i need help fep

“Mostly What We Do Is Ride Bikes” A Case Study of Cycling, Subculture,

and Transgender Policy

KRISTINE NEWHALL

Abstract As trans visibility grows, the investment in a sex/gender binary gets more entrenched

in some cultural institutions, including—and maybe especially—sports. Policies governing gender

identity in sports have multiplied since the 1990s. How sports governing bodies have approached

policy creation has differed widely in the past two decades, reflecting philosophical differences

regarding fairness of competition and ingrained beliefs about sex and gender. This article examines

the policy created by an intercollegiate cycling conference using subculture theory to explain the

divergence from extant policies. It also looks at the connection to the ongoing sex/gender verifi-

cation process for elite female athletes and theways inwhich all policing of gender is always already a

legacy of imperialist practices.

Keywords transgender athletes, cycling, subculture, gender policy, intercollegiate sports

O n a summer evening in 2013, Kevin, an administrator for the Eastern Col-

legiate Cycling Conference (ECCC), looked out across a field of tents housing

cyclists who had come to Vermont for what he described as an informal cycling

camp. Cultivating andmaintaining a close-knit community within the conference

was a priority for him, and summer camp was part of this endeavor. Participants

across the conference came for training rides during the day and to share meals,

recreational time, and thoughts on the conference and cycling in general during

the evenings.

On this night, Kevin saw twomen, a couple, holding hands and interacting

with other campers and was struck by the ease with which everyone was relating.

This was not something he or other ECCC leaders had facilitated, but in that

moment, he felt the importance of maintaining, in a more official way, the envi-

ronment he saw before him—one that was welcoming of all. He wanted official

language—a policy—that would codify the environment he and other leaders

TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly * Volume 8, Number 3 * August 2021 349 DOI 10.1215/23289252-9008989 ª 2021 Duke University Press

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

sought to create, one marked by inclusion and opportunity, so that it could be

maintained and passed on as both riders and leadership changed.

This moment was the genesis of a gender identity policy that differed in

its creation and execution from others in intercollegiate and elite sports at the

time. In this article I argue that the organization’s status as a subculture resulted in

a policy that diverged from those in mainstream sports organizations. I offer an

analysis of the resulting policy, as well as policies governing trans athlete partic-

ipation in sports more generally, using work in queer and trans studies, specifically

that which employs critical race and intersectional approaches. First, though, I

provide a sociohistorical contextualization of the policies and practices that reg-

ulate sex categories in sport and how gender identity policies have been affected by

the regulation of sex and gender in modern sports.

Gender Regimes: Testing and Polic(y)ing

Recent scholarship on sex testing in sports, primarily in the field of sports history,

has not only demonstrated the entrenchment of a binary sex/gender system in

modern sports but also illustrated the racist and imperialist legacies that have and

continue to support sex/gender verification practices (Pieper 2014, 2016; Schultz

2014; Nyong’o 2009). Although sex testing and transgender polic(y)ing are not the

same process, they share ideological foundations. In this section, I begin with the

work on sex testing in women’s sports and then discuss the similarities observed

in the less-extensive history of policies governing trans athlete participation.

Controversies over the biological basis of sex, as it pertains to sports, within

the past decade have raised public awareness of the mere existence of sex testing,

the fraught nature of the testing, as well as the complexity of determining bio-

logical sex for the purpose of sports participation. As sport historians have noted,

sex testing has been an official practice since the 1960s, with versions of testing

likely dating back to the early twentieth century (Pieper 2014, 2016; Schultz 2014).

The more recent (very public) controversies have been focused almost entirely

on two track and field athletes: Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand, whose bodies

and experiences are being used in an attempt to determine sex for the pur-

pose of sports competition, or what I will refer to as sport sex. After decades of

testing that has involved genital examinations, chromosomal tests, and assess-

ment of endocrinological markers, sports governing bodies continue to be con-

fronted with the reality that there is no single marker of biological sex and that no

marker exists in binary form (Karkazis 2019).

The desire for discernible indicators of sex and for a binary sex system are

rooted in Western imperialism and racism. As Lindsay Parks Pieper (2014, 2016)

explains, the establishment of a sex/gender verification process is based on what

feminist philosopher Maria Lugones (2007) has termed colonial/modern gender:

350 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

“a new gender system that created very different arrangements for colonized

males and females than for white bourgeois colonizers” (186) based on “biological

dimorphism, heterosexualism, and patriarchy” (190). Pieper’s work traces the

origins and manifestations of the racialized sex verification system and the

disproportionate effects on nonwhite, nongeographically Western women. Both

Pieper (2014, 2016) and Schultz (2011, 2014) write about the effects of the largely

unacknowledged racialized gender verification process on the South African

middle-distance runner Caster Semenya, whose sex/gender came under sus-

picion (by white women and the majority white International Association of

Athletics Federation [IAAF]) in 2009. Semenya’s ongoing battle to compete as

a woman without medical intervention is an unfortunately textbook model of

Lugones’s theory of colonial/modern gender.

Semenya’s case demonstrates that sport, like other social institutions, con-

tinues “to base sex assignment on the traditional assumptions that sex is binary and

can be easily determined by analyzing biological factors” (Greenberg 2002: 119).

Lugones’s discussion of the historical creation of white womanhood via

colonial power allows us to better understand the effects of this construction as it

has manifested in the institutional and public/media response to Semenya over

the past ten years. The athlete’s life has been a continual critique of and challenge

to her identity based on a so-called masculine appearance marked by a muscled

Black body and openly gay sexuality but expressed as institutional (IAAF and IOC)

concern over her hormone levels (Cooky, Dycus, and Dworkin 2013; Nyong’o

2009). Semenya is the nonwhite other that Lugones (2007: 202–3) writes of when

she explains the White bourgeois feminist construction of womanhood: “Females

excluded from that description were not just [white women’s] subordinates, they

were also understood to be animals . . . in the deep sense of ‘without gen-

der’ sexually marked as female, but without the characteristics of femininity.”

The racialized, imperialist, dimorphic sex system is also foundational to

views on participation in sports by trans persons. The controversy over what is

sex does not extend, in exactly the same ways, to the governance of trans athletes’

participation, but the two practices (sex/gender testing and trans policy creation)

share ideological foundations that manifest in three ways. First, there is the desire

for and maintenance of a binary sex/gender categorization in sport. While there

are policies (referred to throughout this article) that allow for some choice of

where athletes compete/participate, that choice is always either in men’s sports

or women’s sports, and some include a rule about not being able to “go back” to a

previous (presumably identity assigned at birth) category. Cathryn B. Lucas and

Kristine E. Newhall (2019: 101) draw on trans scholars Paisley Currah (2006) and

David Valentine (2007) to note that “Western notions of transgender embodiment

are grounded in recognition by the medicolegal system, requiring people to be

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 351

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

clearly understood and categorizable.” Every body must be legible in one category

or the other, and that legibility is determined by a governing body that bases its

policies and decisions on the medicolegal system.

Second, but related, the placement of trans athletes in an either-here-or-

there process also relies on a racialized understanding of sex and gender just as

the sex/gender verification system does. Early policies governing the participation

of trans and gender-nonconforming people in sports are similarly based on a

Eurocentric understanding of sex and gender. Lucas andNewhall (2019) use Joe R.

Feagin’s (2013) theory of the white racial frame to discuss the geographic West’s

mandate to categorize trans people. These frames have all influenced, to varying

degrees, the establishment of policies governing trans athlete participation in

sports, but very rarely has this been articulated.

There has been some critique of the lack of an intersectional, anti-imperialist

approach to the implementation of transgender policies in sports. Activist and

scholarly responses to the participation policies established in the 1990s by the

Federation of Gay Games are the most visible example of this intersectional

approach to policy implementation. The initial Federation policy, established

in 1994, required proof of sex-reassignment surgery, two years of hormone ther-

apy, and outward identification in gender of identity for at least that amount of

time. The activist group Transexual Menace, along with some scholars of gender

and sport, found the policy to be highly restrictive, invasive of privacy rights,

and lacking in cultural awareness (i.e., not considering cultures with more than

two gender options) (Sykes 2011). Current policy reflects some of these criti-

cisms but remains rooted, as Heather Sykes (2011) notes, in maintaining strict

gender categories.1

Finally, sex testing and gender identity policies both rely on discourses of

fairness. The polic(y)ing of sex and gender in these practices rests on what I refer

to as biological fairness. This has manifested very clearly in sex/gender testing

as the IAAF, IOC, and other governing bodies have continued to research or

commission research in an attempt to maintain “clear” criteria for participa-

tion in female categories as a matter of fairness of competition. Opponents to the

participation of Semenya, Indian sprinter Dutee Chand, and other women with

disorders of sexual development (DSD) argue that they are not discriminating

against these athletes but rather keeping things fair for the rest of the field.2 Pro-

ponents of this concept of fairness cite biology, specifically, testosterone levels. This

fairness discourse circulates widely in international sports governance cultures,

while critics (medical professionals, academics, and activists) urge governance

bodies to consider other versions of fairness and advantage such as those based

on racial privilege, class, country of origin, and other genetic attributes not related

to sex. As Chand herself noted in a letter of protest to the Athletics Federation of

352 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

India, which banned her after a “failed” gender test: “I believe I should be allowed

to compete with other women, many of whom are either taller than me or come

from more privileged backgrounds, things that most certainly give them an edge

over me” (quoted in Padawer 2016: 32).

Invocation of fairness is widespread in discussions of trans athlete par-

ticipation as well but differs in that multiple fairnesses circulate within this dis-

course. Lucas and Newhall’s (2019) analysis of sports media’s coverage of trans

athletes uncovered ubiquitous discussions of fairness. This manifests in policy

creation. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sought a policy

that would achieve two fairnesses: biological fairness and participation (opportu-

nity) fairness. The latter, Lucas and Newhall (2019: 109) argue, remains an integral

part of the conversation about trans athletes “because of the widely-held belief that

everyone deserves access to sport because sports are the means through which

citizens learn the most desirable traits in the contemporary neoliberal society

(i.e., character, leadership skills, team building, independence).” The authors of

the NCAA report on inclusion understood this, noting that the rights of trans-

gender athletes to participate is about “basic fairness and equity that demand the

expansion of our thinking about equal opportunity in sports” (Griffin and Carroll

2011: 10). The recommendations allow for an athlete to choose where they want to

play but, in an effort to maintain biological fairness, require hormone suppression

for any person assigned male at birth who wants to compete in women’s sports and

disallow exogenous testosterone for any person assigned female at birth who wants

to compete with women.

The IOC’s second policy on transgender athletes,3 implemented in 2016,

operates similarly though arguably without the same institutional support of

inclusion as seen in the NCAA recommendations. Citing scientific evidence about

the biology of sex, the new policy states that female-to-male transgender ath-

letes can compete without any restrictions or required interventions. The pre-

vious requirement for sex-reassignment surgery was lifted for everyone because

IOC leaders said it was “not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be

inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights” (quoted

in Scott 2016). Male-to-female athletes must now produce evidence that their

testosterone levels have been below an established point for at least a year before

competition. A remnant of the unsubstantiated fear over male athletes disguis-

ing themselves as female athletes remains in the rule which requires that male-to-

female athletes not change their gender designation for a minimum of four years

(IOC 2015).

Both of these policies, the 2016 IOC policy and the NCAA’s recom-

mendations, invoke biological fairness and hint at fairness of opportunity by

implementing policies that are as least restrictive as possible without impinging

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 353

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

on (biologically) fair competition. The biological fairness is the same as in sex/

gender testing. It is a fairness that protects cisgender women and the category of

women’s sports and does not consider how this category has been racialized. In

the following sections I will explicitly discuss the ECCC’s gender identity policy

and how it moves away from a consideration of biological fairness in favor of

participation but continues to maintain the either/or categorization central to

Lugones’s (2007) colonial/modern gender.

Eastern Collegiate Cycling Conference Policy

I began this research in March 2014, the month in which the ECCC published

its gender identity policy. From March until May, I observed conference cul-

ture by attending two road races and following the group’s social media plat-

forms (the conference blog, Twitter feed, and Facebook page). I conducted a

total of ten formal interviews at races and off-site settings with riders, coaches,

and administrators and had many informal conversations with others at race

sites. After the season concluded, I continued to interview some in the orga-

nization as well as maintain correspondence with ECCC members and leaders

in the following year. When, in summer of 2017, the governing body of inter-

collegiate cycling, USA Cycling (USAC), established its own gender identity

policy, I checked back in with some of the participants about their thoughts

and the policy’s effect on the ECCC.

At the time of this research, however, the USAC had no published gender

identity policy. One ECCC rider told me that the USAC was dealing with the issue

on a case-by-case basis. An article about a trans cyclocross racer stated that the

USAC’s policy was, at least for a time, establishing gender using a legal document

such as a driver’s license (Hurford 2016). As the official IOC designee for cycling in

the United States, USAC riders competing internationally would likely follow the

IOC’s guidelines. The absence of a clear and public policy, however, meant that

organizations under the auspices of the USAC, including the ECCC and the other

collegiate conferences, negotiated these issues on their own.

This was true until June 2017 when the USAC announced the implemen-

tation of its Policy on Transgender Athlete Participation. The policy differenti-

ated between elite and non-elite competition. Elite levels (Pro, Categories 1 and 2)

were distinguished by the possibility of international competition in which an

athlete represents the United States. Athletes riding in elite categories are subject to

IOC regulations, which are also followed by the international governing body, the

International Cycling Union (UCI). The policy for non-elite competitors (Cate-

gories 3–5) states that ridersmay self-select their gender category so long as they file

it with the USAC, or refile as necessary. Though seemingly influenced by the

ECCC’s policy based on self-identification, there are differences in language that

354 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

demonstrate a slightly different intent and potentially different results. I discuss

these differences and their effects later in this article.

When the ECCCwas creating its gender identity policy, however, the USAC

policy did not exist. Negotiating and creating a policy without guidance from

its governing body was not unfamiliar territory for intercollegiate cyclists and

conference administrators. Though the USAC’s rules about eligibility and topics

such as performance enhancement apply to all riders, the intercollegiate con-

ferences are largely self-governed. As a result, conference rules are diverse and

reflect conference-specific philosophies about sport, participation, and fairness.

As I discuss in the next section, the atmosphere and practices within the ECCC,

which I name as a subculture, are a product of the organization’s philosophy,

its history, and its position as a nonmainstream collegiate sport as well as a

subworld within cycling—also a nonmainstream sport. The gender policy,

written in 2013 and debuted during the 2014 collegiate road race season, was

initially published on the organization’s blog on March 7, 2014, in a post titled

“Everybody Races: Diversity in the ECCC”:

The ECCC particularly recognizes the challenges facing transgender athletes. Such

members of the community should compete in the gender category most appro-

priate to their unique personal situation. They are invited and encouraged to

discuss this with the Conference Director(s) and other ECCC leadership.

Competitors may be asked by the Conference Director(s) and/or their

designee(s) to furnish two pieces of documentation from relevant legal, medical,

or academic authorities documenting personal sex, gender, or gender dysphoria

supporting their selected competition gender category. (ECCC 2014)

The ECCC did not follow the trend of adopting the Stockholm Consensus (still

in effect at the time they announced the policy). Nor did it follow the best prac-

tices theNCAAdeveloped in 2011.TheECCCpolicymost closely resembles thepoli-

cies that have been instituted by some—but not all—state athletics associations

(which govern K–12 sports) whose mission statements stress participation and

inclusion and do not address the concept of biological fairness at all. The first

such policy was established by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Asso-

ciation in 2007 and states: “All students should have the opportunity to partici-

pate in WIAA activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity,

irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s records” (Mosier n.d.; Buzuvis

2012). Similar policies based on a student’s gender of identity exist in California,

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.4

The ECCC policy defers to gender of identity plus individual choice. It

differs from NCAA policy in that an athlete who wants to use hormones as part of

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 355

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

the transition process can do so and still compete at the same level, with the same

organization, and without a break in competition (i.e., no waiting period). The

inability of other athletes to do so has been a cause of consternation for trans

athletes contemplating medical transition (Lucas-Carr and Krane 2011; Torre

2012). How did an organization in which some members are or will become elite

athletes devise one of the least restrictive policies without ever looking at another

policy?Why did they not seek out other models? I argue that the process for policy creation, which involved considerable research by an ad hoc committee, is the

result of their identity as a sport subculture.

Cycling and the ECCC as Subculture

Sport sociologists and cultural theorists have produced a healthy body of work on

sport subcultures. In this section, I begin with this work, specifically the termi-

nology used to discuss sport subcultures. Next, I discuss the elements of cycling

that mark it as a sport subculture. Finally, I position intercollegiate cycling as its

own subculture using the above literature.

Research on sport subcultures includes debate over terminology, includ-

ing the label subculture versus other terms, including lifestyle sport, alternative

sport, and subworld (Crosset and Beal 1997; Donnelly 1985; Wheaton 2007). Belinda

Wheaton (2007: 300) offers an extensive and helpful examination of the litera-

ture on alternative/lifestyle sports as subculture and concludes that despite the

“limitations and problems associated with the term subculture . . . [it] remains . . . a

useful analytical concept in these sporting contexts.” The reason is that, as main-

stream sports develop into larger economic and cultural juggernauts, their oper-

ations become standard practices and their principles the norm. Organizations

and sports that deviate from these norms do so in diverse ways. The term sport

subculture is inclusive of the many ways that nonmainstream sports do sports.

This is evident in cycling generally and intercollegiate cycling specifically.

One of the primary criteria of subculture that I employ here is opposition

to a parent culture. In the case of cycling, the parent culture is mainstream sport.

Edward Albert’s (1991) work on bicycle racing as subculture is a useful starting

point; he analyzes the structures of cycling that do not exist in mainstream sports.

He writes that cycling, in its competitive form, differs in philosophy and practice

from competition in mainstream sports. For example, in competition “cooper-

ative efforts between opponents” are required (341). This is manifested in the use

of the peloton and the paceline. Both of these techniques require riders to work in

concert with the overall goal of minimizing wind resistance or drag, conserving

energy by reducing workload, and potentially pushing a teammate into a better

position for winning. These practices require knowledge and skills as well as

356 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

trust in other riders to do so correctly both from a technical perspective (i.e., not

causing an accident) and in terms of etiquette (i.e., taking a turn at the front

where the workload is heaviest).

Albert provides two reasons these specific practices mark cycling as a sub-

culture. One is how knowledge of the norms creates an insider status: “The informal

norms of cooperation are central to insider definitions of the social order and

are accompanied by strong sanctions for noncompliance” (341). This dynamic is

found in other sports; indeed, most sports, as they progress to more competitive

and elite levels, create insiders and outsiders often through rituals like hazing or

demonstration of athletic abilities. In combination with Albert’s second factor,

though, insider status takes on a unique form within cycling. The cooperative

nature inherent in the paceline and peloton formations “violate[s] the more

generally held North American beliefs concerning the agonistic nature of sport”

(341). Cyclists demonstrate insider status by sacrificing personal wins to carry

chosen teammates to the front of peloton and position them for victory, or by

simply knowing when it is their turn to lead a paceline and for how long.

Thus by virtue of being a competitive cycling conference, the ECCC is

a subculture. But it also demonstrates subcultural norms in its operation as

an intercollegiate sport, but one that does not conform to the philosophy and

operations of mainstream intercollegiate athletics in the paradigm of the NCAA.

In the course of my observations, interviews, and research about the organiza-

tion, it became clear that the culture of the organization played a significant role

in its approach to gender and sexual identity diversity. In the next section I

discuss how the culture was a central factor in its creation and implementation of

a gender identity policy.

Creating and Implementing a Gender Identity Policy

In this section I suggest that the ECCC’s subculture identity—specifically its

deviation from mainstream intercollegiate sports—affected the process of policy

creation and implementation. I begin with the organization’s response to public

criticism of the policy as biocentric and thus similar to policies of mainstream

sport organizations that struggle with how to define male and female for the

purpose of sports participation. The following section includes additional exam-

ples of the confluence of subcultural practices and intercollegiate cycling as they

manifest in the policy ECCC leadership and members created in 2013.

A year after deciding that the organization needed to address gender iden-

tity, and only months after the policy went into effect, an administrator posted

on the ECCC website a response to a writer of a blog post that critiqued the policy

for its biocentrism. The blog author wrote about the danger and violence inherent

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 357

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

in asking people to prove their status. The documentation requirement of the

ECCC policy, the author said, was ambiguous and would result in the targeting

of masculine-appearing female riders: “It is likely that, just as in international

female athletics, the cyclists most likely to be asked to provide documentation are

those who appear suspiciously ‘masculine,’ yet identify as female” (Samuels 2014).

Committee members and ECCC leadership during interviews spoke of why

they instituted a documentation requirement, which was reiterated in the ECCC’s

response to the criticism:

One of our primary motivations for that provision is some regrettable cretin trying

to make either an actual socio-political point or merely negative comedy by com-

peting in the “wrong” category. . . . given a completely wide open policy all of

us could easily envision, based on previous actual incidents, some cis-male jackass

ostentatiously opting to race in and disrupt the women’s fields, either to underline

how supposedly ridiculous is the concept of transgender athletes, or simply to be the

class clown.5

The response, similar to the one given by the USAC in regard to the documenta-

tion of self-identifying cyclists in non-elite categories,6 demonstrates how ECCC

positions itself in contradistinction from mainstream sports. The maintenance

of ECCC’s mission of inclusion superseded a biological fairness imperative that

informs policies at the collegiate and elite levels of sports. The organization’s

post highlighted its different style: “compared to typical approaches for college

and beyond, the ECCC formally embraces much more of an attitude of ‘Do

whatever makes you happy, everything else be damned.’”

The response accomplishes two things. One, it provides additional insight

into the ECCC’s process by revealing what kind of conversations the ad hoc

committee had, how they considered their own membership and culture in the

process, and the issues that arose for them. Two, and related, is that the adminis-

trator’s response exposes one way the ECCC constructs and presents its own sport

culture. What the response tells readers is that the ECCC is not just any other

organization, it did not copy or modify an existing policy, and outsiders do not

understand its ways. As Sheila L. Cavanaugh and Heather Sykes (2006) note,

most gender identity policies use the frame of biological fairness. This para-

digm offers the most protection to cisgender athletes at the expense of trans

athletes who are not explicitly protected from harassment and discrimination.

The ECCC policy does not operate in this paradigm, according to administrators

and members.

The ECCC’s policy aligns itself more closely with the philosophy of par-

ticipation and inclusion that is the foundation (in theory) of high school sports.

358 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

The policy is the product of ECCC and intercollegiate cycling culture. It also

speaks to the history of gender discrimination and the lingering belief that some

riders still feel men always and naturally outperform women. The language in the

response reflects the culture: words such as clown and cretin and phrases like “do

what makes you happy, everyone else be damned” indicate the more casual nature

of intercollegiate cycling and the accessibility of leadership. It is difficult to

envision any statement from the NCAA similar in tone.

A conversation with one of the student members of the policy committee

affirmed and expanded on the public response. The policy is not attempting

to limit who can compete or create a culture of suspicion; rather, it is making

space—safe(r) space—for more inclusion and participation by attempting to

proactively deal with those who might not have the same attitude about sport

or about gender. Caedon, a then-active rider who served on the committee,

explained the rationale behind documentation:

The one argument is always what if some cis guy is going to be a jerk and race in the

women’s field and get a bunch of points. To ensure that we are keeping ourselves

safe from people abusing the system in a way that is safe for queer accessibility,

we wanted to have minimal documentation. If someone’s thing is to abuse the

system and pretend to be trans so they can get points, I would be willing to bet they

are not actually going to go through the process of changing any sort of ID, official

documentation of their gender.

In sum, in mainstream sports the documentation requirement is to prove that

an athlete is transgender. The way the ECCC—and eventually the USAC—

intended its policy to work is to require proof, when necessary, that a rider is

not transgender.

Subculture and the ECCC’s Gender Identity Policy

In this section I explore the ways that a subcultural identity influenced the ECCC’s

creation of its gender identity policy. First, I discuss the lack of influence from a

parent organization. Second, I discuss the role of community and insider status.

Finally, I focus on the unique culture the ECCC has created and how it influenced

the gender identity policy.

Subcultures cannot exist without parent cultures. The relationship of a

subculture to a parent culture affects the type of subculture and the manifes-

tations of deviance from the parent culture. The ECCC has more than one parent

culture. Because it is an intercollegiate governance organization, the NCAA is one

parent culture from which the ECCC deviated in the process of creating its own

(sub)culture.

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 359

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

Given the many ways the ECCC deviates from NCAA rules and proce-

dures, it was not surprising that the committee tasked with creating a gender

policy did not even consider the NCAA’s policy. The ECCC does not conform to

NCAA rules restricting the number of hours players may spend in competition

or practice nor to its amateurism philosophy. It does not benefit from NCAA

resources or participate in their tournaments. The NCAA’s mission and philos-

ophy differ dramatically—at least in practice if not in theory—from the ECCC’s

mission and philosophy. The group’s deviance from its parent culture included

not adopting—not even looking at—the NCAA recommendations governing

transgender athlete participation in intercollegiate sports.

The ECCC has a second parent culture—the USAC. The shared group

culture of cycling results in the ECCC more closely resembling this parent

(sub)culture. The ECCC must conform to some aspects of USAC culture, such

as rules about doping and membership, but otherwise has a great deal of freedom.

This freedom, afforded to all the individual collegiate conferences, results in dif-

ferent cultures within each, as well as the possibility of one conference influ-

encing the others. For example, years before the gender identity policy, the ECCC

implemented a rule that the points won by female racers were equal to those of

male racers.

This policy was an attempt to change attitudes about the value of female

cyclists passed down from the parent culture. This change forced collegiate teams

with no or few female riders to recruit them so as to be competitive in team

standings. The ECCC was the first to do this, but the other conferences eventually

adopted the rule. Because the collegiate conferences are loosely governed, there

is space for creating a culture different from the USAC’s; this enabled the ECCC

to make changes in accordance with its own (desired) culture.

The USAC had no formal gender identity policy when the ECCC created

its own. The ECCC administrators’ and members’ goal in creating one was to

ensure an atmosphere of inclusion and to value participation above all else. A

committee of current members and alumni centered the needs of the organization

in a ground-up approach to policy creation. They did not look at existing policies

and did their own research on issues such as hormones and doping as they

discussed their fairness and inclusion philosophies.

The gender identity policy, according to administrators and members of

the committee, creates an inclusive community that revolves around cycling. Queer

theorist Diana Fuss (1991) states that an other, an outsider, is always necessary for

the establishment of identity because of identity’s relational nature. Cycling as

subculture means that there is always already an outsider—anyone who is not a

cyclist, who does not know the rules, the norms, the argot.

The ECCC is its own community that creates its own culture. The other is

not a cyclist and specifically is not an ECCC cyclist. In this community, a trans

360 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

person is not automatically deemed an other. This was evidenced by riders’

support of Alex, a male trans rider who used the policy to ride women’s category

races, which better suited his skills, training, and abilities in 2014. Throughout my

interviews, riders expressed support of Alex in statements about how he was one

of them. Several ECCC riders, none of whomwere Alex’s own teammates, implied

that inclusion was automatic because he was part of the ECCC. Kristen, a graduate

student who rode in races with Alex, attributed this acceptance to ECCC culture,

saying that “the conference is more like a family. Other conferences have different

cultures.”

Kristen also mentioned that members of her team had “taken him in,” and

they were all planning on rooming together at nationals. Cathryn Lucas-Carr

and Vikki Krane (2011: 542) note that “for a trans athlete, strong social support

and having sensitive teammates and coaches is indispensable.” The support of

leadership was also visible during that season. The proactive work of ECCC leaders

to create an open and welcoming culture points to how cultural and social

capital might be used to benefit trans athletes. Riders I spoke with noted the

unanimous support of the policy by leadership. Caedon said, “It’s been made

pretty clear that the issues are supported by the conference officials and that if

those are the people who are supporting the policy then so goes the way of the

conference.” One administrator, talking about ensuring the policy would be

followed, said, “I have built a lot of capital [via volunteering] and I am prepared

to spend it all on this issue.”

Some riders, who knew Alex only at the very start of the 2014 season, made

remarks that privileged group membership based on the desire to be a cyclist

and compete. Most knew, or came to know, of his extensive experience in bike

racing through which he had built a considerable skill set. These skills marked

him as not only an insider but also a prized insider. Kristen, against whom Alex

raced, was glad for the opportunity to race with him and more concerned about

using the correct pronouns while riding in the pack than she was about any

alleged unfair advantage: “When it comes down to it, racing is about being pushed

beyond what you can do by yourself, and he was someone who was going to push

to make it interesting. There are always those riders that you look up to in the

pack, and as far as I was concerned, after I had kind of processed, ‘oh you’re a he

and I associate you as a he and how do I address you,’ it wasn’t really a big deal

at all.”

Alex’s insider status, however, did not negate his gender identity or create

enough social and cultural capital in the world of intercollegiate cycling to sup-

plant some discomfort other riders had with his presence and actions. Alex’s

accounts of the season suggest that he encountered some tension. In the con-

clusion, I revisit to the narratives of family, community, and inclusion and how

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 361

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

they operate in this particular discussion about subculture, gender identity, and

policy. Still, Kristen’s remarks suggest that, to some, Alex’s identity as a cyclist was

more important than his gender identity and helped him maintain status within

this subculture.

The unique culture of the ECCCwas a theme that emerged in conversation

with many riders and administrators. Members took pride in this culture, which

also manifested in pride for creating a liberal policy. Quinn, a second-year rider,

said the policy “made me feel like I was part of an athletic league that—mostly

what we do is ride bikes—but we’re also doing this important thing that nobody

has thought of before, which is establishing a new norm around and a culture

around transgender athletes.” Quinn’s statement demonstrates one difference

between shared interest (group culture) and unique community (subculture).

The ECCC’s unique culture manifested in the gender identity policy. A policy

in which biological fairness, according to its creators, was less of a priority than

the safe participation for gender and sexual minorities demonstrates the ECCC’s

deviation from both parent organizations, whose versions of fairness center pri-

marily on the physiology of elite athletes.

Conclusion: Subcultural Sport for All?

Despite the growing visibility of trans athletes, mainstream sport and most

sport subcultures reify—explicitly and tacitly—a gender binary. The emer-

gence of gender identity policies in the early 2000s did not challenge sport as a

binary institution and in many ways served to reify the binary, as did resistance

to these policies (Sykes 2011). The ECCC itself continues to operate within a

binary model, even as it makes efforts to increase the opportunities for female

and trans riders. But the majority-white organization made no visible effort to

disrupt the existing gender categories or grow the sport by addressing the lack

of people of color.

Alex, the one self-identified male rider in the women’s category that first

season, might push against some of our understanding of gender categories in

sport and cause us to question what counts as advantage, but that was not a typical

situation. The policy itself creates space for choice and potential disruption in

ways that the other policies I have discussed here do not. But the ongoing cultural

investment in a binary sports system in combination with the demand for legible

trans bodies (borne of this investment) likely means there will be no dissolution

of gender categories in cycling, despite its operation as a sports subculture. It is a

sport that recognizes multiple levels of expertise and encourages participation in

a way that reflects a “meet you where you’re at” philosophy, but cyclists are still

required to define themselves as either male or female. Where one is “at” is always

in a category.

362 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

The mandate for an either/or choice, even if it is the athlete’s choice, con-

tinues to enforce the colonial/modern gender system. The ECCC, while demon-

strating a less conservative approach to gender than other sports organizations,

including its own parent organization (USAC), came up against the invisibility

of its own whiteness as it created its gender identity policy. And while it argued

against the biocentrism of its policy publicly, it did not—arguably it could not

because the policy was not created (from what I observed) with an intersectional

lens—demonstrate how the provision about documentation could indeed be

discriminatory against nonwhite women.

Additionally, the ECCC still has issues with gender and sexuality and lacks

awareness of its own whiteness. As an organization they addressed the systemic

sexism in the sport by changing the gendered point system, creating a women’s

Facebook page and mailing list, and holding an annual women’s meeting. This

could be interpreted as an act of resistance to a more conservative parent culture

(USAC and UCI) and a starting point for challenging dominant cultural norms

about gender and cycling.7 As Caedon noted, though, a culture of masculinity

remains: “Cycling, contrary to popular belief, is a pretty masculine, bro kind of

sport even though you wear spandex for your races or whatever. It does kind of

breed typical competitive masculinity in the guys’ categories that can be just as

tenuous and kind of threatening as in any other sport.” This culture affects riders

who do not conform to this masculinity—including women, queer people, and

nonwhite riders. Caedon reported that there are gay, queer, and genderqueer

people in the conference who are not out. The policy did not create a radical

transformation that resulted in everyone feeling safe.

Here I see a contradiction emerge between the philosophy of the policy

and the concept of insider status. One goal of the policy was to protect trans and

genderqueer cyclists—those who are out or those who are assumed to be trans or

queer. The need to protect these members of the subculture suggests that they

are not afforded the same insider status privileges as other members. Additionally,

though policies may ban discrimination, they will not necessarily protect riders

during a race. Deliberate malice is difficult to prove, making the lack of openly gay

and queer people unsurprising. The community and family atmosphere that is

espoused and encouraged is not universally experienced. Caedon commented on

the gap between policy and practice:

At the end of the day we’re racing bicycles very fast, and if somebody wants to do

you bodily harm because they have an unfortunate view of gay people or whatever,

there’s the possibility for that happening. I know that some people don’t want

to go through the possible risk of bad outcomes. A lot of bicycle racing is about

trusting the people you are around and being comfortable with the people you are

around.

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 363

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

If an intersectional lens had been applied to these sentiments, the conference

might have been better able to address systemic discrimination from multiple

vantage points to consider how their unique culture might not be as inclusive as

they want to believe. Statements from ECCC and USAC leaders about “cretins”

and others who would think to ride in the “wrong” category as a political state-

ment demonstrate the weakness in relying on subcultural status or a “family”

atmosphere to address issues of gender identity and race. Neither the cooperative

nature of cycling nor the family environment of the ECCC has eliminated dis-

crimination or created an entirely inclusive and welcoming culture—despite the

concerted efforts by some to do just that. And it certainly has not addressed the de

facto whiteness of the sport.

Confronting these issues is necessary for any subculture whose philosophy

includes ideologies of inclusion. Policies are an important component of this

work. Yet the above statements by administrators, in contrast to Caedon’s state-

ment about safety, point to the need for intersectional, multiracial, queer research

on gender identity policies that centers the experiences of trans and genderqueer

athletes, especially nonwhite athletes. Most gender identity policies are the result

of a top-down process in which large, international sports governance bodies

make policies that other organizations simply adopt. Little research has examined

how trans athletes are actually affected by these policies. As policies governing

participation continue to be created and altered, the voices of trans athletes need

to be central to the process, as do considerations of the legacies of colonialism at

work in the creation of policies.

For example, throughout my research, I spoke with only one trans athlete,

Alex, who thought the policy could be better. He argued that the lack of specific

guidelines over participation would be a deterrent for trans riders who want to

know the exact criteria they need to meet: “the x,y, and z,” Alex said. As noted

above, there has been confusion over the documentation requirement, a confu-

sion that will continue for USAC riders in the non-elite categories. It does not

state when and under what circumstances someone may be asked for proof of

identity, which opens USAC and its affiliated organizations, including ECCC, up

to accusations of discrimination against gender-nonconforming and nonwhite

persons. There is no process or time line for how documentation will be assessed

or how a decision will be delivered. Those less familiar with the organization

may look at the policy and think that who can ride in which category looks like

“a nebulous decision among leadership,” according to Alex. His opinions on the

policy demonstrate the distance that can exist between well-intentioned policy

makers and those affected by policies. Privileging the voices of these athletes will

help minimize that distance.

364 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

Kristine Newhall is an assistant professor of kinesiology at SUNY Cortland teaching courses in

sports studies. She is coauthor of the book chapter “Out of the Frame: How Sports Media Shape

Trans Narratives.”

Notes

1. The policy for Gay Games 10 held in Paris in 2018 stated that during the registration

process “a participant will need to list their legal gender based on a government issued

identification with photo (passport, national ID or driver’s license)” (Federation of Gay

Games 2017). Participants could choose either male or female as their gender of com-

petition category based on where they felt most comfortable.

2. For just a few recent examples of invocations of fairness in women’s sports in regard to

women with DSD, see Longman and Macur 2019; Kelner 2019; and Maese 2019.

3. The IOC’s first policy, the Stockholm Consensus created in 2003, required a two-year

period of hormone replacement therapy, documentation stating change of gender/legal

gender in desired category, and gender reassignment surgery. It was immediately con-

troversial because of the surgery requirement, but there was also a hint at a broader

understanding of international gender politics among the critiques, which cited the

differing international standards among nation-states for legal change of gender. Despite

the 2016 revised and less restrictive policy, the effects of the 2003 policy are ongoing, as

many sport organizations at all level of sport (including K–12 interscholastic sports)

haphazardly adopted the Stockholm Consensus and have not modified it.

4. Though state athletics associations create participation policies, state legislatures can and

have overridden these policies by creating laws and issuing executive orders that ban

trans students from participation based on their gender identity. In the first half of 2021

there was a dramatic increase in state legislation that specifically banned trans girls and

women from participation in girls’ and women’s sports. As of July 2021, Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia passed versions of

this legislation, and South Dakota’s governor had issued an executive order to the same

effect. Similar legislation is pending in over a dozen other states. Human Rights Cam-

paign lawyers have stated they will be filing discrimination lawsuits against the states of

Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

5. In redoing their webpage, the ECCC eliminated its blog.

6. USA Cycling technical director, Chuck Hodges, when speaking to the self-selection

option also framed it as a protection for transgender athletes. He said that the docu-

mentation requirement is aimed at cisgender riders who might be trying to prove a point

(Giddings 2017).

7. While simultaneously neglecting potentially easy steps to address the whiteness of the

sport by creating support for nonwhite cyclists and thus reinforcing the invisibility of

race in the organization and sport.

References Albert, Edward. 1991. “Riding a Line: Competition and Cooperation in the Sport of Bicycle

Racing.” Sociology of Sport Journal 8, no. 4: 341–61.

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 365

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

Buzuvis, Erin. 2012. “Including Transgender Athletes in Sex-Segregated Sport.” In Sexual Orien-

tation and Gender Identity in Sport: Essays from Activists, Coaches, and Scholars, edited by

George B. Cunningham, 23–34. College Station, TX: Center for Sport Management

Research and Education.

Cavanagh, Sheila L., and Heather Sykes. 2006. “Transsexual Bodies at the Olympics: The Inter-

national Olympic Committee’s Policy on Transsexual Athletes at the 2004 Athens

Summer Games.” Body and Society 12, no. 3: 75–102. doi.org/10.1177/1357034X06067157.

Cooky, Cheryl, Ranissa Dycus, and Shari L. Dworkin. 2013. “‘What Makes a Woman a Woman?’ versus ‘Our First Lady of Sport’: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and the

South African Media Coverage of Caster Semenya.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 37,

no. 1: 31–56. doi.org/10.1177/0193723512447940.

Crosset, Todd, and Becky Beal. 1997. “The Use of ‘Subculture’ and ‘Subworld’ in Ethnographic

Works on Sport: A Discussion of Definitional Distinctions.” Sociology of Sport Journal 14,

no. 1: 73–85.

Currah, Paisley. 2006. “Gender Pluralisms under the Transgender Umbrella.” In Transgender

Rights, edited by Richard M. Juang, Shannon Minter, and Paisley Currah, 3–31. Min-

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Donnelly, Peter. 1985. “Sport Subcultures.” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews 13, no. 1: 539–78.

ECCC (Eastern Collegiate Cycling Conference). 2014. “Everybody Races: Diversity in the ECCC |

ECCC Blogosphere.” March 7. www.ecccblogosphere.com/2014/03/everybody-races

-diversity-in-the-eccc/.

Feagin, Joe R. 2013. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing.

2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Federation of Gay Games. 2017. “Paris 2018—Gay Games 10 Gender Policy.” July. www.paris2018

.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PARIS2018-Gender-Policy-Final.pdf

Fuss, Diana, ed. 1991. Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York: Routledge.

Giddings, Caitlin. 2017. “USACycling Releases New Policy on Transgender Athlete Participation.”

Bicycling, June 28. www.bicycling.com/news/usa-cycling-updates-transgender-policy.

Greenberg, Julie A. 2002. “Definitional Dilemmas: Male or Female? Black or White? The Law’s

Failure to Recognize Intersexuals and Multiracials.” In Gender Nonconformity, Race, and

Sexuality: Charting the Connections, edited by Toni Lester, 102–25. Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press.

Griffin, Pat, and Helen Carroll. 2011. “NCAA Inclusion of Transgender Student-Athletes.”

Indianapolis: NCAA Office of Inclusion.

Hurford, Molly. 2016. “Molly Cameron and USA Cycling Confront Trans Awareness.” Bicycling,

January 4. www.bicycling.com/culture/people/molly-cameron-and-usa-cycling-confront

-trans-awareness.

IOC (International Olympic Committee). 2015. “IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment

and Hyperandrogenism.” November. Lausanne, Switzerland: IOC. stillmed.olympic.org

/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_

meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf.

Karkazis, Katrina. 2019. “Stop Talking about Testosterone—There’s No Such Thing as a ‘True

Sex.’” Guardian, March 6. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/testosterone

-biological-sex-sports-bodies.

Kelner, Martha. 2019. “Semenya Ruling May Bring Death of Women’s Sport, Warns Paula Rad-

cliffe.” Sky News, April 19. news.sky.com/story/semenya-ruling-may-bring-death-of

-womens-sport-warns-paula-radcliffe-11697562.

366 TSQ * Transgender Studies Quarterly

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024

Longman, Jere, and Juliet Macur. 2019. “Caster Semenya Loses Case to Compete as a Woman in

All Races.” New York Times, May 1. www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/sports/caster-semenya

-loses.html.

Lucas, Cathryn B., and Kristine E. Newhall. 2019. “Out of the Frame: How Sports Media Shapes

Trans Narratives.” In LGBT Athletes in the Sports Media, edited by Rory Magrath, 99–124.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lucas-Carr, Cathryn, and Vikki Krane. 2011. “What Is the T in LGBT? Supporting Transgender

Athletes through Sport Psychology.” Sport Psychologist 25, no. 4: 532–48.

Lugones, María. 2007. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System.” Hypatia 22,

no. 1: 186–219. doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.x.

Maese, Rick. 2019. “Court Rules Olympic Runner Caster SemenyaMust Use Hormone-Suppressing

Drugs to Compete.”Washington Post, May 1. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/05/01

/court-decides-against-caster-semenyas-appeal-controversial-rule/.

Mosier, Chris. N.d. “K–12 Policies.” Transathlete. www.transathlete.com/k-12 (accessed August 6,

2015).

Nyong’o, Tavia. 2009. “The Unforgivable Transgression of Being Caster Semenya.” Bully Bloggers,

September 8. bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/the-unforgivable-transgression

-of-being-caster-semenya/.

Padawer, Ruth. 2016. “Too Fast to Be Female.” New York Times Magazine, July 3, 32.

Pieper, Lindsay Parks. 2014. “Sex Testing and the Maintenance of Western Femininity in Inter-

national Sport.” International Journal of the History of Sport 31, no. 13: 1557–76. doi.org

/10.1080/09523367.2014.927184.

Pieper, Lindsay Parks. 2016. Sex Testing: Gender Policing in Women’s Sports. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press.

Samuels, Ellen. 2014. “Cycles of Gender Testing.” From the Square (New York University Press

blog), March 31. www.fromthesquare.org/?p=6130.

Schultz, Jaime. 2011. “Caster Semenya and the ‘Question of Too’: Sex Testing in Elite Women’s

Sport and the Issue of Advantage.” Quest 63, no. 2: 228–43.

Schultz, Jaime. 2014.Qualifying Times: Points of Change in U.S. Women’s Sport. Urbana: University

of Illinois Press.

Scott, Jason. 2016. “IOC Announces New Policies for Transgender Athletes.” Athletic Business,

January. www.athleticbusiness.com/rules-regulations/ioc-announces-new-policies-for

-transgender-athletes.html.

Sykes, Heather. 2011. “Transsexual and Transgender Policies in Sport.” ICSSPE Bulletin, no. 62: 7.

Torre, Pablo S. 2012. “The Transgender Athlete.” Sports Illustrated, May 28. www.si.com/vault/2012

/05/28/106195901/the-transgender-athlete.

Valentine, David. 2007. Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Wheaton, Belinda. 2007. “After Sport Culture: Rethinking Sport and Post-subcultural Theory.”

Journal of Sport and Social Issues 31, no. 3: 283–307.

NEWHALL * Cycling, Subculture, and Transgender Policy 367

D ow

nloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-pdf/8/3/349/939458/349new

hall.pdf by PO R

TLAN D

STATE U N

IV user on 27 June 2024