• Fitness & Health
• Sport & Exercise Science
• Physical Education
• Strength & Conditioning
• Sports Medicine
• Sport Management
• Dance

Identifying gender issues and pursuing gender equity in physical education

This is an excerpt from Organization and Administration of Physical Education 2nd Edition With HKPropel Access by Jayne D. Greenberg & Judy L. LoBianco.

Gender in Physical Education

From its initial inception, physical education has relied on a gender binary (gender as two biological sexes versus a spectrum of identities), with differing activities, beliefs, expectations, and standards for boys and girls. Girls were often excluded from full (or even any) participation, or they were provided opportunities for modified, so-called gentle, physical activity. The reinforcement of sport and physical activity as a masculine domain has deep-seated, historical roots that are still present within the field. Increased gender inclusion in physical education can be traced directly to the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which stated that no person shall be excluded from participation or discriminated against based on sex in any educational program that receives federal funding. (It has since been clarified that Title IX covers both sex and gender.) Prior to Title IX, physical education and sport participation for girls was often underfunded, overlooked, and deemed second class.

Title IX directly prohibits teachers from offering a lesser physical education experience for girls, although stereotypes and discrimination still show up in such contexts. While much progress has been made in terms of gender equity that directly correlates with the changes implemented on account of Title IX, research indicates that gender equity still has not yet been achieved (Cheypator-Thomson et al., 2000). Physical education teachers’ and administrators’ reliance on gender binary excludes students who identify on the gender spectrum outside the binary, such as those who are nonbinary and gender fluid. Furthermore, assumptions of gendered identity as biological often go hand-in-hand with transphobia (either outright or hidden), further marginalizing transgender students.

Teacher Perspectives

As a relatively new physical educator and a woman in her late 20s, Zara was not a stranger to gender dynamics within her field. She recalled, rather grimly, as she set up equipment for her next class, the man at the national physical education conference who had asked to borrow a flash drive to store his presentation on, promising he’d remember to give it back to her since he “never forgot a pretty face.” She squatted down to set up a row of cones, wondering if the yoga pants she’d chosen to wear today were too form fitting; perhaps she was better off wearing something baggier. She felt comfortable in yoga pants or leggings, but she sometimes worried about them being judged as too revealing. However, the khaki pants and polo shirt required at her undergraduate PETE program never had been what she wanted to wear while teaching or engaging in physical activity. Zara continued setting up as the high school students filed in for her first class of the day; she gave encouraging and friendly smiles as she directed students into their warm-up routine. Today’s lesson was part of a touch football unit her male colleagues had pushed for, in spite of the fact that Zara did not know much or care about football. The male teachers she worked with, along with several others in the district, all participated in a fantasy football league, even getting together outside of school hours for the draft and to watch the games. Although she was invited, Zara had never joined them because of her parenting responsibilities. With two young children to manage, going out to watch a football game with colleagues was not something she chose to prioritize. She recalled the anxiety of telling her supervisor that she was pregnant, wondering if he’d secretly be upset or annoyed at the disruption and additional work to find a maternity leave replacement. Zara approached her students and began to explain the first task, involving some simple routes that students would practice: first without a ball, then with a ball hand-off, and finally while trying to catch a tossed ball. Throughout her explanation and demonstration, she noticed several of the boys smirking at one another; one finally raised his hand and contradicted one of the directions, based on what his football coach told him. Zara felt her cheeks flush at this student’s direct confrontation of her content knowledge, wondering if he would have felt emboldened to do so if she had been a man. Zara knew better than to get upset, recognizing the harm that being labeled as emotional can cause women, and calmly told the student that for the purposes of class today, this was how the tasks would be performed.

Given the intense gender segregation found within sport contexts and links between physical education and sport, it is evident that physical education is also a space in which gender issues are rooted, informed by traditional constructions of hegemonic masculinity that place highly skilled and competitive boys as most valuable. In Zara’s narrative, she must negotiate multiple forms of sexism as a female physical educator, from the focus on her physical appearance, to navigating new motherhood, to feeling ostracized from her male physical education teacher counterparts, and being challenged on her subject matter content knowledge from male students.

While physical educators may intend to avoid gender bias in their classrooms, research on the topic suggests that inherent, implicit, and unconscious constructions of gender binaries can lead to very different experiences for students of all genders (Azzarito et al., 2006; Rich, 2004). Regardless of their own gender, physical educators tend to spend more time and attention on boys in their classes, including providing specific corrective and positive feedback, suggesting that the teachers believe boys are more invested in the class and therefore worth investing time and energy toward (Nicaise et al., 2007). Furthermore, particularly at the middle and high school levels, physical educators often emphasize competition, performance, and skill acquisition, which may leave girls feeling uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwilling to fully engage, even if they identify as athletic and wish to fully participate (Constantinou et al., 2009). Even female physical educators have been found to take up a neoliberal discourse of individualism toward disengaged girls in spite of often wanting to change gender norms and stereotypes within the field (Rich, 2004). Widespread ideologies on gender norms mean many teachers perceive certain physical education curriculum content as gendered, such as dance being for girls and weightlifting being for boys. Teachers often profess a commitment to gender equity within their classes by taking on a so-called gender-blind approach; in doing as much, teachers may inadvertently favor, allow, or expect certain behaviors from boys without reciprocating to girls, and also implement a sports-heavy, competition-focused curriculum (potentially ostracizing girls and low-skilled boys). However, they do so without recognizing and taking action toward inherent gender biases with a predisposition toward hegemonic masculinity, from a sports-heavy curriculum content to student behaviors and developing a rapport.

Student Perspectives

Jess walked happily from the locker room to the baseball diamond on the school grounds, eager to be outside and ready to play. She loved physical activity; she was a three-sport varsity athlete, and she appreciated the entirely sport-focused nature of her physical education class. She only wished her teacher, Mr. Wilton, who had been teaching at the school for more than 30 years, recognized her love and engagement in class as well. Mr. Wilton gruffly surveyed the class, then barked out, “Two laps of the diamond,” as he walked away to set up the playing equipment. Jess jogged the bases with her peers, who were students of all genders and abilities walking and running laps together. When they were finished, Mr. Wilton chose two of the most athletic boys in the class to be the team captains, who then were each instructed to choose teams, one student at a time. Jess was not picked first, but she was one of the first girls picked, once the captains had divided up the other highly-skilled boys in the group. She didn’t care; she was happy to get to play because movement and sport were a welcome break from the high expectations of some of her other academic classes. Mr. Wilton served as the pitcher as the game began; the captain of Jess’ team went up to bat first, making contact with the ball and sprinting to first base. After another two batters went, Jess walked up to the plate, confident and ready to hit. Mr. Wilton paused, then turned to the outfield and yelled “Move in, fielders!” insinuating that because Jess was a girl and would not hit the ball far, the outfielders did not need to be far in the outfield. After checking to make sure the catcher was ready (insinuating that Jess would strike out), Mr. Wilton pitched the ball in a long, slow underhand pitch—a noticeable difference from the overhand pitches he had sent the previous (male) batters. Jess’ cheeks burned, and all she could think about was how she had better not strike out after her teacher’s assumptions about her ability to bat. While she made contact with the ball on the pitch, she jogged slowly to first base, allowing herself to be tagged out, to avoid continuing to play under the assumption that she was not as good an athlete as her male counterparts.

The idea of gender issues in physical education has historical precedent, back to physical education’s initial roots. Classes were segregated by gender; the men did calisthenics and other strength and endurance exercises, while the women’s classes focused on socializing amid so-called milder and gentler forms of exercise. With the space race competition of the 1950s against Russia (sometimes referred to as the Sputnik era), national attention turned toward physical education as a way to develop fit citizens, yielding curricula that emphasized form and function of the body. Gender inequity in physical education classes was firmly identified in the 1980s through the work of scholars such as Griffin (1984, 1985), who established patterns of discrimination and a lack of robust participation opportunities for girls. In the 1990s, Vertinksy (1992) theorized gender inequity in physical education as reflective of power differentials and dynamics, proposing to rethink the inherent patriarchal disposition of sport-based physical education curricula and pedagogy. Typical curricula prioritize a certain type of hegemonic masculinity by celebrating traits such as aggression, dominance, strength, fierce competition, and physical prowess (Azzarito & Solomon, 2006). As the example provided, Jess’ physical education teacher focused on the highly-skilled boys by making them team captains and challenging them with faster, overhand pitches. Mr. Wilton’s assumptions about Jess’ physical capabilities (along with his complete ignoring of low-skilled students) implied that Jess was not as valued and not as skilled as the boys in the class. In doing so, girls and low-skilled boys are constructed as the problem—disengaged, unskilled, and unenthusiastic (Flintoff & Scraton, 2001; Oliver et al., 2009).

Recommendations for Physical Education Administrators

Given the propensity for gender issues in physical education, administrators have a responsibility to take specific steps in an effort to create a gender-equitable learning environment. Administrators should actively support physical educators in using best practices when it comes to recognizing gender as a spectrum rather than a binary. These practices might include using gender-neutral language (e.g., “folks” instead of “boys and girls”), ensuring gender-neutral spaces for students to change if needed, and avoiding dividing classes by gender (e.g., “girls line up, then boys line up”). It is also recommended that teachers try to offer students the choice of single-gender and mixed-gender opportunities to engage in physical education, based on students’ input and preferences. For this suggestion, it is imperative that the impetus come from the students, not the teacher, in terms of which group students self-select into and how the classes are framed, created, and taught.

As ones who often play an active role in the hiring of new physical educators, administrators are reminded to be mindful of hiring practices that cultivate hegemonic masculinity within physical education spaces, such as hiring teachers solely for their coaching expertise instead of teaching, having unqualified coaches teach physical education, and focusing solely on sports and sports skills within curricula. Furthermore, administrators should encourage and support their teachers in developing curricula that go beyond traditional team sports; they can do so through professional development funding to increase subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Administrators should encourage their faculty to focus on a wider range of movement possibilities in an effort to engage low-skilled students in ways that do not facilitate humiliation and dominance or aggression. If physical educators identify times, places, and spaces where they are observing or experiencing gender issues, administrators should support the teachers in helping them to make changes toward gender equity. Supporting gender equity goes beyond student issues to issues of gender for physical educators; for example, administrators can encourage and support teachers to take parental leave without guilt or shame. Finally, administrators should make clear-cut, unequivocal, and overt statements along with department goals regarding gender equity.

Sexuality in Physical Education

Physical education contexts have historically been a space rooted in heteronormativity, maintaining an environment in which lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual or aromantic, and beyond (LGBTQIA+) members did not feel safe disclosing their sexuality (Morrow & Gill, 2003). On the other hand, physical education and sport have also long been a safe haven for women who identified outside the spectrum of heteronormativity, creating a clandestine culture of safety and support (Cahn, 2015). The widespread acceptance of a spectrum of sexualities can be linked to the upending of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, when the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling of 2015 declared that same-sex marriage was a fundamental and protected right. Similarly, the repealing of the U.S. military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy in 2011 signaled a national shift in perception to the legitimization and acceptance of LGBTQIA+ communities. However, significant homophobia and prejudice still abound within physical education contexts, highlighting the need to both support and protect LGBTQIA+ teachers and students.

Teacher Perspectives

Jan winced as she heard her colleague greet their class at the door of the gymnasium: “Good morning, boys and girls!” While well-intentioned, it was like nails on a chalkboard for Jan because she recognized the problematic nature of reinforcing a gender binary, even though it was an innocent comment. Jan thought about how for most of her life, she had been placed into the category of girl even though she often did not feel entirely comfortable in that box. Even as an adult, her gender representation fell more toward the male side of things; she wore her hair short, could most commonly be found in a warm-up track suit, and carried herself in a way that belied an aura of masculinity. Jan was also a lesbian, in a long-term relationship with her partner, but that was something she did not share with her students or even most of her colleagues. In spite of the fact that she knew many female physical educators throughout her 40 years in the field who were out and proud, for her, physical education and sport had been an avenue to channel her energy and cultivate a sense of belonging, particularly when she had been younger and it had been far less socially acceptable to embody the intersection of gender and sexuality. Jan still could never fully shake off the worry about how students and colleagues would react if they learned of her female partner (which was probably the result of decades of internalized homophobia), wondering if there would be sideways glances, snide comments, hidden laughter, or even outright harassment. So, while she wanted to discuss the use of a gender-neutral way to address students with her colleague, she kept quiet for the sake of her own mental peace, safely protecting her private life with her female partner from potential scrutiny, criticism, and prejudice.

Historical perspectives on LGBTQIA+ teachers’ experiences in physical education provide insights into the experiences of a marginalized group. Jan’s story embodies the tension of representing both a sporting body with an athletic build, where gender representation is not straightforward, and a lesbian identity. As a physical education teacher, Jan loved physical activity, sport, and movement for the space it provided her to be free and supported, but she also recognized the stereotypes and potential difficulties she might encounter if she were to be open with her sexuality to her students, colleagues, and administrators. Gender plays a role in understanding embodied subjectivity of LGBTQIA+ teachers; while sport and physical education were long considered a route for men to demonstrate and capitalize on their traditional modes of masculinity (e.g., strength, muscles, speed, power), women who actively engaged in such endeavors faced a direct questioning of their gender positioning that often went hand in hand with their sexuality (Cahn, 2015). For example, Woods and Harbeck (1992) explored the experiences of lesbian physical educators, all of whom feared employment termination if their sexuality was exposed while knowing that the stereotype of a female physical educator was to be a lesbian; subsequently, the teachers mostly aimed to conceal their lesbian identities and distanced themselves from their colleagues and students. Similarly, Griffin (1991, 1998) determined that lesbian physical educators engage in a range of management strategies to navigate an LGBTQIA+ identity in spaces of heteronormativity, such as trying to pass as straight, censoring their lesbian identities. They were also at times openly and proudly out, feeling that physical education and sport were spaces where they were valued and accepted. Clarke’s (1996, 1998) findings highlighted the abuse, harassment, and vandalism that lesbian physical educators often encountered, forcing them to silence their queer selves to avoid connections to pedophilia. However, as Sykes (1996) pointed out, lesbian teachers were never truly silenced, instead finding means of resistance even in the face of marginalization and the oppression of queer rights in physical education spaces. Notably absent, in both historic and current scholarship and discourse, is the experiences of gay male physical educators, highlighting the intersection of gender and sexuality discourse as one of intense heterosexism for men where a straight identity is the only acceptable way to be within sport and physical education. Sparkes (1997) and Landi (2018) are two of the very few published works exploring the danger of rejecting a heteronormative masculinity and existing as a gay male physical educator within a space that has traditionally been physically and emotionally dangerous for gay men.

Student Perspectives

Xavier flinched as several boys in his class ran by him on their way to physical education class, slightly knocking him aside as if he were invisible; for his lack of athletic prowess, he might as well have been invisible in class. He had never been into sports, and he was not looking forward to another class of volleyball, full of potential embarrassment in a setting where his lack of interest and inability to bump, set, or spike the ball could be put on display. Between being overweight, uncoordinated, and gay (but not openly so), Xavier couldn’t imagine being less suited for the physical education environment created by his teacher, an exorbitantly fit young man with a penchant for loud whistleblowing and referring to students by their last names while calling them out for not trying. Plus, there was the locker room torture; Xavier frequently heard the mildly homophobic and joking homoerotic slurs his classmates used while changing, and he knew that an openly gay man changing in the locker room would lead to serious social repercussions, possibly even harassment or physical danger. His sexuality was something he kept to himself; only a few close friends knew the truth, and physical education was certainly not the place he wanted it revealed. So, Xavier tried to make himself as invisible as possible at all points, from changing in the bathroom to standing on the periphery during class while making a few half-hearted attempts at participating. The fear of how his classmates would not only perceive him but also treat him if they knew he was gay, the potential for social ostracism, and even open antagonism made Xavier fearful of doing anything that would make him stand out. Physical education, with its culture of hegemonic masculinity and compulsive heterosexuality, where the most athletic and highly praised boys ruled the roost, was clearly not a space for Xavier. He wished he could skip or drop the class altogether.

Physical education environments have been found to be overwhelmingly heteronormative and homophobic for students who represent queer-embodied identities (they see themselves as located within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum). Heteronormativity refers to the compulsory assumption of a heterosexual position and identity for students and teachers, while homophobia reflects the fear, revulsion, or uncomfortableness regarding the LGBTQIA+ community, complete with systemic oppression toward the group. Researchers have demonstrated that queer students often find physical education, sport, and physical activity settings to be exclusionary, such as in the scenario with Xavier, with both overt and covert forms of heteronormativity and homophobia positioning them as outsiders and unwanted (Gill et al., 2010; Sykes, 2011). For example, queer students experience homophobic name-calling, isolation, loneliness, and harassment; characterize physical education as distressing and problematic; and often look to avoid or disengage from physical education altogether (Berg & Kokkonen, 2022). Landi (2019) explored the tension LGBTQIA+ students experience in physical education as both a place of exclusion and a potential space for homoeroticism and desire, given the same-gender spaces for changing and even participation, curriculum, and class organization. It is evident that teachers cannot ignore the potential for harm that physical education spaces can cause LGBTQIA+ students but they can also understand that it has the potential to be a space of welcoming affirmation; it depends on the learning environment the teacher creates. Indeed, given the historical connections between lesbianism, sport, and physical education, there is no shortage of precedents for facilitating connections and encouragement for LGBTQIA+ students to fully engage in quality physical education experiences.

Recommendations for Physical Education Administrators

The culture of sport in physical education maintains a hierarchy of performance, strength, and skill, often excluding those who cannot perform at a predetermined satisfactory level. The registers of performance often align along gender and sexuality lines (e.g., hypermasculinity, including heterosexuality, is both dominant and prioritized). Physical education administrators can look to expand traditional curricula beyond the narrow view of physical education as sport, encouraging (or even requiring) curriculum content such as dance, outdoor education, martial arts, and leisure activities (e.g., biking or rollerblading). By redesigning curricula toward less competitive and more widely encompassing forms of physical activity, the potential exists for inclusion of students who do not fit traditional heteronormative forms of masculinity often prized in physical education and sport contexts. This focus may also better support the objective of teaching lifetime physical activity and wellness habits on their physical literacy journey.

A key aspect of physical education that has potential to cause harm for LGBTQIA+ students is the locker room (e.g., see Xavier’s story). Typically separated by gender and often unsupervised, locker rooms are spaces where the intersection of sexuality and gender are often put publicly on display. Therefore, physical educators and administrators can offer safe, gender-neutral spaces for students to change as well as clarify and enforce rules for the locker room that maintain changing before and after class as an emotionally safe endeavor for LGBTQIA+ students. Administrators should also ensure that their teachers have a no tolerance policy for homophobic language and that their teachers are comfortable engaging in teachable moments when such instances occur. In addition, for LGBTQIA+ physical educators, supervisors should offer gender-neutral parental leave on the expansion of families. Moreover, they should provide professional development opportunities for teachers to recognize and critique how heteronormative and homophobic practices, however subtle they may be, can be disrupted and replaced with inclusive language and actions for both LGBTQIA+ students and teachers.

---

Leadership in Action

The Importance of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the School Setting

Jared A. Russell, PhD

Professor, School of Kinesiology, Auburn University

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in physical education school settings are crucial for creating an educational environment where each student feels valued, supported, and empowered to participate fully in a curriculum that meets their respective academic needs. Educational settings that promote inclusivity support students’ comprehensive and holistic development, foster educational equity, encourage participation and engagement with the curriculum, and reduce negative stereotypes and biases related to body image, gender roles, and physical ability. Moreover, the incorporation of DEI allows schools to address respective legal and ethical (as well as moral) standards associated with local, state, and federal antidiscrimination laws.

Administrators and teachers are critical in establishing a sustainable school culture that exemplifies DEI practices and principles. Collaboratively, school personnel must develop and communicate a clear vision of the implementation of DEI in their respective school settings. These efforts include creating and enforcing DEI policies and practices, allocating sufficient instructional resources, and providing professional development that promotes inclusive pedagogy, curriculum, and strategic initiatives. Finally, consistent monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of DEI efforts will allow school personnel to make data-informed strategic decisions focused on enhancing student participation, engagement, satisfaction, and additional student performance goals. By prioritizing DEI, teachers and administrators can create sustainable educational settings that not only promote well-being but also foster a sense of belonging that prepares students to thrive in an ever-increasingly diverse world.

More Excerpts From Organization and Administration of Physical Education 2nd Edition With HKPropel Access

---