Lindsay parks pieper dissertation

Policing Womanhood: The International Olympic Committee, Sex Testing and the Maintenance of Hetero-Femininity in Sport DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lindsay Parks Pieper Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Sarah K. Fields, Advisor Brian Turner Judy Tzu-Chun Wu Copyrighted by Lindsay Parks Pieper 2013 Abstract This project assesses the significance of Olympic sex testing/gender verification. From 1968 to 1998, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) required sex/gender checks on all female participants, consequently defining and controlling womanhood. In the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, the IOC Medical Commission instituted the first compulsory test of the modern Olympic Movement.

The procedure intended to guarantee the authenticity of Olympic competitors and unmask male masqueraders, as well as to scientifically confirm the separation of men and women in sport. Over the next three decades, the IOC authorized a policy of sex/gender conformity, which consequently outlined a specific category of woman for sport. Thus Olympic womanhood—dependent on a belief in natural, dichotomous sex/gender difference—required female athletes to conform to conventional notions of white hetero-femininity. Through these regulations, the IOC, a powerful and influential authority, has continuously reaffirmed a binary notion of sex, privileged white gender norms, re-inscribed a dichotomous paradigm of sexuality and hampered female athleticism.

Although protests from the medical community and the Athletes Commission eventually coerced the IOC to abandon compulsory verification in 1999, officials failed to relinquish complete control of Olympic womanhood. The IOC maintained its authority of sex/gender through anti-doping techniques, suspicion-based testing and transgender regulations. ii Dedicated to Lucy and George iii Acknowledgments As with all dissertation projects, this was not a single-person venture; I am grateful for the assistance I received from a variety of individuals. Foremost, had Sarah Fields not required monthly submissions and bi-weekly phone calls, I would have never finished on time.

I am not only appreciative of her for the countless edits she provided, but also because she agreed to continue advising me from afar. Judy Wu offered invaluable historical feedback and permitted me to engage with her graduate student writing seminar in an innovative fashion. Brian Turner opened my eyes to the managerial components of the Olympic Games. I am forever indebted to Susan Bandy for her boundless dedication to her students (and friends).

She provided significant suggestions regarding content and voluntarily agreed to copy edit the entire draft, including the poorly-formatted footnotes. Danny Hedrick surpassed his duties as a colleague and offered understanding of my situation. I would also like to thank the members of the Beth Emory Virtual Writer’s Workshop for their willingness to provide both feedback and friendship. Finally, Kyle Krisko demonstrated incredible patience throughout the duration of the project.

iv Vita June 2003 .Columbia High School, New York May 2007. Communication, Virginia Tech May 2007. History, Virginia Tech 2008 to 2010 .Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University March 2010. History, The Ohio State University 2010 to 2012 .Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of PAES, The Ohio State University 2012 to present .Assistant Professor, Lynchburg College Publications Pieper, Lindsay Parks.

“Gender Regulation: Renee Richards Revisited.” International Journal of the History of Sport 29, no. Fields of Study Major Field: Education v Table of Contents Abstract. v List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………. 1 Chapter 1: Because They Have Muscles, Big Ones.

233 Chapter 2: Is the Athlete “Right” or “Wrong”?. 566 Chapter 3: East Germany’s Mighty Sports Machine. 1022 Chapter 4: Not Only Inaccurate but also Discriminatory. 1422 Chapter 5: Gender Testing Per Se is No Longer Necessary.

2244 vi List of Tables Table 1. Sex/Gender Control Labels, 1968-1998…………………………………………6 Table 2. Summer Olympics Medal Breakdown by Sex/Gender, 1948-1968……………41 Table 3. Medals Earned in Summer Olympics and National Populations, 1968-1988.

Medals Won in the Summer Olympics, 1988-2012……………………………199 vii Introduction In the 1960 Summer Olympics, track and field athletes Irina and Tamara Press gained international notoriety. Each sister won a gold medal in the Rome Games, Irina in the 80-meter hurdles and Tamara in the shot-put. Notably, the Ukrainian-born duo dominated women’s track and field, collectively acquiring a total of five Olympic medals and establishing twenty-six world records, all under the Soviet flag.1 While the Soviet Union applauded the Press sisters’ astounding achievements, many in the Cold War West cruelly degraded the Olympians, citing their strength and stature as suspiciously abnormal. The reports disparaged the “Russian muscle molls” for being too big, too “burly” and “heftier” than their Western counterparts.2 For example, New York Times reporter Arthur Daley commented that Tamara was “big enough to play tackle for the Chicago Bears,” while Irina was “about the size of a running guard.”3 In a parallel fashion, journalist Sid Ziff mocked that when contrasted against the stature of Rocky Marciano, the former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Tamara made him “look like a midget.”4 These repeated comparisons to male athletes were not accidental.

Such accounts not only belittled women’s success in the Olympics, but also constructed 1 International Olympic Committee, “Olympic.org,” The Official Website of the Olympic Movement, accessed January 22, 2013, http://www. 2 Arthur Daley, “Sports of the Times: The Red-Faced Reds,” New York Times, Oct. 23, 1964, 47; Associated Press, “Soviet Girls Set Track Records,” Los Angeles Times, April 3, 1964, B5; “Favorites in Tokyo 1964,” Sports Illustrated, Oct. 5, 1964, 3 Daley, “Sports of the Times: The Red-Faced Reds,” 47.

4 Sid Ziff, “On Babka and Girls,” Los Angeles Times, July 1, 1966, B3. 1 athleticism as the antithesis to femininity. Accordingly, because Irina and Tamara dismissed Cold War Western notions of hetero-femininity to excel in sport, the two sisters could not be real women. Based on the assumption that athletic prowess contradicted womanhood, in 1966 international track and field authorities mandated an anatomical investigation for all female participants prior to competition.

Editor of Track & Field News Dick Bank explained that this examination intended “to drive out types who really had no business in women’s track.” In other words, the sex test sought to preclude women, like the Press sisters, who “had more male characteristics than female.”5 The rumors surrounding Irina and Tamara heightened when the two abruptly dropped out of the 1966 European Athletics Championships, the first international contest to require inspections of all participants. Although they cited their mother’s illness as the reason, many in the Cold War West insinuated that the physical exam was the actual deterrent.6 Negative speculations increased further when other top female athletes avoided the competition; notably U. broad jumper Tatyana Schelkanova claimed a leg injury and Romanian high jumper Iolanda Balas simply did not show up for the meet.7 Finally, after a year of abstaining from athletics, Tamara announced her retirement.8 “I have devoted more than 10 years of my life to sports,” she explained, “and I would like (to cede) my place. to young sportswomen.

to help my 5 Charles Maher, “On Fast Women,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1970. 6 Reuters, “Press Sisters out of Meet,” New York Times, Aug. 7 “Top Women Tracksters Absent from Sex Check,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 8 United Press International, “Tamara Press Retires as Track Competitor,” New York Times, Dec.”9 Her sister did not publicly comment on retirement; however, Irina similarly never participated in an event that mandated a sex check.

Deeming the introduction of sex testing in track and field a success, the newly conceived International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Commission stipulated in 1968 that all female athletes were required to undergo a chromosomal exam prior to competition. With the check, the IOC consequently controlled womanhood for over three decades. To assess the long-lasting significance of Olympic sex testing/gender verification, this project explores its history, from 1968 to 2000.10 During this time period, the IOC mandated compulsory sex/gender checks on all female competitors, thereby defining and controlling womanhood. In the 1968 Mexico City Games, the IOC Medical Commission implemented the first sex/gender test of the modern Olympic Movement.

The procedure intended to guarantee the authenticity of Olympic competitors and identify male masqueraders, as well as to scientifically confirm the separation of men and women in athletic competition. Over the next three decades, the IOC authorized a policy of sex/gender conformity, which consequently outlined a specific category of woman for sport. Thus Olympic womanhood—dependent on a belief in natural, dichotomous sex/gender difference—required female athletes to conform to conventional notions of white hetero-femininity. Through these regulations, the IOC, a powerful and influential 9 United Press International, “Tamara Press, Olympic Track Star, Resigns,” Chicago Tribune, Dec.

10 The IOC required sex testing/gender verification from 1968 to 1998. From the 2000 Sydney Olympics to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, female athletes competed without a gender verification test; however, the Stockholm Consensus, suspicion-based testing and anti-doping controls served the same purpose. In 2012, the IOC re-introduced sex/gender control. 3 authority, has continuously reaffirmed a binary notion of sex, privileged white gender norms, re-inscribed a dichotomous paradigm of sexuality and hampered female athleticism.

Theoretical Frameworks The IOC is a powerful structure that has historically constrained women and curtailed female athleticism. In the words of sport sociologists Susan Birrell and Nancy Theberge, women’s involvement with sport is “marked by the struggle for control of both the institutions that regulate women’s sporting participation and the meanings of our sport experiences.”11 One might also add that women fight to regain control of their bodies. In order to fully analyze the history and influence of Olympic sex testing, this project examines the IOC’s linguistic choices, incorporates a racial analysis of the policies, and utilizes both “compulsory heterosexuality” and the “fair play” discourse as ideological frameworks. Language Scholars have increasingly recognized the significance of language in the construction of the social world.12 Following a generally accepted—yet not unproblematic—feminist paradigm, this project uses the term “sex” to denote biological 11 Susan Birrell and Nancy Theberge, “Structural Constraints Facing Women in Sport,” in Women’s Sport: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds.

12 Joan Wallach Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” The American Historical Review 91, no. Scott first recognized the need for novel terminology and called for historians to create a new analytical theory that signified social power. Susan Birrell, “Discourses on the Gender/Sport Relationship: From Women in Sport to Gender Relations,” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews 16 (1988): 459-502. According to Susan Birrell, in the 1980s sport scholars recognized the role of language and the media in creating and reproducing notions of women, femininity, physicality, sexuality and the body.

4 and anatomical distinction, and “gender” to reflect constructed differences, roles and attributes deemed socially appropriate for the sexes.13 Furthermore, the IOC, in its long history of policing women’s bodies, regularly conflated sex and gender; therefore, “sex/gender” is incorporated to acknowledge the oftentimes inseparable nature of the two ideologies. Some have also criticized the existing sex testing/gender verification literature for using the labels interchangeably.14 To avoid confusion and best illustrate the mindsets of the sport authorities responsible for the scrutiny, this paper employs the various terms used by the IOC Medical Commission at different moments, as demarcated in the Official Olympic Reports. Accordingly, the IOC referred to the required examination as follows: 13 Kevin B. Wamsley, “Social Science Literature on Sport and Transitioning/Transitioned Athletes,” Prepared for the Promising Practices: Working with Transitioning/Transitioned Athletes in Sport Project, February 2008, http://www.ca/e/resources/pdfs/Wamsley_lit_review%282%29.

After a review of sport literature that discussed aspects of gender variance, Wamsley found that “sex” typically connoted visible anatomy and “gender” to describe social perceptions of identification. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 4-5. Fausto- Sterling recognized that by ceding this division, feminists opened themselves up to attacks of biological difference. According to the author, the body is too complex to provide clear-cut answers about sexual difference.

McBride and Jehannine Austin, “Sex Testing or Gender Verification: Is there a Difference and Does it Matter?” Journal of Genet Counseling 20, no.