International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

ISSN: 1940-6940 (Print) 1940-6959 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/risp20

Gender inclusivity in sport? From value, to values,

to actions, to equality for Canadian athletes

Shawn H.E. Harmon

To cite this article: Shawn H.E. Harmon (2020) Gender inclusivity in sport? From value, to values,
to actions, to equality for Canadian athletes, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12:2,
255-268, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2019.1680415

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2019.1680415

View supplementary material

Published online: 30 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1386

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=risp20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS
2020, VOL. 12, NO. 2, 255–268
https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2019.1680415

ARTICLE

Gender inclusivity in sport? From value, to values, to actions, to

equality for Canadian athletes
Shawn H.E. Harmon
Policy Analyst, Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; Adjunct Professor, School of Medicine,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; Honorary Fellow, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
Scotland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Sport is an important and universal element of culture, providing people Received 13 March 2019
with opportunities for improved health and fitness and for social interac- Accepted 8 October 2019
tion through which they can develop knowledge, skills and attitudes for KEYWORDS
full participation in society. Through its capacity to deepen inclusion and Equality; inclusive;
encourage, improve health and wellbeing, and help realise fundamental transgender; values;
human rights, sport has been characterised as a form of positive social strategies
capital. However, sport frequently fails to deliver on its promise, and it has
a long history of inhumane treatment of athletes at all levels, particularly
women and trans athletes who do not confirm to heteronormative gen-
ders and identities. This paper highlights several examples of unequal
treatment based on gender and two useful Canadian policy responses. It
then argues that these statements/policies are not enough. The aims of
sport would benefit from greater attention to both the value foundation
for sport, and the mechanisms for realising a new sporting culture within
which athletes of all genders can thrive. It goes on to articulate some of
the key values and some mechanisms for achieving improved inclusivity.
It also appends a Statement of Values and Actions on Gender Inclusivity,
which was developed in part through the ‘Inclusiveness in Sport
Roundtable’, a facilitated, multi-disciplinary discussion held with key
actors in Nova Scotia sport.

1. Introduction
It is claimed that ‘sport’1 – as both a participatory endeavour and an observed spectacle – is an
important and universal element of culture (Lüschen 1967, Jarvie 2013). It provides people with
opportunities for social interaction through which they can develop the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes necessary for their full participation in civil society, and it provides spaces within which
they can both model and develop character, and positively influence the socio-moral character of
their community (Arnold 1999, WHO 2003, McNamee 2008, Houlihan and Malcolm 2015). A key
element of this understanding of sport – indeed, its foundation stone – is participation. People can
only participate if they are included. Approached as an element of human wellbeing, inclusion can
be understood as both an objective and a process through which individuals are enabled to
participate as valued, respected and contributing members of society. In other words, inclusion
demands the removal of barriers to participation and the creation of a welcoming and safe environ-
ment where human flourishing can be realised (Donnelly and Coakley 2002).

CONTACT Shawn H.E. Harmon shawn.harmon@dal.ca Policy Analyst, Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Canada
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
256 S. H. E. HARMON

This article engages with the broad issue of inclusion (or lack of sufficient inclusion) in sport, focusing
on gender exclusion, particularly inequities relating to non-binary gender identities and physiologies. It
engages with the question of how we might better value people, and value difference and diversity in
sport, making Canadian sport a more open space to conceive of excellence in different embodiments. In
doing so, it draws on ‘Inclusiveness in Sport’, an informal, multi-disciplinary policy roundtable held in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on 12 October 2018, hosted by the Dalhousie Health Law Institute.
Participants represented a cross-section of sport actors in the province, including representatives of
governing bodies and associations, varsity sport, community sport clubs and athletes. Participants
consented to notes being taken, and to the substance of the discussion informing a range of outputs.
This paper first reiterates the positive potential of sport and the acknowledgement of this
potential in legal instruments. It then highlights several examples of the exclusionary (and inhu-
mane) treatment visited upon female and non-heteronormatively gendered and/or embodied
athletes. Second, it considers two positive policy responses emanating from Canada, a report on
inclusiveness in sport by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, and an equity policy issued by
USport. It argues that, while these evince a shift in conscience, they will remain aspirational without
the development of instrumental courses of action for realising their aims at grassroots levels. Third,
the paper argues that sport would benefit immensely from much greater attention to both its value
foundation and, importantly, the mechanisms available for realising a new culture, one commensu-
rate with that envisioned by the policies reviewed. Drawing on a Statement of Values and Actions on
Gender Inclusivity (Appendix A) that was developed in part from the facilitated conversations held at
the aforementioned roundtable, it articulates some of those key values upon which sport should/
must be built, and it offers some practical mechanisms for better achieving inclusivity.
It will be clear throughout the paper that I believe sport offers a range of social and individual
benefits, but that these are not being realised. The message from the very top of the sporting
pyramid, regardless of the rights rhetoric deployed, is that difference is problematic, and universal
inclusion is unnecessary (or too difficult). I argue that, in the absence of frank conversations around
the value and mechanism outlined, sport will remain a force for marginalisation and harm, particu-
larly for female and trans athletes who embody ‘difference’ from the heteronormative sports body.

2. Virtues and failings – marginalisation and exclusion based on gender and

physiology
As suggested above, sport has many virtues and possibilities as a social institution, a position
acknowledged in many legal instruments. For example, the European Sport for All Charter (1977)
observes that sport is a factor in human development, and that everyone has the right to participate
in sport. The International Charter of Physical Education and Sport (1978) recognises access to
physical education and sport as a fundamental human right linked to the full development of
personality, and of one’s physical, intellectual, and moral powers. UNESCO emphasises sport’s
capacity to deepen inclusion and encourage more cohesive societies (UNESCO 2017), and the UN
has included a right to participate in sport in a range of its international instruments. For example,
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (2006), all of which build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),2 all erect
rights of inclusion. The legal entrenchment of sport as an institution for social cohesion and the
recognition of sport’s intimate connection to enumerated equality rights are important. At base, it
signals that sport should be organised and operated in compliance with these rights. More robustly
considered, it suggests that states should have obligations to proactively facilitate wide inclusion,
and that athletes are entitled to demand positive action and to advance claims for compensation
when they are harmed as a result of not being sufficiently respected.
In any event, given sport’s interaction with, and potential advancement of, dignity, integrity, and
equality, it has been characterised as a potential form of ‘positive social capital’ (Nicholson and Hoye 2008).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 257

However, sport, as a broad social practice and collection of institutions, has struggled to be virtuous, often
serving as a form of ‘dark social capital’ (Kamberidou and Patsadaras 2008). Contemporary examples of
this negative social capital (or social deficit production) include the interference in, and corruption of, sport
by big business and media, the use of sport as a platform for regional and identity conflicts, and the
systematic doping of athletes, all of which put athletes, officials, and audiences at risk of harm (Patsadaras
et al. 2008).
With respect to its athlete participants more specifically, sport has a long and lamentable history
of exclusion and inhumane treatment. Research has shown that race, class, gender and sexuality
remain powerful constructs within sport, and that individual athlete experiences of racism, classism,
sexism, and homophobia are widespread within very diverse sporting contexts and levels (Schinke
and McGannon 2014, Krane 2019). Sexism and discrimination against those with non-binary genders
and physiologies are particularly acute (Bryson 1983, Sage 1990, Donnelly 1996, Spaaij et al. 2015,
Long et al. 2017), with sexual harassment and abuse all too common (Fasting 2017). For these
athletes, then, sport has not often been a platform for social equalisation or a pathway to social
cohesion. Rather, it has served as a platform for exclusion, and for the suppression of ‘ways of
being’ – a space where difference (perceived as divergence from the masculine or the heteronor-
mative binary) is not valued (Baker-Lewton et al. 2017, Symons et al. 2017, Grenier and Bourgoin
2018). A knock-on effect of this devaluing of diversity and variance (through exclusion, negative
messaging, etc.) is that sport’s many benefits are lost, not only to those excluded, but also to those
remaining, and to society more generally.
This exclusion is persistent and common, as demonstrated by several contemporary examples.
Although examples exist at all levels of sport, those relied on here are from elite sport because: (1)
they are most readily and clearly chronicled at that level, where gender violence (in its myriad forms)
remains pervasive; (2) the culture of that highly visible level often trickles down to the lower tiers of
sport, informing mores and behaviours; and (3) lower-level sport organisations often feel compelled
to comply with elite-level rules and practices.
The first example comes from the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, for which the Organizing
Committee (VANOC) planned to host three ski jumping events for men and none for women. In
response to calls by female ski jumpers to be respected (and included), VANOC limply replied that
only the International Olympic Committee (IOC) can decide which events will qualify as Olympic
events. It could not host ski jumping for women unless the IOC added it to the Program, which the
IOC flatly declined.3 A number of female athletes initiated a judicial review of the decision, alleging
a breach of s 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 states as follows:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit
of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of
conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In Sagen v Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
(Sagen v VANOC (2009)), the British Columbia Supreme Court held that VANOC is subject to the
Charter of Rights when it plans, organises, finances and stages the Games, and that the differential
treatment of female skijumpers does amount to a breach of s 15 of the Charter. However, it
concluded that, while VANOC was bound to do so, the IOC was not so Charter-bound, and
VANOC’s implementation was not in breach of s 15 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the skiers’ appeal (Sagen v VANOC (2009)), holding that the Charter did not apply to the selection of
events for Vancouver 2010, and that, even if it did apply, the failure to include women’s ski jumping
would not constitute a breach of s 15. Female ski jumping was added to the 2014 Winter Olympics in
Sochi, but even by the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, only one female event (normal hill)
was held compared to three male events (normal hill, large hill, team). This should be a particularly
258 S. H. E. HARMON

loathsome state of affairs to Canadians given the significance of winter sports here and the (notional)
status of human rights in this country.
The second example comes from the Summer Olympics. A gender audit of the 2012 London
Olympics examined 302 events representing 36 disciplines across 26 sports (Donnelly and Donnelly
2013). It found that there were:

● 166 male events compared to 136 female events, with 39 events open to males only and 9
events open to females only;
● 6068 male athletes compared to 4,835 female athletes, with 30 more medal events for males;
● 11 sports with a lower quota for female athletes, with only 35.8% of the events equal in terms of
athlete quotas;
● differences based on: fewer female athletes; females racing shorter distances in comparable
events; females having different weight categories; females having different venues, equip-
ment-size and spacing, or competitor height and weight requirements;
● multiple sports were female athletes were expected to wear sexualised or non-modest uni-
forms; and
● only female sports that relied on judging criteria that included appearance and presentation
(grooming, make-up, smiling, etc.).

These figures tell a tale very different from that told by the official Games Report (London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games 2012). They tell a tale of systematised exclusion and inequitable
gender practices at the most visible of sporting events.
The final example relates to female athletes with ‘non-conforming’ bodies (Keegan 2013). Non-
binary or non-normatively embodied athletes – those who are transgender4 or intersex5 – frequently
face additional barriers to involvement and positive experiences. They often have to demonstrate
their ‘femaleness’ or ‘femininity’ in order to participate in sport (Karkazis 2008), a process which relies
on externally imposed eligibility standards, gendering by medical means, and the imposition of
sometimes invasive medical and/or long-term pharmacological interventions (Karkazis et al. 2012,
Karkazis 2018). In this regard, the IOC is again complicit, as is the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF).
The IOC’s shockingly interventionist Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports (IOC
2003), which had requirements around sex reassignment surgery, was scientifically unfounded, and
almost entirely negatively experienced. The IOC replaced that lamentable instrument with its
Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism (IOC 2015), which removed its
genital surgery requirement but reaffirmed the IOC’s power to demand secondary screening of
female athletes when high testosterone levels are detected during mandatory doping tests. The
equally egregious IAAF’s Regulations Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to
Compete in Women’s Competition (2011) required female athletes to have natural testosterone
levels below a certain mark, and have been characterised as an example of racial regulation and
medical colonialism of the global south (Karkazis and Jordan-Young 2018). In the benchmark case,
Chand v AFI and IAAF (2014), the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found that those Regulations
discriminated against women. The CAS also held that this discrimination could not be justified.
Noting the importance of good scientific evidence to this matter (paras. 527–528), it observed that
evidence demonstrated that testosterone levels above the mark set in the Regulations only sup-
ported a performance difference of 1–3%; a performance difference of 10–12% is needed to equal
the male/female performance difference in certain aspects.
After several extensions of the deadline to amend its Regulations, the IAAF issued its Differences of
Sexual Development Regulations (IAAF 2019), which apply to five events: 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m,
1500 m and 1 mile. Regulation 2.2(a) defines the type of athlete caught by the DSD Regulations, and
Regulation 2.3 sets the testosterone levels permitted. While Regulations 2.4 and 2.5 explicitly remove the
requirement for surgical anatomical changes, the DSD Regulations have been strongly criticised (Karkazis
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 259

and Jordan-Young 2018, Lee 2019). They have also been shown to be scientifically unsound (Pielke et al.
2019), and they were challenged in Semenya v IAAF (2019). In its decision on that case, the CAS noted that,
at issue, was conflicting rights and duties of scientific, legal, and ethical significance, and that balancing
was required (para. 460). It acknowledged the growing difficulty of reliance on ‘male’ and ‘female’
categories and was careful to limit its findings around gender to the sporting context (para. 463). It
also found that Semenya had discharged her onus of demonstrating differential treatment based on
protected characteristics (para. 547). In other words, the case for discrimination had been made. However,
it agreed with the IAAF that high testosterone in female athletes confers significant advantages in size,
strength and power, and held (by a 2–1 majority) that the DSD Regulations were necessary, reasonable,
and proportionate (paras. 556–624). Having done so, it nonetheless voiced concerns about the future
application of the DSD Regulations, observing that other circumstances might arise where the propor-
tionality criterion is not met, and noting the sparseness of the evidence applicable to some competitions
(paras. 620–624).
The message sent to youth and community athletes by these instruments and cases is that they
are, at best, marginal and tolerated, more probably unwelcome, or, at worst, uncanny and valueless.
These athletes continue to fail to see themselves reflected in the upper echelons of sport, and when
they can see themselves, they are embattled and undermined. All of this discourages athletes from
taking up sport or from progressing beyond the very lowest levels of sport (Hylton 2013, Collins
2014), with the result that their opportunities to play varsity sports are slim, and their possibilities for
developing into elite athletes are foreclosed. It is obvious that every effort must be made to ensure
that sporting events are conducted in a fair manner to achieve the best competition and that
competitors comply with rules around performance-enhancing substances, but those efforts should
not be stigmatising or physically harmful.

3. A landscape in flux – Canadian policies aimed at encouraging inclusion

The persistence of inequality, the tenacity of those who impose it, and the infrequent questioning of
dominant norms and understandings, particularly in elite sport and within international sporting
bodies, create an environment where very destructive practices can endure. Policies and practices
directed at female and trans athletes have been manifestly harmful, sending dangerous messages
about physiological variation generally, and about women’s bodies in particular (i.e. that they must
conform to a particularly narrow normative configuration and are uniquely in need of special
protection and/or management). Unfortunately, while national sporting bodies in rights-conscious
countries like Canada might be expected to counter inequitable policies from custom-bound,
narrow-minded, colonial bodies like the IOC and IAAF, they frequently respond to claims of unfair-
ness by crying, as VANOC did, that they must comply. A consequence of this disingenuous response
is that, rather than showing the way towards inclusion and respect, these organisations (and sport
generally) contribute to more widespread derogations from them.
In this regard, note the plight of gender diverse individuals in Canada. It has been reported that
transgender people have fewer and more precarious employment prospects, earn less than non-
trans individuals despite equivalent or greater education, face discrimination in healthcare, are
regularly bullied and harassed, and are commonly subject to transphobic comments (Mitchell
2017). This represents multifaceted discrimination against a large and poorly understood commu-
nity – as many as 1 in 200 adults may be trans, representing some 175,000 Canadians (Scheim and
Bauer 2015). Indeed, only recently it has been agreed that sex and gender are not the same thing,
and that individuals are born with different combinations of sex and gender as part of their identity,
all of which shapes their experience. While legal recognition and protection have not been readily
forthcoming (Walker 2016, Bamforth 2017, Blake 2018), all Canadian provinces and territories have
now sought to protect trans rights through amendments to, or evolving interpretations of, their
human rights legislation.6
260 S. H. E. HARMON

Importantly, some sport organisations are evincing (and encouraging) a shift in perspective to
match this recognition. For example, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport has recommended that
organisations create a more inclusive sporting culture through the cultivation of positive verbal and
emotional environments, and positive physical environments (CCES 2012, 2016). To assist organisa-
tions, it has developed a policy and practice template that offers model language and acknowl-
edgements on forms and provides advice on the deployment of facilities (CCES 2018). For example,
the CCES recommends that sport organisations formulate trans inclusion policies, paying particular
attention to the opening statement. The sample it offers is:

Sport inclusion is a fundamental value for [insert name of organization here] and a True Sport principle. We also
recognize that having a more diverse organization will only strengthen our sport. As a result, our organization is
fully committed to providing a safe, supportive and respectful environment for all of our participants, members
and staff regardless of any differences based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or disability.

[Insert name of sport organization here] recognizes that discrimination, prejudice and victimisation on the basis
of personal attributes, including gender identity and expression, are a violation of human rights and will not be
tolerated. Our organisation is fully committed to putting in place policies and practices that ensure trans
identities are able to participate in a safe, supportive and respectful environment in our sport.

CCES has emphasised that policies must apply not just to athletes, but to all members of the
organisation, and they must go beyond team and competition eligibility, and apply to all aspects
of the environment within which the sport takes place. This may impose on organisations the
obligation to develop individual transition plans.
USport, the national body governing university sport in Canada, has adopted Policy 80.80 Equity
(USport 2018), which defines ‘equity’ as treatment that is fair and just in relation to, inter alia, gender
and gender identity and expression, and ‘equality’ as all persons enjoying the same status regardless
of, inter alia, gender and gender identity and expression. This policy directs USport to:

● seek gender balance on committees;

● increase the profile of women’s programs and ensure financial resources to do so;
● achieve gender and geographical balance in the ratio of support personnel for USport-
sanctioned international events;
● promote member institutions to assume a leadership role in their local and regional commu-
nities; and
● maintain a balance in the competitive opportunities available to both genders at the national
level.

With respect to participation in ‘male’ and ‘female’ university sport, Clause 80.80.4.2 states that, if
a varsity sport is available to both males and females, they must compete for a position on the team
of their gender only, and that females can compete for a position on the men’s team if a varsity sport
is not available for a female student-athlete. With respect to transgender athletes, Clause 80.80.5
states that student-athletes may compete on the sport team that corresponds with either their sex
assigned at birth or their gender identity, provided that at all times they are in compliance with the
Canadian Anti-Doping Program, and they may only compete on sport teams of one gender during
a given Academic Year. Under Clause 80.80.6.1, USport will consider any requests from Member
Institutions to waive the above Policy on a case by case basis.
These policies usefully highlight the need for a more positive sporting culture. However, while
they are undeniably important, and need to be disseminated and discussed, their on-the-ground
operation and enforcement are equally important, and these aspects of practice are often unex-
plored (Teetzel 2019). In short, meaningful and change-instigating conversations are not had at the
correct levels. The result is that the statements and policies remain largely rhetorical, and have much
less practical impact than they should. The question therefore arises: What might help statements
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 261

and policies like those above better achieve their aims? I contend that, if we hope to achieve a new
sporting culture – one characterised by personal honour and character, the pursuit and facilitation of
ethical conduct, and fairness and equality for all – we must be much more explicit about the value
foundation of sport, and we must be much more creative in fashioning the mechanisms by which
those values are operationalised to create spaces within which athletes might thrive. I address values
and mechanisms in the remaining two sections.

4. A value foundation for sport – values for valuing people

As a start, we must be much more reflexive about the concepts that underlie sport (and our
expectations and wishes for sport). To the extent that values represent shared social mores, they
offer strong platforms from which to imagine and set objectives for sport at multiple levels, to build
healthy teams, and to measure decisions. They can help shape and drive the mechanisms that can
then be tailored (to the extent needed) for specific sports, leagues, and sites. Quite aside from
sporting or competition values such as dedication, discipline, competitiveness, excellence, and
virtuosity, values which speak to the worth of the person must be examined and emphasised. In
short, much greater emphasis must be placed on values that speak to inclusivity and the obligation
to create opportunities for, and improve the experiences of, traditionally marginalised athletes, some
of whom will be particularly vulnerable to exclusion through ridicule and discriminatory practices
(such as those contained in the IOC and IAAF policies). Doing so will enrich sport and the sporting
experience more generally.
Bearing in mind the above-noted human rights background, and the (too often disastrous)
experience of female and trans athletes, a number of overlapping values are commended: solidarity;
equity; integrity; respect; and responsibility. While each is described in the appended Statement of
Values and Actions on Gender Inclusivity, three of them, for reasons of space, are discussed here.
The first is ‘solidarity’, which is premised on interdependence and the common good. This value
acknowledges that all humans are intimately connected through biology, culture, communities, and
personal relationships, and that these connections impose on us obligations to care for one another,
and to bear burdens for one another (Harmon 2006, Prainsack and Buyx 2012). It has been described
as both meaning and demanding that we stand together, especially where people are threatened,
that we support each other’s interests, and that we have and should pursue shared aims and ideals
(Dawson and Verweij 2012). As such, to meaningfully respect and advance the wellbeing of
individuals, and contribute to the fabric of society, it may be necessary to meet the special needs
of groups, taking steps above what is required to meet common needs. In the sport context,
solidarity demands that actors recognise that they are participating jointly in a shared and valuable
social exercise, and so should take actions to facilitate others in participating. They should also take
positive steps to ensure that their conduct contributes to their own and others’ positive personal
growth, regardless of one’s sexuality, gender, or gender identity or expression.
A second value is ‘equity’, which acknowledges that all humans are equal in dignity, and are
equally deserving of respect, protection, and equitable treatment. This dignity foundation stems
from our common uniqueness; from being humans who are all unique, irreplaceable, and deserving
of being treated as ends in and of ourselves rather than as means to others’ ends (Zagzebski 2016).
The link between equity and equality, a well-known constitutional principle and human right, is clear.
Generally, equality is held to mean that people are equal in dignity, in standing, and in expectation of
protection of the law. Of course, in constitutional jurisprudence, s 15 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms has been interpreted to provide substantive equality, meaning that different
groups are owed different things depending on their social history of disempowerment, exploitation,
and subordination to and by dominant interests (MacKinnon 2016), as noted in Withler v Canada
(2011). In the sport context, equity demands that individuals, particularly those from historically
excluded or marginalised groups, have their participation facilitated, and that they benefit from
a positive, welcoming, healthy environment. As such, all actors involved in sport must avoid
262 S. H. E. HARMON

excluding athletes from participating in sport based on their sexuality, gender, or gender identity or
expression. Additionally, they must follow and enforce the rules and guidelines of their respective
sport without bias or discrimination. Again, this may mean making exceptions to correct systemic
discrimination.
A third value important to the appropriate development of sport and sporting culture, and the
last addressed here, is ‘integrity’. Integrity comes from the Latin word ‘integer’, which means ‘whole’.
As a value, integrity demands that we recognise people with non-conforming bodies and/or diverse
gender identities as having integrity (i.e. as being whole and fundamentally sound) (Harmon et al.
2017). A related aspect of this value is that individuals must act with (moral) integrity, which
demands that they align their actions and words to the moral values and imperatives that are
identified as critical to the setting (Hardingham 2004); in this case, the setting is sport, which is aimed
at individual and community wellbeing and participation. In the sport context, integrity acknowl-
edges that personal virtue and ethical behaviour are integral aspects of sport, and that all actors in
sport have a responsibility to promote and safeguard the spirit of their sport. As such, they must act
with honesty and openness, and within the spirit and rules of the sport, avoiding any conduct that
seeks to exclude participation based on sexuality, gender, or gender identityor expression. Failing
this undermines and harms the integrity of the sport and the virtue of competition.
Ultimately, if sport is to deliver on its promise (to generate positive social capital), these values
must inform all decision-making relating to the organisation and operation of sport, and to the
interactions of individuals within sport, from the grassroots/community level to the elite level. The
aim for present purposes, of course, is to generate equal opportunities for those who identify as
female or trans, to

(1) compete in all sports (i.e. in all the same sports as males);
(2) coach and officiate in all sports;
(3) serve as commentators in all sports; and
(4) hold leadership positions within all sports and so contribute to their governance.

It is not enough to generate opportunities, but those opportunities must exist within a safe and
welcoming environment. Once this is done, inclusivity might be said to be achieved.

5. Mechanisms for change – tools available to actors at all levels of sport

Of course, exploration of values will have little impact if insufficient attention is paid to how they
might be effectively operationalised. Actors need to be much more creative about the narrower
mechanisms by which values are operationalised. This question of mechanisms or tools forces us to
think more critically and systematically about how environments and cultures are generated. Very
generally, cultures depend on, or are indelibly shaped by, the following:

(1) modes of communication and the nature or content of that communication;

(2) physical spaces and how they are shared and navigated; and
(3) the nature of competitions.

If meaningful and positive inclusion is to be achieved in fact, then mechanisms that address these three
shaping aspects of culture are necessary. Obviously, as observed by CCES, all stakeholders have a role
to play, including sport governing bodies (directors and members), leagues (leaders, officials, and
volunteers), clubs (directors, managers, coaches, volunteers), athletes, parents, and supporters. They
must undertake new conversations and act collaboratively to move the prevailing culture towards
something more supportive of wellbeing for everyone. Sport, which notionally values unique and
uniquely able bodies, should be a prime space for these conversations and this collaboration. The
following is only a primer – suggestions for actions that would benefit from dialogue.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 263

First, actors must pay serious attention to the communicative element of the sporting environ-
ment. Actions must be taken to ensure that only positive, welcoming and healthy environments exist
within which athletes train and compete. This necessitates attention to the language used on league
and team forms, the language used on facility posters and programs, the use of language by athletes,
coaches, and team officials in and around the sport facility, and at competitions, and the elimination
of negative messages about body types, shapes, sizes, gender and gender identity. Some mechan-
isms that can be used include the following:

● Development Sessions on Inclusivity for team officials, coaches, volunteers, and athletes (i.e.
short, mandated, early-season educational seminars which identify inclusivity issues and good
practices). These could be developed and delivered by individual teams with the assistance of
governing or provincial sport bodies.
● Outreach Events on Inclusivity for community teams (i.e. intermittent informal talks by high-
performance and varsity athletes, who often serve as role models, about emerging policies,
standards, their experiences with inclusivity, etc.). These could be developed and delivered by
the Coaching Development Programs of the provincial sport governing/funding bodies.
● Multi-Media Campaigns on Inclusivity for wide distribution (i.e. the crafting of easily transmis-
sible messages about inclusivity and openness in the manner currently reserved primarily for
equipment marketing or team promotion, which could focus on sport generally and/or
a bespoke sport or league). Such a campaign could involve the development of both physical
posters for venues and digital posters for social media distribution. While these could be
developed and delivered by Sport Canada and/or the provincial sport bodies (e.g. Sport
Nova Scotia), grassroots development would prove just as effective.7

These mechanisms – which are actionable by clubs and leagues at the grassroots level – can and
should be supplemented by a general E-Training Module on Inclusivity for all coaches at all levels of
sport. Such a mandated online educational package could address expected standards around
language and forms, tools for evaluating and shifting team culture, coaching and locker-room
language, recommendations for mentoring in diverse environments, and more, and it could be
developed and delivered through the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) or equivalent
bodies.
In addition, attention should be given to matters of personal presentation, for this too contributes
positively or negatively to the environment, and the lived experience of sport. As observed in the
2012 Olympics audit (Donnelly and Donnelly 2013), several sports impose on female athletes
conditions unknown to their male equivalents (where they have such equivalents). The most obvious
examples are around the nature of the uniforms expected to be worn (which may be sexualised or
highly immodest), and the nature of the athlete’s presentation (judging based on appearance, make-
up, facial expression). Conversations need to be had around what messages uniforms convey, how
they best represent the sport (or can represent or accentuate the best aspects of the sport), and who
gets to (or must) wear them.
The second factor critical to sport culture is that of facilities. Their stratification and accommoda-
tion of people, including the athletes, their conveyance of sound, their lines of sight, etc., all
contribute to the formation and expression of culture, and to the identity of athletes, teams, and
fans, and their alteration can amend that culture and reinvent the identities of the participants (Bale
2002, Smith et al. 2012). As such, sport organisations must ensure that appropriate facilities exist for
all participants in sport, with equal facilities for female athletes and female teams. In addition, they
should support transgender and intersex athletes in using whichever facilities (e.g. bathrooms,
showers, locker rooms) they are most comfortable with, and which are most consistent with their
gender identity. Some athletes may request separate facilities, in which case the organisation should
make every reasonable effort to accommodate the request (just as they would for reasonable
requests to accommodate privacy on religious or other grounds). Some of these matters would be
264 S. H. E. HARMON

addressed, one expects, in individual transition plans where they are agreed, but having an aware-
ness of these needs and general approach will make the development of those plans more
satisfactory. Obviously, this factor in particular has implications for sport, league, club and facility
budgets and structures, as well as for governing instruments, training programs, and so on. But
again, actors must work collaboratively to tailor what is needed for the specific sport and context in
question.
The third factor relevant to culture-formation/revision is the nature and promotion of competi-
tions. The most ready reform that can be adopted here is the ‘de-gendering’ of sport, a course which
necessitates multiple strategies. The first is to encourage mixed-gender teams and leagues, not only
at the youth and community levels but also higher up. Eliminating or reducing the significance of the
binary categories or ‘male’ and ‘female’, thereby rendering gender a negligible competition compo-
nent, encourages positive inter-sex interaction and cross-gender comradery. A good example of
a sport that has minimised the impact of gender categories in an effort to facilitate inclusivity is
speed skating. Athletes train and compete together. At youth and adolescent competitions, they
share locker rooms, race the same distances, and compete in the same races together (i.e. against
one another). Male/Female categories only become relevant for medal purposes, with the top three
male and top three female point winners in each age or developmental category/division receiving
medals, regardless of where they placed in the collective field (i.e. the top 3 males in the mixed field
may have come 3rd, 4th and 8th). In this way, they compete together and against the best athletes in
their category/division, but are in no way disadvantaged by doing so. Parenthetically, speed skating
is also one of the more inclusive sports when it comes to Special Olympic athletes, who are
welcomed and integrated into clubs, train with the other athletes, and compete at regular competi-
tions (in a bespoke division).8
Where gender mixing is not possible or appropriate, a number of courses are readily actionable:

● Equal Marketing: Leagues, event organisers and teams can ensure that there exists equal
billing of female athletes and female competitions. In binary sports, female competitions are
consistently held in advance of male competitions, or out-with the more convenient or
valued viewing times (where broadcasting is involved), and with less support and infrastruc-
ture. Bolting them onto male events and otherwise ignoring them devalues the female
events and athletes, in some cases erasing them from public sight and the public
consciousness.
● Equal Quotas: Leagues, event organisers and teams can eliminate unfairly different compe-
titor quotas, ensuring that there exist equal numbers of positions within competitions as
between male and female athletes. In some sports, fewer female events are held (e.g.
Olympic ski jumping), fewer female athletes are allowed to compete (e.g. Olympic mountain
bike racing), or no female equivalent exists (e.g. gridiron football), which results in unequal
division of sport exposure and recognition, and unequal access to sport funding. Associated
with this is the need to ensure equal opportunities for athletes to compete in the competi-
tion that is most appropriate to their preferred gender identity. In the context of transgender
and intersex athletes, individuals should be given the opportunity to compete in
a competition and/or on a team in the category that corresponds with their gender identity
provided that they remain in compliance with the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Further,
recognising the need for some stability in competition, such athletes might only compete in
an annual competition or on a sport team of one gender in a given season or cycle of the
sport.
● Equal Competitions: Leagues and event organisers can harmonise rules of play and eliminate
unnecessarily different competition structures or milestones (e.g. periods or innings played,
rounds fought, distances raced, benchmark times set, weight categories relied on, etc.), and
measures of skill and excellence (e.g. events established). In binary sports, female competitions
often use shorter distances (e.g. cross-country skiing), shorter times (e.g. rounds in boxing), and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 265

inexplicably different elements of competition (e.g. decathlon for males versus heptathlon for
females, and differences in events as between female and male heptathlon). In most cases, no
justifiable or logically sound reasons exist for the non-harmonisation of standards and rules of
play; equalising them would encourage visible and substantive equality.

One can see from the range of mechanisms articulated that movement can occur first at the
grassroots or community club level, with changes then being ‘pushed up’ the so-called athlete
pipeline (Stotlar and Wonders 2006, Jones 2008). Of course, a key barrier is the intransigence of
national bodies beholden to international organisations. As should be clear, a key aspect of over-
coming this barrier is dialogue and collaboration, but actions under human rights legislation might
also be considered.

6. Conclusion
Sport has great promise as a source of positive social cohesion and individual physical and moral
development. However, it frequently fails to deliver on this promise. This failure stems from both
individual actor failings and systemic conditions and standards to which many of the key actors are
blind. To help sport achieve its promise, at least in relation to inclusivity, and specifically gender
inclusivity, we need to think and talk more about values and the value of people, and of different
embodiments and ways of being. These value conversations need to be sensitively facilitated and
undertaken in safe environments, and they need to be linked to creative conversations about the
mechanisms for better realising values so that not only the conversations but the athletes become
a normalised part of positive sport interaction. Some of the mechanisms offered above can be
designed and implemented locally, but they should be approached with a view to vertical collabora-
tion (i.e. involving leagues and governing bodies, regional and national). Further, they need cham-
pions at multiple levels (i.e. within sport organisations, leagues and clubs), and those champions
must include athletes themselves, male, female and trans.
Some may claim that a number (or many) of the suggested activities fall out-with the remit and
capacity of clubs or sport organisations. However, one need only refer to the expectations for sport
that are articulated by national and international bodies (as noted above); sport is advanced and
(publicly) funded as a platform for delivering individual health and wellness, for developing social ties
and healthy communities, and for strengthening local and national economies. In short, there is much
to sport beyond the ice, or field, or track, or pool. Sport is a social institution which must advance the
social values and rights that we espouse as a society. Sport clubs and sporting spaces are not apolitical,
and skeptics of the above actions should be disabused of the misconception that sport is somehow
neutral or exempt from rights impositions, or that the rules and rights of society should stop at the
threshold of the sporting venue. Clubs and facilities generate or withhold social justice through all of
their policies and spaces, and through the actions of their members (Long et al. 2017).
The Statement of Values and Actions on Gender Inclusivity appended below is offered as a model
for adoption by sports organisations. In addition to being posted at venues for all stakeholders to
see, it could be distributed to club officials, members, and athletes, and used as a basis to open new
conversations and justify equality-supporting decisions that might be unwelcome by some. At base,
it may help encourage those further positive conversations noted above that are so critical to
moving sport culture in a positive direction so that social capital can be achieved. But it can have
little impact if it is not accompanied by a commitment to adopting specific mechanisms for change.
Provincial sport and recreation departments and university athletic and recreational departments
must serve as leaders and champions, using the levers available to them, which may include funding
streams, ready access to athletes and their support networks, control over access to facilities, etc. In
all of this, it must be underscored that sport, in addition to facilitating wellbeing, is about having fun.
And, it should be fun for all participants.
266 S. H. E. HARMON

Notes
1. Sport is a collection of structured physical activities and social institutions. Sport competitions are social practices with
the institutionalised goal of measuring, comparing, and ranking participants according to their performance of the
athletic skills favoured by that sport. Both the skills and prowess valued by a sport, and the measures used to
encourage their development and to demarcate their limits are articulated by the constitutive rules of the sport.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and
rights, that everyone is entitled to fundamental human rights and freedoms, and that discrimination based on
race, ethnicity, language, religion, physical characteristics or disabilities, sexuality, gender identity and/or
expression, or other irrelevant, immutable, or difficult-to-change characteristics, is prohibited.
3. For more on this all too common response, see Young (2009–2010).
4. The term ‘transgender’ is an umbrella term used to describe individuals whose gender identity or expression
does not match the sex category they were assigned at birth. For example, a transgender person may identify as
a woman despite having been born with male genitalia. There is no one way to be transgender, and no one way
for transgender people to look or feel about themselves.
5. The term ‘intersex’ is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of congenital conditions in which individuals
are born with sex characteristics that are not typical for either the male or female sex category. Intersex
conditions may affect sex chromosomes, the function of sex-related hormones, or the internal or external sex
characteristics. This variety of sequelae makes it neither possible nor appropriate to make generalisations about
how individuals experience their conditions.
6. Just one example is Boulachanis v Canada (Attorney General) (2019), wherein a trans female sought transfer to
female correctional facility.
7. Some exemplars: Poster 1 (a collection of visibly diverse athletes with the text, ‘Respect the Player. Respect the
Game.’); Poster 2 (a collection of visibly diverse athletes with the text, ‘My Sport Has Room For Everyone.’); Poster
3 (a collection of visibly diverse athletes with the text, ‘Challenge Prejudice. Celebrate Difference. Change
Experience.’); Poster 4 (a club crest and collage of athlete photos with the text, ‘Offering Opportunities, Not
Insults. Building Teams, Not Barriers. Celebrating Excellence, Not Conformity.’); Poster 5 (a female and male
athlete in their gear with the text, ‘I Can Run/Swim/Ski/Skate/Cycle Just As Far As He Can.’); Poster 6 (a female/
black/aboriginal/transgender athlete with the text, ‘She’s A Hero To Someone Too.’); Poster 7 (a female/black/
aboriginal/transgender/gay athlete or collage with the text, ‘Sport Should Be Fun For Everyone.’); Poster 8 (a
coach surrounded by a young team before a doorway with the text, ‘Open Minds Don’t Close Doors – Mentor for
Diversity/Equality/Inclusivity.’); Poster 9 (a multi-gender team with the text, ‘Inclusive And Stronger For It’).
8. An example of a sport in transition is artistic swimming, which is a minor university sport in Canada. While
international artistic swimming is limited to women (except in the recently introduced mixed duet event),
university-based artistic swimming accepts all athletes, regardless of gender, who then compete in the same
categories. Team members perform together, and teams are judged on synchronisation, level of difficulty,
execution and artistic impression. This judging model makes gender-based differences less impactful on overall
results. Community artistic swimming clubs have also begun to build mixed-gender teams (Schropp 2019).

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Kate Scallion, LLM Candidate at the Schulich School of Law for her contribution to the
Roundtable, her insights and feedback on the various versions of the Statement, and her comments on an earlier draft
of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
No funding.

References
Arnold, P., 1999. The virtues, moral education, and the practice of sport. Quest, 51, 39–54.
Baker-Lewton, A., et al. 2017. “I haven’t lost hope of reaching out . . . ”: exposing racism in sport by elevating counter-
narratives. International journal of inclusive education, 21, 1097–1112.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS 267

Bale, J., 2002. Sports geography. London: Routledge.

Bamforth, N., ed, 2017. Sexual Orientation and Rights. London: Routledge.
Blake, R., 2018. Transgender rights are human rights: a contemplation of litigation strategies in transgender discrimina-
tion cases. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 33, 107–130.
Boulachanis v Canada (Attorney General), [2019] FC 456 (TD).
Bryson, L., 1983. Sport and the oppression of women. The Australian and New Zealand journal of sociology, 19, 413–426.
CCES, 2012. Sport in transition: making sport in canada more responsible for gender inclusivity. Ottawa: CCES.
CCES, 2016. Creating inclusive environments for trans participants in Canadian sport: guidance for sport organizations.
Ottawa: CCES.
CCES, 2018. Creating inclusive environments for trans participants in Canadian sport: policy and practice template for sport.
Ottawa: CCES.
Chand v AFI and IAAF, 2014. CAS 2014/A/3759. Available from: http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/award_
internet.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2019]
Collins, M., 2014. Sport and social exclusion. London: Routledge.
Dawson, A. and Verweij, M., 2012. Solidarity: a moral concept in need of clarification. Public health ethics, 5, 1–5.
Donnelly, P., 1996. Approaches to social inequality in the sociology of sport. Quest, 48, 221–242.
Donnelly, P., and Coakley, J. 2002. The role of recreation in promoting social inclusion. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.
Donnelly, P. and Donnelly, M., 2013. The London 2012 olympics: a gender equality audit. Toronto: Centre for Sport Policy
Studies.
European Commission. 1977. European sport for all charter: text and background. Brussels: EU.
Fasting, K., 2017. Gender, sexual harassment and abuse in sport. In: G. Sobiech and S. Günter, eds. Sport & gender – (inter)
nationale sportsoziologische Geschlechterforschung. Berlin: Springer, 167–177.
Grenier, M. and Bourgoin, B., 2018. Examining the impact of disability sports unit on students’ perceptions of disability.
ICHPER-SD journal of research, 10, 21–27.
Hardingham, L., 2004. Integrity and moral residue: nurses as participants in a moral community. Nursing philosophy, 5,
127–134.
Harmon, S., 2006. Solidarity: A (New) ethic for global health policy. Health Care Analysis, 14, 215–236.
Harmon, S., et al. 2017. Struggling to be fit: identity, integrity, and the law. SCRIPTed, 14, 326–344.
Houlihan, B. and Malcolm, D., eds., 2015. Sport and society: a student introduction. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hylton, K., ed, 2013. Sport development: policy, process and practice. London: Routledge.
IAAF, Eligibility regulations for the female classification (athletes with differences of sex development), modified in
May 2018 [online]. Available from: https://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/rules-regulations [Accessed 10
March 2019].
International, UNESCO. Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport 1978, as Revised in 2015. Available
from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13150&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
IOC, 2003. Statement of the stockholm consensus on sex reassignment in sports [online]. Available from: https://stillmed.
olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_905.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2019].
IOC, 2015. Consensus meeting on sex reassignment and hyperandrogenism [online]. Available from: https://stillmed.
olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_
reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2019].
Jarvie, G., 2013. Sport, culture and society: an introduction. London: Routledge.
Jones, I., 2008. Funding of sport development. In: V. Girginov, ed. Management of sports development. Oxford: Elsevier,
243–258.
Kamberidou, I. and Patsadaras, N., 2008. A new concept in european sport governance: sport as social capital. Biology of
exercise, 4, 21–34.
Karkazis, K., 2008. Fixing sex: intersex, medical authority, and lived experience. Durham: Duke University Press.
Karkazis, K., et al. 2012. Out of bounds? A critique of the new policies on hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes.
American journal of bioethics, 12, 3–16.
Karkazis, K., 2018. Impossible “Choices”: the inherent harms of regulating women’s testosterone in sport. Journal of
Bioethical Inquiry, 15, 579–587.
Karkazis, K. and Jordan-Young, R., 2018. The powers of testosterone: obscuring race and regional bias in the regulation
of women athletes. Feminist Formations, 30, 1–39.
Keegan, C., 2013. Moving bodies: sympathetic migrations in transgender narrativity. Genders, 57, online.
Krane, V., ed, 2019. Sex, gender and sexuality in sport: queer inquiries. London: Routledge.
Lee, A. 2019. The IOC’s transgender guidelines are unscientific and pose a serious risk to the health of both female and
transgender athletes [online]. Available from: https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/the-iocs-transgender-guidelines-
are-unscientific-and-pose-a-serious-risk-to-the-health-of-both-5f5f808748e2 [Accessed 13 March 2019].
London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, 2012. London 2012: olympic games official report. London: LOC.
Long, J., Fletcher, T., and Watson, B., eds, 2017. Sport, leisure and social justice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Lüschen, G., 1967. The interdependence of sport and culture. International review of sport sociology, 2, 127–141.
268 S. H. E. HARMON

MacKinnon, C., 2016. Substantive equality revisited: A reply to Sandra Fredman. International journal of constitutional
law, 14, 739–746.
McNamee, M., 2008. Sports, virtues and vices: morality plays. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, G., 2017. It’s time to enshrine the rights and protections of transgender Canadians. LawNow, 41 (3), 4–7.
Nicholson, M. and Hoye, R., eds, 2008. Sport and social capital. London: Routledge.
Patsadaras, N., Kamberidou, I., and Panagiotopoulos, P., 2008. Sports: social inclusion or Racism and Xenophobia?
International sports law review, 7, 394–401.
Pielke, R., Jr, Tucker, R., and Boye, E., 2019. Scientific integrity and the IAAF testosterone regulations. International sport
law journal, 19, 18–26.
Prainsack, B. and Buyx, A., 2012. Solidarity in contemporary bioethics–towards a new approach. Bioethics, 26, 343–350.
Regulations Governing, IAAF. Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition.
Available from: https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/IAAF-Regulations-
Governing-Eligibilityof-Females-with-Hyperandrogenism-to-Compete-in-Women%E2%80%99s-Competition-In-
force-as-from-1st-May-2011-6.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2011].
Sage, G., 1990. Power and ideology in American sport: a critical perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sagen v VANOC [2009] BCSC 942, aff’d (2009), 278 BCAC 132 (CA).
Scheim, A. and Bauer, G., 2015. Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a
respondent-driven sampling survey. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 1–14.
Schinke, R. and McGannon, K., eds, 2014. The Psychology of Sub-Culture in Sport and Physical Activity: critical Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Schropp, C., 2019. From Policies to Practice: A Perspective on Change from a University Athlete [online]. Available from:
https://healthlawmatters.squarespace.com/ [Accessed 12 March 2019].
Semenya v IAAF, CAS 2018/O/5794. Available from: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award-
redacted-Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf [Accessed 6 September 2019].
Smith, A., Stewart, B., and Haimes, G., 2012. Organizational culture and identity: sport, symbols and success. New York:
Nova Science.
Spaaij, R., et al. 2015. Sport and social inequalities. Sociology Compass, 9, 400–411.
Stotlar, D. and Wonders, A., 2006. Developing elite athletes: a content analysis of US national governing body systems.
International journal of applied sports sciences, 18, 121–144.
Symons, C., O’Sullivan, G., and Polman, R., 2017. The impacts of discriminatory experiences on lesbian, gay and bisexual
people in sport. Annals of leisure research, 20, 467–489.
Teetzel, S. 2019. Why transgender eligibility policies aren’t enough [online]. Available from: http://sircuit.ca/transgender-
eligibility-policies/ [Accessed 12 March 2019].
UN. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979. UNTS 1249, p. 13. Available
from: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cedaw.pdf.
UN. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006. UNTS 2515, p. 3. Available from: https://www.un.org/
development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-
persons-withdisabilities-2.html
UN. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. UNTS 1577, p. 3. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/
files/2019-04/UNConvention-Rights-Child-text.pdf
UNESCO, 2017. A partnership to promote inclusion and tolerance through sport. Geneva: UNO.
Universal, UN. Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. General Assembly Resolution 217A. Available from: https://www.
ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.
USport, 2018. Policy statement 80.80 equity [online]. Available from: https://usports.ca/uploads/hq/By_Laws-Policies-
Procedures/2018/EN/Policy_80.50_to_80.100_Administration_(2018-2019)_2.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2018].
Walker, J. 2016. Legislative summary of bill C-16: an act to amend the Canadian human rights act and the criminal code.
Available from: https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/PDF/
42-1/c16-e.pdf [Accessed 6 September 2019].
WHO, 2003. Health and development through physical activity and sport. Geneva: UNO.
Withler v Canada, [2011] 1 SCR 396.
Young, M., 2009–2010. The IOC made me Do It: women’s Ski Jumping, VANOC, and the 2010 winter olympics. 18 Const.
F. 95
Zagzebski, L. 2016. The dignity of persons and the value of uniqueness. Available from: https://shareok.org/bitstream/
handle/11244/47082/Zagzebski-Linda_2016_The-Dignity-of-Persons-and-the-Value-of-Uniqueness.pdf?sequence=1
[Accessed 6 September 2019].