by Katie Stack | October 25th, 2012
The IQA Board of Directors decided at the most recent meeting at the end of September to uphold the “two minimum” gender requirement* in all circumstances.
The two minimum requirement in regards to gender promotes the inclusivity of all genders on the field and on the team, so that players can learn to respect and work with each other as equals in the type of safe environment that does not often present itself in the real world. The recent Board decision means that educational institutions that classify themselves as single-sex institutions must also follow the requirement; there will no longer be exceptions. The mission and values of single-sex institutions are admirable, but their methods do not align with those of the IQA.
It has been brought to the Board’s attention, however, that this decision was not made in a timely manner that was respectful of the official member teams’ preparations for the season. With this fact in mind, the Board has decided that the teams associated with single-sex institutions that have already registered and paid dues for the 2012-2013 season are exempt from the two minimum gender requirement for the remainder of the season. These teams should continue to try their best to follow the two minimum requirement and recruit the necessary players, but if they are unable to do so, they will not be penalized.
The exemption for these teams will expire on July 1st, 2013, which is when the 2013-2014 playing season officially begins. Any teams associated with single-sex institutions that have not yet completed the IQA official member registration process are required to uphold the two minimum requirement in regards to gender starting at this article’s publication date; the teams already registered will follow it without exemption starting on July 1 st.
*The “two minimum” requirement (3.1.1.3), as stated in the sixth edition of the rulebook:
“Each team must have at least two players in play that are of a different gender identity than at least two other players; that is, excluding the seeker, a team may not have 5 or 6 players of the same gender in play. The gender that a player identifies with is considered to be that player’s gender. We as a community are accepting and understanding of those who don’t identify with the binary gender system, acknowledge that this does not imply that our players all identify as “male” or “female,” and would like to welcome people of all identities and genders into our league. Because the seeker may spend the majority of the game off the pitch, seekers do not count toward the number of required gender-specific players. In the event that a team cannot field a full team in terms of gender minimum due to injury or players being sent off, the team may continue to play with fewer players, with the missing player still counting in terms of gender minimum.
Penalty: Special – If there is ever an illegal player or set of players in play, in terms of eligibility, gender, or position, the referee must stop play and the offending team must correct the illegal situation. The resulting penalty is a caution for the team’s captain (but he is not sent to the penalty box), one minute in the penalty box for the person who replaces the last offending player, and forfeiture of quaffle possession to the other team.”
Andrew W. Wright
October 26, 2012
11:43 am
So much for the Hollyhead Harpies…
Alexandra Jordon
October 26, 2012
5:59 pm
Some much for the teams of Smith, Wellesley, and other women’s colleges…
Smithie
October 27, 2012
7:55 pm
@Alexandra: Please realize that there are people of nonconforming gender identities at “all-womens” institutions. Also- there are Smith men as well as Smith Genderqueer and Smith I-don’t-conform-to-the-binary. However it is entirely possible that these people won’t want to play quidditch, just like any other school that may have only women or men interested in this particular sport.
Andrew
November 1, 2012
3:35 pm
There will be such people, but will those people play the sport? If a team can’t find such players, the team will be penalized.
Sylvia
October 27, 2012
7:23 pm
“The mission and values of single-sex institutions are admirable, but their methods do not align with those of the IQA.”
So does the IQA just disagree with the idea of a single-gender school? This ruling essentially means that single-gender schools won’t be able to have IQA official Quidditch teams. That doesn’t sound very inclusive to me.
Ross Whitford
West Virginia State Director
October 28, 2012
2:16 pm
I have to say that I am disappointed in this decision, and I am hopeful that some form of petition will be made against it.
Aaron Michael Bergeron
October 29, 2012
12:17 am
I agree whole heartedly that people of deviant identities should be focused on and included. Without an active effort in this institution, even one such as the IQA, it passively gives approval to the treatment of these people in our society. In my view, this ruling represents an effort to step away from becoming Switzerland during World War II.
On top of that, consider all “minorities” who partake in this sport: gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. (I’m sure there are other identities which I have not listed here which are equally as valid as the ones I have listed.) Quidditch is unique; it allows everyone on that pitch to play together, regardless of whatever identity any one player may have. In a world where segregation and other such forms of rigid categories still hold strong sway in our social structure, having an area where we as people can come together as one has real meaning. I fully support any move to highlight and enhance this portion of our beloved sport.
Rebecca
October 31, 2012
3:55 am
I agree that transgendered, gender non-conforming, or non-binary students should be better represented in society, and I would definitely love for Quidditch teams to be as diverse as possible.
That being said, how would one go about recruiting gender non-conforming, or non-binary students? Smith’s team certainly doesn’t exclude people who don’t strictly identify as “female”, but the fact of the matter is that the trans* community on campus is small. Recruiting people based solely on their gender identity in order to keep a team from being forced out of the IQA– when that school has a majority of cis-women–is not being inclusive. It is taking advantage of a marginalized group. It is also creating a situation, as Katie mentioned, in which a person may be forced to out themselves against their will.
It is significantly easier for coed schools to have roughly equal numbers of men and women on their teams, because their ratio of male to female students is closer to 50:50. (I say “men and women” here because a) that is how official gender stats at schools are recorded and b) because at a coed school, the trans* pop. is still going to be rather small, and depending on the level of interest/awareness/availability of students, it may just so happen that no trans* students decide to participate).
Essentially, this rule would force single-sex institutions to go out of their way to recruit either specifically trans* students, or non-matriculated students. This is an inconvenience that coed schools don’t have to face, and it isn’t fair that “single-sexed” institutions should be penalized for, essentially, being “single-sexed” institutions.
Katie
October 29, 2012
1:08 am
So basically what this rule is saying is that each quidditch team has to have a list of their player’s gender identities– which is essentially forcing those members who have nonconforming gender identities to out themselves.
I have to say that while I agree with the premise of this action, the idea of being all inclusive, I do not agree with the fact that the IQA is mandating such a rule and in particular, targeting single sex institutions.
I hope that the IQA reviews this rule and realizes what kind of position it is puttingit’s players in and chooses to encourage teams to recruit all types of people, instead of mandating them to hastily convincing people to join because of their gender and not because of their talent or desire to play.
Megan Utterback
October 29, 2012
10:06 pm
I’m in total agreement with you. It is a nice concept, but very poorly executed by the commitee.
Allison Walker-Elders
November 1, 2012
3:41 pm
I agree. As president of the Whomping Wellesleys, I feel that it isn’t in my team’s best interest to forcibly “out” them in order to meet a quota. While I applaud the inclusive language and appreciate the effort to promote equality on the playing field, this rule will make it very difficult for traditionally single-sex institutions, as well as any team with individuals who are trans*, non-binary, or otherwise do not identify with their assigned gender. Mandating that a player is “out” is discriminatory in a highly personal and confrontational way.
My team (and they are welcome to offer their 2 cents at any time!) really just wants to play Quidditch and have fun. Many of our players selected Wellesley because it is a traditionally women’s college, and recruiting players from off-campus based on gender is an uncomfortable solution.
So–if anyone else is in the northeast and wants to set up some informal matches, let me know!
Ahatch0788
Captain, LV Quid Pro Quo
October 30, 2012
1:40 pm
This rule is iffy at best. I like the idea behind it. Execution however is not perfect.
Jessica
October 30, 2012
11:32 pm
Since I attend a women’s college with a strong team made of entirely female players (no trans men this year), I am very concerned with this ruling. It is inherently unfair to institutions such as mine that takes pride in our female-ness and accept transmen and non-binary people, but don’t see the inclusion-ness of discriminating against all female teams as fair in any way. The fact that we are a women’s college does not mean we are trying to segregate ourselves from men, but this is what this rule is implying.
clatyler
Captain, IUSB Quidditch
October 31, 2012
11:01 am
This rule makes it seems like same-sex schools exclude those of other genders, but in my experience that is not the case. I know of a great team from a same-sex school who would never discriminate against anyone and prevent them from playing quidditch, but they would also never put those people in the awkward position of having to classify themselves as genderqueer or cisgender or any of the other numerous categories of gender that exist. There may even be people on their team who adhere to the norms of those gender roles and simply do not self-identify as a one of them. While I have always supported the IQA’s commitment to being a coed sport and inclusion, I feel that this is a deviation from that goal. These teams and these athletes want to be a part of an organization that values diversity and by the IQA barring them from play they cannot participate within that world that they might not have the opportunity to take part in elsewhere.
stranger
November 1, 2012
9:53 am
“so that players can learn to respect and work with each other as equals”
But men and women are *not* equals when it comes to sports. No other sport that I know of has a similar rule. Leave politics out of the playing field. This is just common sense, but some people apparently lack it…
Katelynn
November 1, 2012
12:56 pm
Why not make a separate bit of competition for those Universities who “don’t conform to the 2 minimum gender requirement”. I don’t agree with this portion of the rulebook, but why not make it still possible for those schools excluded by this rule?
Ben Scharfenstein
November 1, 2012
3:00 pm
How is this a rule? If it was 2 of each sex it would at least make some sense, but this makes none.
Why would a team need two boys on a team full of girls? Or vice versa?
Why does gender matter AT ALL in this situation? Not to offend any real trans people but it’s not like this could be enforced either, you could just have someone say they’re trans if it was a single-sex team.
becky
November 1, 2012
3:49 pm
This is such a stupid rule, what if you can’t get those players? Is your team forced out just because of the fact that you can’t get anyone to play? How is that fair to teams who have worked getting their team together, fields made, and spent quite a lot of time working on their team at their school? The whole gender thing is redic, they should just let people play. Its nice that they support people of all gender but requiring teams to have more than one gender on the field just because they support it is just stupid. Won’t people learn how to respect and play with other genders just by playing other teams on the field during games? Aren’t you really just being biased to single sex schools? Granted not everyone at that single sex school may recognize themselves as the set male or female but penalizing teams because they can’t get two genders on their team is stupid. Quidditch should be fun for all to play and you shouldn’t penalize a team for something just because YOU support an ideal. You should botch this rule.
Tim
November 1, 2012
6:06 pm
IQA is doing its best NCAA impression.
Daniel
November 7, 2012
12:57 am
So I guess we will have our position headbands, and gender wristbands?
Honestly, I’ve got mixed feelings on this rule. While I understand the idea behind the mixed gender teams (and do appreciate how gender rules ensure that some girls make it onto competitive quid-ditch teams), I see major problems of enforcement.
If I went to a single gendered school, I think I would just pretend to self identify as some various other form of gender (maybe just make one up). In order to ensure my team still exists. Which is simply a dishonest practice, and does harm the legitimacy of the trans-gendered movement. Plus as soon as schools which are co-ed begin abusing this rule we know that there are serious problems.
I feel like we were better off allowing single gendered institutions to apply for an exemption.
Rachel Goddard
November 14, 2012
2:06 pm
As an alumna of a women’s college, I am offended and disappointed by this ruling. It does not promote gender inclusion on the Quidditch pitch, rather it prevents the interaction of “male” and “female” (I use the terms broadly, as these are self determined labels) players. Single sex schools, often women’s institutions, increase the percentage of “female” players in the IQA. A coed team with two women facing an all “female” team will certainly be a more inclusive pitch than one in which an all “female” team is barred.
The argument that single sex teams need only “find a trans or gender nonconforming player” does not promote open mindedness regarding the gender spectrum, rather it co-opts the issue and encourages tokenism. The gender noncoforming individual is not then, on the team because this person is a friend or “one of the team”, rather they are needed to meet a quota. While there is a history with quotas used to bring in underrepresented groups into institutions, I do not believe that this is what is really at play here. A broadly worded gender inclusion policy, that encompasses the spectrum of identities would be far more beneficial than a flimsy one that penalizes teams for not using its members for admission to the IQA.
Requiring members to out themselves as gender nonconforming for the sake of IQA membership for their schools’ teams is exploitive and insensitive. Barring single sex schools from competing against coed schools undermines the IQA’s 9 3/4 policy encouraging the mixing of genders in sport, promoting a culture of cooperation and mutual respect.
Furthermore, if we are to look at the source material from which this sport hails, there is canon support for a women’s team that appears to play in a coed league. The Holyhead Harpies are listed alongside coed teams in Quidditch Through the Ages and there is no mention of a separate league for women. Indeed it is said to be unique among Quidditch teams for being a women’s team since its founding in 1203 (Quidditch Through the Ages, pg. 34). Clearly they compete against coed teams.
While they are not single sex schools in the books, the film interpretations of Beuxbatons Academy and Durmstrang cast them as single sex schools. How sad that their Quidditch teams would not be able to play against Hogwarts in any sort of European secondary school league.
Please revise this ill-conceived ruling. The single sex school exemption should remain in place.
Sydney Sadur
December 5, 2012
3:54 pm
The lack of exception is frankly ridiculous. I do not see at all how saying that the “mission and values of single-sex institutions are admirable, but their methods do not align with those of the IQA” makes any sense. So because these institutions were founded historically because co-ed institutions did not exist at the time, their values of promoting and empowering women do not align with the IQA? You’re making a pretty harsh statement about how we value women’s colleges, and ultimately women’s education, as an academic and athletic culture.
You acknowledge that gender is not a binary – how will a referee (the ones presumably responsible for enforcing the penalty) know what a person’s gender identity is without said person outing themselves? Why does the IQA think that is in any way appropriate? Why should I, as a genderqueer player, have to make sure the IQA knows my gender identity in order for the team to qualify? That seems pretty out of line with what the IQA claims to value, as it makes trans* players potential targets for harassment and, yes, discrimination from players and refs.
Basically, the IQA is telling the teams of women’s colleges that because they acknowledge inequality in sports, they are going to perpetuate inequality in their sport. Such schools do not have the same population percentage as co-ed schools that would enable a team to qualify. It places a strangely unique and undue burden on those teams to go out of their way to recruit men/non-female identified players, which are not necessarily accessible. It also sounds absolutely and entirely ridiculous that women are disqualified because there aren’t enough men. And while there are men’s schools remaining in the country, there really aren’t enough to justify a concern for a men’s-only team that cannot supply non-male players.
Angus Barry
February 18, 2013
5:25 pm
General consensus in the UK also seems to be that there should be an exemption.