On the day that the heads of Australian cricket and football codes announced they were committing to stamping out homophobia in their respective sports, my rugby teammates and I trained hard under lights on a wet and muddy pitch in Melbourne.
There is nothing remarkable about the latter except that my team, the Melbourne Chargers, have been explicitly inclusive of gay players and supporters since being founded five years ago.
The codes’ announcement is acknowledgement that sport – at both a professional and grassroots level – has a problem that is deeply embedded in its culture. Many of my teammates in the Chargers had either given the sport away years ago or would never had pulled on boots in the first place were it not for a space in the game which went out of its way to welcome them.
FFA chief executive David Gallop said at the launch that sport “has a great opportunity to raise awareness around [homophobia] and must take that responsibility seriously”.
With the greatest of respect to Gallop, he is giving his sport too much credit. Sport is a follower on this issue, not a leader. For a country that is obsessed with sport, particularly the football codes, the sad reality is that gays and lesbians are more likely to be in the closet in the world of sport than in the wider community.
Gays and lesbians are part of the fabric of Australian society in a way that would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. Most people have gay colleagues, friends and family.
We have had a lesbian Cabinet minister in Canberra, a gay High Court justice and a gay man who reads the news on Channel Nine on weeknights, yet our professional football codes have not seen an openly gay player since Ian Roberts came out in 1995. It defies belief and human experience that there have not been any other gay players in our football codes.
Some straight people are puzzled by initiatives to combat homophobia in sport and which aim to include all people, gay or straight. Frequently, their response tends to be along the lines of “Who cares if footballers are gay?” or “I don’t care what my teammate does in the bedroom.”
This response reinforces the now outdated notion that gay and lesbian people are fine so long as they stay in the closet. Jason Akermanis gave the most cited example of this attitude, but only a few weeks ago sports journalist Damian Barrett agreed on radio that football is not “ready” for gay players.
Sitting behind this is are a bunch of tired old prejudices – that gay men are too effeminate for ‘tough’ sports like rugby or Aussie Rules, and that women who play contact sports must be lesbians. Judging by the way various commentators obsess over whether gay men are likely to be accepted in the locker room – shown recently by the number of references after US college footballer Michael Sam came out – there is an insidious and absurd prejudice that gay men are only interested in sport to watch straight guys getting changed.
Ask any gay person what coming out meant to them and they will likely tell you that it was a weight lifted off their shoulders. When the world tells you to stay quiet about something that is intrinsic to your sense of self, it reinforces feelings of shame and guilt.
To say that sexuality is a private matter ignores its many public dimensions – from taking a date to the Brownlow Medal count to giving your life partner a kiss after a game.
A wise person once said to me that rugby is an opportunity for self-expression. How can we ever expect the best of our teammates if we ask them to limit their self-expression because some people claim to be uncomfortable?
There is no way this could be good for your performance or enjoyment of sport, whether as weekend tryer or an elite athlete. For confirmation we need look no further than perhaps the toughest sport of all – boxing. Featherweight Orlando Cruz has said that he is able to perform better now that he is open about his sexuality.
“I’m much more tranquil now. My mind is on the fight. It was the same with my two other fights after coming out. I was calm and won easily. I’d said what I wanted to say for so long. I’m a gay man – and a fighter. This gives me calm.”
The move by the Australian sporting codes is an important step in changing the culture of sport to one that welcomes everybody – gay or straight. For too long the culture of sport has excluded a section of the community from being the best that they could be.
Here is hoping we’re headed for an era where sport again becomes a leader.
Mike
Guest
"Just how much science can someone of your ability afford to dismiss?" Precisely my question of you . You are apparently in denial that science in this area depends on anything but consensus. And as I wrote above, there is virtually no consensus among scientists on these things.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Sir, Because in biological science there is very little Black and White. If only a third or half or one tenth of the causative factors were in play then permutations occur. The science will eventually give us the answers/theories.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Not something I will do with your contributions though you would do well to heed your own advice. I asked for a logical basis, an epistemological understanding requisite to all learned discussion. The science says something which is at odds with your understanding and you feel from your position you are permitted to dismiss it. Get over yourself. Consensus will only ever be available at the final moment of the next Big Implosion. Till then all we have are theories such as; adding carbon to Iron makes steel; water molecules have a positive charge which is why they are a good solvent and can walk up a tree's veins; the speed of light is a constant and the fastest thing in the universe... Just how much science can someone of your ability afford to dismiss? ps: still waiting for a pointer to the other 'scientific' based responses you alluded to, why? pss: do some words have a very specific meaning or are they all available for personal interpretation? Can you provide a list?
Mike
Guest
No problem at all.
stillmatic1
Guest
If u can't understand the simple mechanics of boy on boy vs girl on girl s%x then I can't really help you. Something about being less obtrusive may help you a bit. Your "love" comment actually gets down to the reason why the majority are sceptical about homos#xuality. Maybe because love isn't really quantifiable or testable and can change on a whim. Funny, just like one of my best lesbian friends described her switch. Black and white this is not.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Ok Mike i appologise to you.
PeterK
Guest
how does this being fixed at birth take into account bi-sexuals, surely they are choosing to swing both ways. Far far too simplistic.
Mike
Guest
Axle, I responded to Pirates, not to you. Go back and read my post again. Have a look at the quote - it is from Pirates post, not from yours. I wasn't replying to you.
Mike
Guest
"The science in this area of research is difficult but no less rigorous." the science in this area is exactly what I said, virtually no consensus. p.s. read more carefully.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Mike maybe you belong in germany in the 1930s if you think people should be made to conform with your beliefs. I spose you think Religion should be forced upon people to, do you , because if you dont you are a hypocrite. I accept everyone for what and who they are, sexuality dont come into it with me. I only speak on behalf of myself, as i dont have the right to speak for anyone else. I agree with same sex, thats my right, if the person next door dont then thats there right an i have no right to make them conform to what i think. Maybe you should read all my comments before you say what decade i belong in. BTW if you make someone conform to your belifes by force it is not a democracy. Everyone has the right to there own ideas and beliefs wether you like it or not.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
You make diamonds with time and pressure. You need both, though.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Outlier, I think it's great that you're asking genuine questions and wanting to learn more, even when your instinctive position may be that you don't agree with parts of this discussion. Open-mindedness is key. Re dressing rooms, the main point is that women are more likely to feel sexually threatened or self-conscious with men around, so they need their own space. Men aren't likely to feel threatened by women. It could be embarrassing but In professional sports men tend to walk around locker rooms and showers in front of female journalists, medicos and so on without a worry. I can't see any reason for men to feel threatened by gay teammates. Disapproving of homosexuality might not manifest in an aggressive way, but it does still send a message that the person is sinful or wrong, when they're not doing anything to deserve that. Being gay isn't a 'lifestyle', you either are or you aren't. If it were a choice, it's hard to imagine people would choose the undoubtedly more difficult life.
Buzzard
Guest
Tane Mahuta...you are gay.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Mike, Homophobia has to have a clear meaning as do all definitive words in any discussion. That is the basis of any intelligent discussion, otherwise it is mindless babble. Phobia: 1.An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety, usually of or about something particular. A deflector to the trolls cannot also be a troll. Trying to deflect comments from those who comprehension skills can only amount to one or perhaps two conflicting thoughts is necessary on this website. All science can ever offer are theories, that is its strength. The scientific method is far superior to any other that man has assembled thus far. The science in this area of research is difficult but no less rigorous. For the trolls - because it has been published. ps: no-one other than myself offered any scientific proof on this thread.
Mike
Guest
"For the trolls, we are talking ‘phobia’ here which a bit deeper than distaste or unease." Troll yourself. The word homophobia has been used in many different ways on this thread, and its not trolling to point that out, nor to ask people to say what they mean. "There are some indications from science ..." Well put. A number of claims about science have been made on this thread yet there is actually very little scientific consensus in this area.
Mike
Guest
I agree Rob. Unfortunately some people on this thread have gone a LOT further than that . Note also, that laws already exist prohibiting exactly what you are talking about. The problem might be an unwillingness to take action, rather than lack of power.
Mike
Guest
Actually Tane, some gay people do joke about it. And some gay people don't agree with your ideas about punishing those who disagree with you.
Mike
Guest
"You must accept someone for who they are and not discriminate against them. If you won’t do that voluntarily than you should be forced." Discrimination on all sorts of grounds is already illegal. And not just in rugby. However, someone holding beliefs that you consider to be wrong isn't illegal. In rugby or anywhere else. The fact that you write "forced" in order to make someone "accept" someone else shows that you belong in 1930s Germany, not in a western democracy - which is ironic because the views that prevailed in Germany in the 1930s ended up targeting gays (as well as many other groups).
Mike
Guest
"Punishment is not the issue. The law can be used for extreme examples of discrimination but it is a blunt instrument. The more subtle cultural problems cannot be addressed by the law." I agree. The on-going dialogue is healthy, as are a number of the posts below which are engaging with the issues of prejudice and mistreatment.
Stray Gator
Guest
This is NOT about free speech. I was and am not trying to silence anyone. This is only about an even more fundamental human right - freedom from persecution. Irrationally-based wrongs are always wrong, irrespective of their origin. No one has the right to complete freedom of expression, especially if in its exercise they quash, diminish or threaten another's right to live without fear.