Minor
Details
Archive
2026 

Menstuff® has compiled information and books on Gay, Bi, and Transgender issues. This section is Robert N. MinSeven Messages That Wreck LGBTQ+ Relationshipsor's weekly column featured daily on our homepage. Robert is the author of Scared Straight: Why It's So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It's So Hard to Be Human and Gay & Healthy in a Sick Society and Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. He may be reached through www.fairnessproject.org or at E-Mail.

How Girls Are Expected to Conform in Our Sports Culture

She can get dirty, tear her jeans, scrape her elbows and shins, hang upside down forever, shout and laugh uncontrollably, and make any sound from any body part that she wants. For a time in her life, there are no limits placed on her just because she's a girl.

She thinks of her body in terms of how it functions to accomplish her many dreams, not as an object judged by others. She couldn't care less about how she looks and what she wears as long as it helps her to run fast and jump high or do whatever else she wants to do.

She might be called a "tomboy," but that's not so bad in our culture. Our society's sexism actually protects her for a while. A "girly boy" is of concern because patriarchy takes boys more seriously than girls.

"Tomboys" are just different and cute the way little children can be cute. We don't think of girls as that important or that threatening to the conditioned gender roles. So, for a while she can ignore the system and play.

Most girls, however, had already gotten the message that they should be preparing for, and thinking of themselves in terms of, what boys want in a girl. It starts earlier than ever as our consumer society sells little girls on how to be pretty, little ladies who will attract boys.

Girl's toys and so much in our culture and its media, has taught them that their ultimate validation will be "getting a man." That should be the real measure of their success at femininity. And the sooner they prepare for it, the better.

By adolescence, how becomes very clear. Be polite rather than honest. Be pretty rather than just fun. Be quiet rather than sound intelligent. Be deferential and dependent. Never compete with boys.

Finally, forget that relaxed attitude toward your body and take up the self-criticism necessary to turn it into the image that will attract the attention and approval of men. In spite of feminist movements having fought against this, it persists and is displayed today in how women must look for men in the current US administration.

The girl who refuses to change and defer, to hide her whole self, or to sit quietly, will be criticized. She'll probably hear: "You'll never get a man that way."

And if, frankly, she shows little interest in boys and continues in adolescence to be free from the pressures to act and look "straight," she might also maintain her freedom to accomplish what the "straight" and "straight-acting" girls are less likely to accomplish.

She is free to remain her own active, rambunctious self, free to explore her athletic abilities, free to pursue her career, and free to think of her body as hers and to push it to learn how few limits she actually has.

As she does so, she'll be accused of being a lesbian. And as long as that's considered a bad thing, the homophobia of the lesbian slur will be an effective tool to put most women back into the role of a dependent lady.

The pressures to become "ladylike" are everywhere, strong, and confusing. They may tear the young woman up inside as she struggles with the fact that her own dreams are being ripped from her to squeeze her into a gender role.

However, if she continues not to care at all, or if she finds that her sexual and erotic orientation is for other women and can live with that, she's freer to pursue her athletic dreams than the girl who sets her main goal on getting a man. We are more likely to find her on athletic teams, or at the top of the class academically. In spite of the odds, she has courageously broken the rules.

In athletics she can find a protective space in which to grow. As psychologist Mary Pipher wrote in the now classic Reviving Ophelia, girls in sports are often more emotionally healthy than those who are not.

They're members of a peer group that defines its members by their own abilities rather than popularity, wealth, boyfriends, or beauty. They can choose their own self-discipline and athletic goals, and can cooperate with other girls. They can bond with other women for a cause. And they can do so without males.

Even with the hard-fought advancements of women in sports, ressures persist to make sure women defer to men. It's not just the past preponderance of male coaches. Women's sports have a history of being devalued.

Only with the Federal Title Nine Program had equality been possible. And that federal program (Note the conservative politicians who continue to be against "the feds" interfering with education.) is probably most responsible for the fact that the United States has a world championship women's soccer team and women medalists in the Olympics.

Yet, the put-down that women with great athletic abilities are lesbians remains. In effect it implies they're not "real women," "ladies."

As long as culture considers it bad for a woman to be a lesbian, that accusation will be an effective method of controlling women. And lesbians will be represented out of proportion to their numbers on athletic teams.

It's not that lesbians have more inherent athletic ability than heterosexual women. It's just that they've often been freer to stay in touch with their abilities. They don't need to be defined by men even though in adult sports they still have to prove they're as good as men.

Until society makes more changes in its attitude toward lesbians (including transgender women), that'll be the case. In the meantime, it will continue to take courageous women of all sexual orientations who do not "need" male approval to free women to be free like that "tomboy."

A number of years ago I was consulted in response to a report that a male women's athletic coach at a major university had announced to his team that: "There will be no lesbians on this team."

It was unquestionably a discriminatory remark and had to be dealt with institutionally. But given the realities of the pressures on most women today to stifle their talents, my first personal response was: "Doesn't he want to win at all?"

Does Our Sports Culture Take Away a Boy's Humanity?

Their games aren't pretty by "organized sports" standards, but these boys are sure enjoying a freedom from all that. It reminded me of their childhood play and a real nostalgia not to give "play" up no matter how "grownup" these boys were supposed act.

If you were a boy, you remember that at some point playground culture became sports culture. If you were able to enjoy the first, that didn't always mean you could succeed at the second. Play morphed into competition as early as society could get us to internalize the idea that we were vying with other boys for affirmation and the emblem of "manhood."

The boys who were "real boys" (those most likely to grow up to imitate "real men") were the best at competitive sports. They were "winners." They were the idolized who most successfully internalized the competitive spirit that our culture needs to keep its economy and military going.

Internalizing that model of manhood is how most of us actually came to believe that "competition is good." We've built a society so dependent upon competition that it's hard to even imagine how we could live well without it. So, we embrace justifications for it.

It's an unquestioned basic truth men and women are supposed to accept as they both value manhood, even if what competition is good for isn't human relationships but production and profits.

It's sure "good for business." It can produce lower prices and cheaper goods, more sales and faster computers, larger portfolios and bigger empires. Its current cost, however, is our humanity.

On top of all that, a competitive attitude toward others remains a key ingredient promoting homophobia in the U.S. even though an imported, non-US TV series, "Heated Rivalry" challenges this with its depictions of same-sex romance.

Valuing competition enforces a level of human separation. For most men it keeps them disconnected and competing with each other at another man's expense in order to get society's "rewards."

Male sports culture is one place we learn all this. We also learn who the "losers" are. If we didn't master sports' skills, we not only were left out, but were picked on by other boys.

If we couldn't throw a spiral pass if our life depended on it, stood out in right field praying that no one would hit the baseball there, didn't want to punch or get punched, or threw a ball "like a girl," we were targets of competitive "manhood." If we were the youngest, smallest, thinnest, heaviest, or most gentle and caring boy in the class, we could even expect "fag" jokes from the other boys.

It could have started even before this sports culture hit. The elementary school playground usually had bullies who lived out insecurities on "weaker" boys. It was full of boys who had internalized masculinity's "beat or be beaten" requirement for acceptance. In most cases, the boy who tried to remain in touch with his fuller humanity was just out of luck.

And if a boy came to realize that he "liked" boys, even fantasized about them (maybe even those who fit the culture's "real man" image), confusion was added to fear. Whatever those feelings meant (and who was there to explain them until liberation movements), they set a boy apart even further from the ideal man.

If we could face it, we were all afraid of failing manhood's test on that playground. Some of us remember the fear. Others buried the fear under the role of the bully or sports star, or by staying inside and mastering the subjects of the mind, such as reading and math in which "real boys" are measurably behind girls.

As children entered the "grown-up" world of men, even the mental world had its own competition, somewhat replacing physical accomplishments, though it never fully erased the manhood lessons of the playground.

Of course, "real men" can't admit such fear, even to themselves. But it was there. And it's still there on athletic teams at all levels. It promotes the homophobia and the gay bashing that continues in so many sporting venues.

I'm convinced that the level of competition in sports today still requires homophobia, the fear of getting close to your own sex. Teamwork for men means the ability of one group of men to bond together to beat, defeat, or kill other men, whether that's on the athletic field, the battlefield, or in business or politics.

And manly winning as currently defined is always at another man's expense. This means that though we are "improving" the "level" and opportunities for women's athletics, they must be kept separate from male activities. "Beating a girl" is an insult for "real men," not an accomplishment. And look at all the fearmongering about transgender men in "women's" sports.

I'm not talking about play, but sports culture. Play is free, fun, a letting go of oneself and one's ego. It's the child-like activity that doesn't concentrate on techniques, talents, abilities, performance and the evaluations of others. It gets caught up in light-hearted, "unproductive" enjoyment.

When I refereed soccer, one of the pleasures of the kindergarten level was the not-fully-conditioned players coming up to me after a playful game and asking "Who won, ref?"

But, admit it, how often do we begin any game in play and realize that we've flipped into the issue of winning and losing, of "beating" the other person. Well, that's this conditioning.

Sports are the opposite of play today. They are either the big business of college and professional athletics or they're farm leagues for younger children that provide competition for future players on the "next level." And sports betting has made it more cutthroat.

This culture needs homophobia and transphobia. You just can't treat people this way and be really close.

It's an attitude carried over into our most intimate relationships. Play is the key to good sex, not techniques, talents, consumer products. and comparisons and competition.

Play takes place when we're comfortable with ourselves. And it's childlike.

But everything in our society works to take that out of us, and the hurts of the playground and the demands of our athletic system are part of what changed us to keep us from just playing and connecting on a win-win human level.

The boy who was "left out" because he didn't fit was actually the one most in touch with his humanity. He was also most aware that sports culture was trying to tear his humanity from him to prepare him for what our fear-driven society, not human beings, need.

If that boy could have been able to fight all that, he would have been the one on the field with real courage, the real hero. Often he did fight as long as he could, against all the odds.

Now Isn't the Time to Criticize Leadership in LGBTQ+ Communities

So, if you ever try to do anything that might be seen as leadership in LGBTQ+ communities, you're going to be ridiculed, accused of all sorts of evil motives, and just plain attacked from within. And it's most likely to happen in the most public of forums.

Have you tried to lead a pride festival? Well, you haven't done it right. Tried to edit a newsletter or magazine? You're misusing your power. Stood up to find yourself the public spokesperson for a cause? You aren't qualified to speak for us. Started a movement? You don't even have yourself together.

Your motives are suspect. Your income is ill-gotten. Your personal life disqualifies you. Your ego is too big. (Imagine, thinking you can improve things!)

You must have something to hide. You've stolen some of your ideas. You've left someone out. You're making "straight" people like us less or criticize us more. You're taking too long or moving too quickly.

We do this. We do it often, and many of us seem to find our emotional stride in doing so.

We take on an air of righteous indignation when we do. This negative crusade becomes our life instead of creating positive alternatives.

Sociologists know this as a classic victim role activity. It's easier to pick on each other and eat your own than fight the larger society.

Instead of assuming the best of our leaders, oppression itself has taught us to jump on every flaw, point out when they haven't done it eloquently enough, over-react to every mistake, and end up destroying what could have been good for all of us. In my over thirty years of activism I've seen it happen over and over - to churches, bookstores, magazines, projects, community centers, and movements that were standing up for us against larger cultural forces.

It's the reason I recommend in my workshops teaching healthy activist leadership that leaders take on their cause for what they personally will get out of it. Forget the idea that that thought is selfish - leadership begins when you see a need to end something that is hurting you.

If I lead just to help those other people, I might feel quite charitable for a while, even energized. But I'll soon learn that victimized people seldom have much personal space to say thank you. They're still fighting their own external and internalized oppression.

Our communities have so much healing of personal hurts to do, that they have a hard time accepting what's done at face value. They've been so hurt by the motives and actions of others that they begin with the expectation that this will be more of the same.

And, even more than most Americans, hurting people have a difficult time beginning with the assumption that those who lead, even doing so successfully, have good intentions, are trying their best, and will make mistakes.

The first thing someone living in the victim role does when there appears to be some problem with the activities of a leader is what psychologists call "triangulation." Instead of going directly to the leader, asking them what they meant to do, assuming they meant well, and offering to work with the leader, they find others to discuss the issue with and agree with them that the leader has done something dastardly.

Having a pack of others gives one courage, validates one's stance, and creates a whole group of people who get along because they have in common that they haven't gone helpfully to the leader either. It's all very tacky. It's all very common.

What would it be like if we didn't begin by acting out of our societally conditioned victim role?

First, we would be facing, not denying, our own internal issues so we were not acting out of our unhealed past hurts. When we can take a relaxed, learning stance toward things, instead of reacting, even over-reacting, to others, and when we can assume the best of those who try to lead until we have heard and spoken with them, we will not be living as victims reacting to what leaders do.

Second, we can assume the best of our leaders until we have personally listened carefully to their side of the story. We ask them: "Help me understand this." When we don't assume the best, we are reacting to our own past experience and not present realities. We are reacting negatively to protect ourselves because we don't want to be hurt, ridiculed, abandoned, or have our hopes destroyed again.

Third, we will allow our leaders to make mistakes. If we expect our leaders to wait until they will do something perfectly, we'll get nothing done. As Melody Beattie, the author of numerous books on codependency put it: "Perfectionism leads to procrastination, which leads to paralysis." In most cases, something done ineloquently is actually better than nothing.

Fourth, we would always follow with the next thought: What can I do to make this better? Should I offer to help? Should I offer other support to someone over-worked? If I do begin my own alternative, though, it should not be motivated by just being against the other.

We can step out of the victim role to use our energies to end the oppression of LGBTQ+ people or we can fight among ourselves while society grinds on. It's our choice, and a crucial one now that we face who knows what backlash to all we've gained.

Sadly, fights among those on our side are more likely the more things seem more threatening around us. But even more so now, we can't afford to participate in them.

© 2026 Robert N. Minor

© 2026 Robert N. Minor

Other Issues, Books, Resources

Robert N. Minor, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus at the University of Kansas, is author of When Religion Is an Addiction; Scared Straight: Why It’s So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It’s So Hard to Be Human; and Gay & Healthy in a Sick Society. Contact him at www.FairnessProject.org

---

Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement
Menstuff® Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon Clay
©1996-2026 Gordon Clay