Baylor in 1995 after her sophomore season—the one in which Baylor won the NCAA championship. She was afraid that her growing relationship with her girlfriend, now her wife, would jeopardize her place at Baylor and that her basketball career left little room for a relationship. Coach Kim Mulkey would not speak to Nkosi’s departure and she would not speak to the sexuality of any of her current players, including Griner.

We hear stories all the time about athletic departments and university and college administrators looking the other way when their student athletes break the rules. Is this what Baylor did with Griner? It’s a good rule to break but…was Griner engaging in some identity management strategies? Interviews with her suggest that she is very invested in being a role model for children—both gay and straight—and that she is unapologetic about her sexuality. Maybe things changed at Baylor since Nkosi was there. Or maybe nothing changed at all at the school and in the athletics department. Maybe it’s just Griner who refused to segment her identity and Baylor just didn’t give her a hard time about it because she is Brittney Griner: Wooden Award winner, Big 12 Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, and number one WNBA draft pick. Will the next gay player for Baylor receive the space and consideration Griner did if she isn’t the best?

And the question that continues to plague me: what is it about sport culture that compels gay student-athletes to attend schools with hostile environments? None of these questions are being asked in the current discussions about who is coming out and why. All of these articles, comments, blog posts are being framed with the person-at-the-center making a choice as if it’s entirely about individual agency during an historical moment of “change” in our culture. We need to further question what exactly this change is, beyond Gallop polls and the number of states with gay marriage, and how it has affected the culture of sport.

Working on a college campus brings with it many joys and, occasionally, a few challenges. My role here is to foster the academic success and personal growth of students, which on any given day can mean a lot of different things. From offering a listening ear, to helping with academic problem solving, planning learning opportunities, or facilitating events, my office is here to invite, inform, and involve students. Students are always at the center, which means topic and tonal shifts can happen quite literally at any moment.

Two days ago, current events made me uniquely aware of the possibilities. When Jason Collins came out two days ago, he became the first out male athlete currently playing on a major sport team.  As a professional, his announcement immediately brought to mind some ideas, questions, and possibilities in terms of my work in higher education.

And, literally less than a minute after the news broke, a student was in my office. She was jubilant. An out athlete. A role model. And she immediately began to brainstorm ways to re-invigorate the student group she leads, one which supports student athletes of all orientations and gender identities.

A couple of minutes later, another student, this time one I had not met before. He had been thinking about forming a new group on campus, one focused on increasing ally behavior among athletes. Having heard about Jason Collins’ announcement, he had landed in my office determined to put his previously more informal thinking into practice with his peers as soon as possible.

And so it went, all day long. Students, alternately happy, surprised, some even creating constructive critiques on the fly having to do with intersectionalities, inclusion, and justice. Students actively engaged with the news, and thinking about its implications for their leadership roles on their own teams and student organizations, for their academic courses of study, and in their personal lives. One student took the time to stop by to say that, although he didn’t really consider himself an athlete, that Collins’ coming out had spurred him to decide to come out that day to a few close friends.

The day really helped put one of my previous posts, Out of the Closet and Onto the Team: Resources, Role Models, and Advocacy, into perspective. When written, I believed in its content. In motion, in real life, that day, I could see it in practice. The article 30 Gay, Lesbian and Bi Athletes Who Have Come Out in the Past Year , was also fresh in my mind, and I look forward to what a similar post might look like six months or a year from now. Even more so, I look forward to ways news such as this might transform students’ thinking about themselves, society, and the world.

“I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay” (Collins & Lidz, 2013).
April 29, 2013: NBA center Jason Center is the first openly gay male athlete currently playing for a major professional American sport team. Collins admits that he wished for company during this process, or even to have followed someone else, however he notes, society continues to lag, especially in sports (Collins & Lidz, 2013). Collins just ended his 12th season in the NBA having played for six pro teams. Citing personal, team (loyalty to the Celtics) and national reasons (Boston Marathon Bombing) as catalysts for his announcement, Collins hopes others will begin feeling safe enough to follow. Collins reports a shift in the climate and public opinion regarding homosexuality, particularly in sport. However, he notes, “we still have so much farther to go” (Collins & Lidz, 2013). Collins’s hope as he moves into his 13th season is that he can live a “genuine, authentic, and truthful” life (Collins & Lidz, 2013). He notes that critics of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy often touted the decision as the devastation of “morality and soon civilization” (Collins & Lidz, 2013). Yet, as Collins and Lidz (2013) note, a “new study conducted by scholars from every branch of the armed forces except the Coast Guard concluded that ‘cohesion did not decline after the new policy of open service was put into place. In fact, greater openness and honesty resulting from the repeal seem to have promoted increased understanding, respect, and acceptance.’” I, like Collins, hope this is the first step toward a more dramatic shift within the sporting realm.

Sexuality in Sport: An Academic Perspective

Dominant ways of knowing divide people into inflexible categories, which are closely connected to contemporary problems, including sexism, heterosexism, and homonegativism. Ample evidence supports that as a whole, sport reifies hegemonic masculinity and femininity and the concomitant denigration of LGBT participants. Hegemonic conceptions of masculinity and femininity include that strong, muscular, independent, and assertive males are idealized in our society, as are thin, vulnerable, and demure females. (Krane, Waldron, Kauer, & Semerjian, 2010, p. 159)
The social order of sport is supported through what Gramsci (1971) described as a “dynamic process of coercion the consent” (Cooky, Wachs, Messner, & Dworkin, 2010, p. 143). Hegemonic ideologies are created by the dominant culture’s beliefs, and subordinated groups consent to them despite their oppressive nature (Gramsci, 1971). This is not to say that subordinate groups do not oppose hegemonic dominance, but merely that the dominant ideologies become so “naturalized” and taken-for-granted that they are often left unchallenged (Cooky et al., 2010). As explained by Patricia Hill Collins (1990) dominant groups control much of society including education, media, and other such sites of socio-cultural reproduction. Controlling images, language, and stereotypes function to dominate and oppress the subordinated groups (Collins, 1990). And despite numerous sites of cultural resistance to such oppression, dominant notions of people, their lives, and their experiences are perpetuated.
Foucault (1976/1978) noted, homosexuality was identified “less by types of sexual relations than by a certain quality of sexual sensibility, a certain way of inverting the masculine and the feminine in oneself” (p.43). In other words, homosexuality represented the abandonment of true ‘masculinity’ while instead embodying ‘femininity’ (Butterworth, 2006). “The body becomes the means by which we understand what constitutes masculine or feminine” (Butterworth, 2006, p. 141). Therefore, “anxieties constructed through sex, gender, and sexuality in our culture, reside ultimately in the body and our attitudes toward our own body as well as the bodies of others” (Birrell & Cole, 1994, p. 210). “These attitudes are themselves gendered, creating a hierarchy based on perceived gender differences” (Butterworth, 2006, p. 141). As Burstyn (1999) further explains, “US culture, influenced by male culture, is marked by intense denigration of the ‘feminine’ and its associated qualities of softness, receptivity, cooperation, and compassion” (p. 266). Strict adherence to such representations is fostered through hegemonic performances that reaffirm gender norms (Butterworth, 2006). “As long as the people at the center of sport act in derogatory, complicit, or traditional manners, traditional gender performances will be replicated, reinforced, and perpetuated” (Krane et al., 2010, p.158). We must challenge those individuals while simultaneously empowering the voices from the margins and call for their stories.

Introduction: The terms used in this blog are not inclusive of the terminology used today for gender and sexuality. For the purpose of this blog, I am using a few terms as opposites to demonstrate the stereotypical relationship we have seen in the United States and question if a few of these terms are changing. Click here for an excellent source of current terminology,

Early definitions of masculinity and femininity assumed these constructs were at opposite ends of a spectrum (Bem, 1974). Masculine traits included being self-reliant, independent, athletic, and assertive. Feminine traits included being shy, likable, gullible, and eager to soothe hurt feelings. Although Bem changed her theoretical perspective to gender schema theory (1981), many researchers are still using her initial perspective of masculinity and femininity (what we now refer to as gender), which have links to how individuals stereotype sexuality.

If we simplify masculinity and femininity to the polarized assumptions of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, sexuality to the assumed polarized assumptions of heterosexual and homosexual, we would equate a masculine male with heterosexuality and a feminine female with heterosexuality. Likewise, U.S. societal stereotypes would equate a feminine male and masculine female with homosexuality.

The stereotypes about gender and sex can be seen in the sporting environment. In the United States, the four major sports are considered to be football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. When these sports are mentioned, it is assumed that they are male sports. These sports, especially football, are considered to be masculine. Likewise, individual sports that emphasize grace and no body contact between opponents are considered feminine (Riemer & Visio, 2003). What follows from these assumptions is that females who compete in “masculine” sports are considered lesbians, and males who compete in “feminine” sports are gay. In the United States and Europe, female athletes have come out as lesbian over the last 30 years in sports such as tennis and basketball. When these athletes have come out, their endorsements have dropped. Sexuality and endorsements might seem to be a jump in this blog post, but let’s look at what has been written about in 2013.

Suddenly, the press and some male team sport owners seem thrilled with the idea of a male athlete from one of the four “major” sports to come out as gay. The endorsement potential for these athletes is said to be millions. The Nike company has stated that it wants to sponsor the first major out professional gay athlete. Even more interesting, Mark Cuban, the owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, stated that he would be “honored” to if the Mavericks had a gay player. What does this mean about our assumptions about gender and sexuality?

First, I would argue that it says nothing for the female athlete who is a lesbian. There has never been a call for lesbians to speak out, and the endorsements have dropped for athletes such as Martina Navratilova. Brittany Griner just came out, and there wasn’t a Sports Illustrated cover or a marketing rush. * For male athletes in certain sports, the assumptions about gender and sexuality seem to be expanding. If athletes in these sports come out as “gay” and receive endorsements, what does this say about male athletes in masculine sports who are gay?

I would love to put forth an argument that we are in the process of redefining gender and sexuality and that all athletes will be treated equally with respect to opportunity (which includes endorsements). Sadly, I cannot. There might be a growing acceptance in certain areas of United States society that will accept a gay male athlete if he is playing a sport considered masculine. As long as the male conforms to our definition of masculinity, he will be accepted as an athlete and worthy of applause. But until we see the same acceptance for female athletes in all sports that are lesbian, and male athletes in sports not considered masculine such as figure skating or diving, we have not expanded our definitions of gender very much. In the end, perceived masculinity trumps the expansion of gender roles and sexuality.

Epilogue: As I was writing this over the last few days, a story broke that Jason Collins, an NBA player, has come out. The news broke first on sportsillustrated.com, and has been picked up by other news outlets. Jason Collins is a 12 year NBA veteran who has played with six teams. Time will tell if Nike signs him, and if Mark Cuban would be honored to have him on his 2013-2014 Maverick’s roster.

[Note:  In a version of this post published on April 30 at 2:57pm, reference was made that Griner did not have a contract with Nike.  This is a correction to that original statement.  Please see here for story regarding Griner's Nike contract.]

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing source. Psychological Review, 88, 354.

Bem, Sandra L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 42, 155-62.

Borden, S. (April 19, 2014). Female star comes out, and the sports world shrugs. NY Times, B10.

Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions

NY Post (2014). http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/mark_cuban_would_be_honored_if_mavericks_PkNhXWYGcba2EFxS2SdSfO).

Riemer, B.A. & Visio, M.E. (2003) Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 193-204.
Gender typing of sports: an investigation of Metheny’s classification.

Sports Illustrated (2014). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/?sct=hp_t11_a1&eref=sihp.