The world of sports is thus—to evoke French anthropologist Maurice Godelier’s formula—a contemporary “house of men,” within which ideals and attitudes of manliness are learned and then propagated, in the same way as social connections between the sexes. Within this device, homophobia plays a particular role. It appears as a means, even a reference, for this learning. Indeed, homophobia in sports varies in its degree of visibility and level of
violence
. From uncomfortable silence to verbal
insults
, from denial to bashing, the entire palette of homophobic behavior is expressed in the world of sports. Perhaps the most visible and common forms of homophobic demonstrations are the songs and slogans of football (soccer) fans, whereby the assertion of the collective identity is built on belittling others. In this
rhetoric
of confrontation, the assertion of ascendancy, in particular, shifts to questioning the heterosexuality of opponents (not only players and fans, but also referees). The insults borrow widely from general homophobic verbal abuse, which associates homosexuality with passivity. To this effect, such badgering underscores the model of physical (and, by association, sexual) righteousness by asserting the will of virility and heterosexuality.
It would nevertheless be insufficient for the analysis to stop at the most visible demonstrations of homophobic culture observed in fans expressing their supportive passion. Also, restricting the dialogue to, for example, physical violence towards gays by players, or the exclusion from a team of an athlete following disclosure of his or her homosexuality, does not allow us to fully grasp how homophobia functions within the institution of sports. These cases exist but are rare. Nevertheless, they serve to instill fear in gay and lesbian athletes: the fear of being discovered, then subsequently manhandled or excluded. And although this form of homophobia in sports works in a less visible way, it is just as effective.
American sociologist Eric Anderson states that open homophobia is not very common within sports teams themselves, but this does not mean that homophobia is absent in the everyday life of teams and players. On the contrary, homophobia in sports is more insidious and sometimes imperceptible, creating a double culture of silence, in which gay and lesbian athletes hide their sexual identity in order to continue to be accepted by the group, while their family and friends pretend that their homosexuality is not possible, given that their loved one is an athlete.
In this way, homophobic speech is characterized by an absence of words, which contributes to invisibility. The fact that the question of homosexuality cannot be discussed constitutes an effective weapon in the assertion of heterosexual hegemony. Silence helps to impose the sexual symbolic order, especially since sexuality is not excluded from the discussions between team members, for example. Further, such comments deal with relations between men and women, which also strengthen the social order.
The role of silence on homosexuality in sports differs depending on whether the athlete is male or female. In women’s sports, particularly teams, the athlete’s silence quickly gives way to rumor and suspicion, and then to the emergence of homosexuality as “the problem.” Negative connotations of lesbian athletes result from the idea that women are intruding in a man’s world. They are especially strong as women involve themselves in sports that are socially understood as male. Breaking these behavioral rules, such women become “suspects” of homosexuality. At times, the concept is so pervasive that in North America some parents refuse to enroll their daughters in sports at all, for fear of gossip. Also, some athletes choose to quit altogether when they attain the senior level, fearing that they may become “corrupted” by their homosexual elders.
The rumors concerning the homosexuality of female athletes result from the traditional alignment of certain sports practices with the values of virility where, consequently, only tomboys, mannish women, or lesbians are the only possible result. The weight of imagination helps to create a different vision of the world of sports. It would appear “self-evident” that homosexual women are more numerous in team sports, simply because these sports are perceived as more virile.
Moreover, female team coaches and trainers often switch from silence to allusion when quizzed on homosexuality in their midst, which is essentially formulated as a problem, even a plague that should be eradicated. The presence of lesbian players, or simply the suggestion of their presence, is perceived as a difficulty, as is the question of trying to resolve it without speaking about it. Their presence questions the sexual symbolic order, which is inevitably heterosexual. The presentation of this as a problem conveys the fear of disorder as much as the fear of strangers. As well, apprehension is exacerbated by the fear that homosexuality can spread or be
contagious
.
Coaches and trainers react negatively to homosexual players as guarantors of this heterosexual symbolic order. It is out of the question to accept the difference, it is necessary to fight it and expel it. The rejection of lesbianism in sports, in particular, is further informed by a stiff perception of the social order and of sexuality that is either “normal” or corrupted and decadent. As for men, the traditional concept of the male order is inculcated throughout the socialization of young boys via sports; by learning a sport, they also learn to become men. They also learn specific gestures; not only those related to technique necessary for optimum performance, but also those of virile assertion: fists tightened, jaws clenched, eyes steely, as marks of determination.
The weight of words in the apprenticeship of masculinity is well-known. Insults learned in
school
take on a particular meaning in the world of sports where imposing one’s dominion is a sign of virility. Thus, shy and frightened young boys are exhorted not to behave like girls; they also learn to assert, when confronted, that they are not fags, and to humiliate opponents by calling them sissies. These various responses, learned and repeated by children, help to construct the vision of a homophobic world, sometimes even before they understand what they really mean. Even if these terms do not yet possess any sexual connotations, boys who evoke them actively foster a form of masculinity that opposes both the female gender and those boys who do not behave “as men.”
The frequency of homophobic comments in the world of male sports is such that gay athletes admit that they become immune to their negative connotations, even if they participate in the preservation of the gay identity as an inferior type of manliness. The acceptance and use of homophobic language perpetuates, within the sports world, male dominion and the hegemony of the heterosexual identity, especially since the logic of sports practice consists in searching for and asserting a physical superiority, which is inevitably accompanied by the symbolism of domination. In the end, the world of sports succeeds in stigmatizing both men who deviate from traditional virility and women who approach it, associating in a single act sexism and homophobia.
In reaction to this environment, a gay sports movement has gradually formed, originating first among gay and lesbian communities in the US and Canada, then in Europe. Sports teams and clubs made up exclusively of gays and lesbians are sprouting up, providing opportunities not only for homosexuals to participate in sports, but also another means for social interaction. In 1980, Tom Waddell, who participated in the 1968 Summer Olympics as a decathlete, led a group of San Francisco residents in conceiving a sporting event for gays and lesbians modeled on the Olympics that is now known internationally as the Gay Games. Such events, and the associations that participate in them, contribute to the identity and visibility of gay and lesbian communities. Their social reach exceeds the traditional world of sports and is translated by a wider social dynamic.
However, beyond the action that ensures the visibility of these stigmatized communities, it is important to underline the role of homophobia in the structuring of this sports movement as well. Indeed, the mobilization of gays and lesbians to engage in sports on their own terms is grounded by the symbolic violence exercised by the sports world generally, which is expressed through
insult
, deprecation, and mockery towards a sexual preference it rejects. The result is a feeling of exclusion, which in turn catalyzes gays and lesbians to create their own sports institutions,
associations
, and events, allowing them to escape the heteronormative effects of the institution of sports.
Nevertheless, the question of gender and sexuality always remains problematic in sports, as demonstrated by the story of the Lampang volleyball team in Thailand in 1996. When Mon and Jung, two transgendered homosexuals, were selected for the team, most of the other players resigned, and were subsequently replaced by a group of gays, transsexuals, and transvestites. Contrary to all expectations, they won the national championship in Thailand, although talk of their being considered for the national Olympic team started a wave of unprecedented homophobia. Their extraordinary story was the subject of a highly successful Thai film entitled
Satree lek
(
The Iron Ladies
). Said the team’s then twenty-four-year-old founder, Danupol Nuengchang, “We can’t make this statement as individuals, but maybe we can as an international team.”
—Philippe Liotard
Alric, Tristan.
Le Sexe et le sport
. Paris: Chiron Editeur, 2002.
Baillette, Frédéric, and Philippe Liotard.
Sport et virilisme
. Montpellier: Ed. Quasimodo & Fils, 1999.
EGSLF, GISAH.
Building Bridges Between Regular and Gay/ Lesbian Sport
. The Hague, 1999.
Ferez, Sylvain,Yves Le Pogam, Philippe Liotard, Jean-Bernard Marie Moles, and Guillemette Pouliquen. “Homophobie et structuration des jeux sportifs homosexuels,”
Corps et culture
, no. 6–7, “Métissages”, 2003.
Griffin, Pat.
Strong Women, Deep Closet: Lesbians and Homophobia in Sport
. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1998.
Hekma, Gert. “Gay Men and Lesbians in Organized Sports in the Netherlands,”
Journal of Homosexuality
35, no. 1 (1998).
Lenskyj, Helen.
Out of Bounds: Women, Sports, and Sexuality
. Toronto: The Women’s Press, 1986.
Lefèvre, Nathalie. “Les Euro Games V: un analyseur du réseau sportif gai et lesbian,”
Corps et Culture, Sport et lien social
3 (1998).
Messner, Michael A., and Donald F. Sabo.
Sex,Violence and Power in Sports: Rethinking Masculinity
. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.
Pouliquen, Guillemette.
L’Homophobie dans le sport
. Thesis. Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier III, 2002.
Pronger, Brian.
The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of
Sex. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1990.
Rotella, Robert J., and Mimi Murray. “Homophobia, the World of Sports, and Sport Psychology Consulting,”
The Sport Psychologist
5 (1991).
Saouter, Anne.
Etre rugby, jeux du masculin et du féminin
. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 2000.
Thong-Konthun,Yongiooth.
Sa Tree Lex
(
The Iron Ladies
). Film. Distribution Orient-Pacific, 2000.
—Armed Forces; Dance; Heterosexism; Insult; Rhetoric; School; Symbolic Order; Violence; Vocabulary.
STERILITY
The supposed sterility of homosexuals is one of the regular topics of homophobic
rhetoric
, and of heterosexism, to justify the inequality between the sexualities with regard to couples and
families
.The conservative French politician Christine
Boutin
, for example, asserted during
PaCS
civil union debates in 1999 that “[b]arren by nature, homosexuality does not correspond to demographic and educative criteria on which the duty of the State is based.” However, when we try to pinpoint the specific definition of sterility in this context, it tends to disappear. The paradox becomes clear when we stop perceiving the rhetoric of homophobes as they themselves want to be perceived and, instead, grasp the profound nature of sterility. Far from being reduced to the various realizations of sterility through history (e.g., biological, moral, sexual, or psychological) the “sterility of homosexuals” refers to a symbolic mental structure of homophobia’s unconscious, which, in fact, transcends all findings of “objective” allegation. In reality, in heterosexist discourse, sterility is above all
metaphysical
and,
ipso facto
, indisputable, at least for those who refer to it. This “metaphysical” nature generates two important consequences: on one hand, the general concept of sterility dominates over any specific content and cannot be “refuted” by scientific reasoning; on the other, being beyond reality, it can impose itself upon this reality by trying, for example, to modify nature or to forbid certain possibilities in the name of the normative idea of nature as propagated by self-proclaimed spokesmen.
The Archeology of “Sterility”
The modern version of the topic of sterility stems from two older traditions. The first one, of Greek origin, evolves around the notion of
para phusin
, translated by the expression “against nature,” or by the adjective “antiphysical,” which was common enough in the eighteenth century. For the Greeks,
phusis
is nature’s dynamic process of begetting. Therefore, in the beginning, the notion does not possess any real moral connotation. It is under the late influence of the Stoic philosophers that the concept of nature acquired a much clearer
ethical
value.With this in mind, the heterosexual couple assumes a predominant importance that tends to disqualify homosexual relations, which were more valued in the ancient archaic and classical traditions. Influenced by the Stoics, the Christians’ view strengthens the moral valence of the notion of
para phusin
, nature being henceforth considered as God’s work. Therefore, not only will
para phusin
be against nature in the dynamic sense, but also against morality, and against God Himself.