1 Wewouldliketothanktheparticipantsinthisresearch,whomustremain anonymous,butwithoutwhomthisstudywouldnothavebeenpossible. Dr.DennisWernerkindlygavevaluableadviceduringthestudyand preparationofthemanuscript.FLCexpresseshisgratitudetoCAPES (Brazil)forfinancinghisPh.D.intheUnitedStates.studies. 2 Endereço:RuaBenevenutaBartletJames,69,Florianópolis,SC,Brasil
88015-630.E-mail:d2fl[email protected]
GenderDivergenceinPhysicalEducationClasses
1FernandoLuizCardoso2 MauraLúciaFelipe
UniversidadedoEstadodeSantaCatarina
ClausHedegaard
UniversitéduMaine
ABSTRACT–Weevaluateagroupofstudents,presumedbytheirphysicaleducationteacherstobegenderdivergent.This studysuggeststhatPEteachersconfuse“gender-divergence”withuncoordinatedmotorbehaviors.ThismaybebecausePE classesemphasizemotorabilitiesandcoordinationandPEteachersmaypayparticularattentiontothesecharacteristicsanduse them(wrongly)asacriterionforgenderdivergence.However,the10presumed“divergentstudents”differfromtheirpeersby beingmorelikelytohavefriendsoftheoppositesex,interactingwithgroupsoftheoppositesex,preferringphysicalactivities typicaloftheoppositesex,demonstratinglessknowledgeofsex,preferringinteractiveratherthancollaborativeactivitiesand preferringmoreindividual,lesscomplex,lessaggressiveactivitieswithlessbodycontact.
Keywords:genderidentity;genderrole;motororientation;sportiveorientation.
DivergênciadeGêneroemTurmasdeEducaçãoFísica
RESUMO–Avaliou-seumgrupodeestudantespreviamenteindicadospelosseusprofessoresdeEducaçãoFísicacomo sendo“divergentes”emtermosdeidentidadedegênero.Esteestudosugerequeosprofessoresconfundemdivergênciade gênerocomcomportamentomotordescoordenado.Istotalvezsedevaporqueestesenfatizemdemaisashabilidadesmotoras estandarteseasutilizemdeformaequivocadacomoumcritérioparaavaliardivergênciadaidentidadedegênero.Noentanto, os10estudantespreviamenteindicadoscomodivergentesemrelaçãoaoscolegasdomesmosexo,têmmaisamigosdosexo oposto,interagemmaiscomgruposdosexooposto,preferematividadesfísicastípicasdosexooposto,demonstrammenos conhecimentosobresexoepreferematividadesindividuaisàscoletivas,atividadesmenoscomplexas,menosagressivasecom menorembatecorporal.
Palavras-chave:identidadedegênero;papeldegênero;orientaçãomotora;orientaçãoesportiva.
caretakers.Despitetheseproblems,studiesoftheinclusion ofgender-divergentchildreninschoolactivitieshavebeen rare.Inareviewof982manuscriptspublishedinthemajor journalsofsportsandexerciseinUSAbetween1987and 2000,only1,22%includedreferencestosexualorientation (Duda&Alison,1990).Weneedtounderstandbetterexactly wherethedifferencesbetweengender-divergentandother children lie. To what extent are these differences due to differencesinmotorbehavior,psychologicalpreferencesor genderidentities.
Bates, Bentler and Thompson (1979) illustrated the androgynousmotorbehaviorofgenderdivergentboys,but onlyGreen,Neuberg,andFinch(1983)comparedthemotor behavioroftheseboyswithconventionalboysandgirls.They concludedthatthe“feminine”boysoccupiedanintermediate positioninmotorbehavior,onethatwasneitherdistinctly “feminine”nordistinctly“masculine.”
In the present study we investigated gender-divergent children’s motor behavior in order to determine whether particularmotorpatternswereimportantfortheperception ofanindividualas“genderdivergent”.Weevaluatedagroup ofstudents,pointedoutasgenderdivergentbytheirphysical educationteachers.Mostoftheteachersinterviewed,labeled these students as having some kind of “divergent gender identity” and approached this conflict in terms of moral Gender-rolestereotypingiswell-documentedinschools
(Cardoso,1994a;Frasher&Walker,1972;Jackson,1968; Levy&Stacey,1973;Lynch,1975;Reha&Nappi,1975; Romero,1994;Saario,Jacklin&Tittle,1973)andthesocial conflict that may result from atypical gender behavior, is usually perceived as problematic by educators, especially in physical education classes. This type of conflict has inspiredaseriesofstudiesofmalechildrenwithconflictive sexualidentityduringthepastdecades(Blanchard,Dickey &Jones,1995;Davenport,1986;Green,1974,1976,1987; Green,Williams&Goodman,1985;Grellert,Newcomb& Bentler,1982;Hockenberry&Billingham,1987;Whitam, 1983,1991;Whitam&Mathy,1986;Zucker,1990;Zucker &Bailey,1995).Theseboysarecommonlyteasedandcalled “sissies”bytheirpeersbecausetheyactlike“girls”andhave gesturesandmannerismsconsideredfeminine.
values.Genderdivergentstudentsforthemwereboysmore orless“effeminate”,moreorless“abnormal,”moreorless “awkward,”ormoreorless“wrong.”
We paid particular attention to the social interactions of these children and their stated preferences for social interaction.Wewantedtodetermineifthesupposedlygender divergentstudentsdifferedfromtheirsupposedly“gender typical”peers,andwhethertheteachers’emicdetermination ofgenderdivergencewasbasedoncharacteristicscommonto theindicatedstudents.Wedesignatedthestudentsas“gender divergent” rather than androgynous, because the teachers explicitly referred to their unusual gender expressions, buttheparticipantswerenotsubjectedtoaformaltestof genderdivergence.Theterm“androgyny”generallyrefers tointermediatescoresonfemininityandmasculinityscales (Donelson&Gullahorn,1977;Wakefield,Sasek,Friedman & Bowden, 1976). But in this study the gender-divergent individualsmayhavehadjustoneprominentcharacteristic associatedbytheteacherwiththeothergender.
Physicaleducation(PE)classesareanexcellentsetting to investigate social interactions, because they have a different structure from other classes at school, yet are similarineducationalsystemsaroundtheworld.PEclasses arestructuredforeverybodytoparticipatesimultaneously, ratherthansequentially,andtheyrelyfarmoreoninteraction thandootherclasses.
Usually gender divergence among boys receives more attention.But“tomboys”(masculinegirls)arenotrarein schoolsettings.DonelsonandGullahorn(1977)andHemmer andKleiber(1981)showedthat“tomboys”arequitecommon althoughlesslikelytobeseenas“abnormal.”
InmostBrazilianeducationalsystems,afterthe4thyear ofelementaryschool,PEclassesaretaughtseparatelyfor boysandgirls.Althoughmanyeffortshavebeenmadeto change the gender segregation, coeducational PE classes are absent from most Brazilian schools. Nevertheless, BrazilianPEclassesrelyonthesamestrategyasPEclasses inotherindustrializednations,andemphasizeteamsports and alternating technically and physically demanding activities.
Method
Participants
Westudiedasampleof20studentsfromtheclassesof six Brazilian PE teachers in two different public schools, whoagreedtotakepartinthisproject.Duringanofficial meetingwiththePEinstructors,theyspontaneouslyindicated that they had confronted gender divergence in class, and wereconcernedabouttheissue.Thestudentswerefrom9 tol4yearsold,andpresumedtobeeithergenderdivergent orgendertypicalbytheirrespectivePEteachers.Thesix PE teachers interviewed (three male and three female) rangedfrom34to41yearsoldandhadbeenteachingforan averageofl5years.Twooftheteacherstaughtmale,female, and coeducational classes; only one taught exclusively maleclasses.Previouslyintheircareers,onehadworked only with male classes, one had worked with male and femaleclasses,andfourhadworkedwithallkindsofPE
classes.Independentoftheirassignment,mostofthemalso workedwithcoeducationalPEclasses,andthusallhadthe opportunitytoexperiencetheconflictsbetweengendersin PEclasses.
Measures
Toavoidtheresearchers’ethnocentricperceptions,we use the anthropological strategy of working with “emic” samples.An“emic”interpretationofculturaleventsisone thatissubjectiveanddefinedbythenativeinformants(Harris, 1968),inthiscasetheperceptionofteachersintwoBrazilian publicschools.Thatis,wedidnotuseouretic(researcher defined)categoriesofgenderrolesinthesamplingprocess norinoursubsequentclassificationofindividuals.
We did not attempt to assess the “correct” view of schoolbehavior.Instead,weattemptedtoidentify,through observationalresearch,characteristicsthatmightclarifythe basisofteachers’identificationofsomestudentsas“gender divergent.”Inourobservationswefocusedondifferences between the gender-divergent and non-divergent children withregardtomotorbehaviors,andsocialinteractionswith peersandteachers.Inshort,wewishedtoexamineifthelocal perceptionofgenderdivergentbehavior(emiccategories) in Brazilian schools, corresponded to observational differences (etic categories) found in similar settings (PE classes)elsewhere.Wewillrelateoureticcategoriestothe teachers’emiccategoriesintheresultssectionofthepaper. Thismethodologyisrareinbothanthropology(whereemic categoriesaredescribedwithoutattemptstorelatethemto etic categories) and sociology (where etic categories are usedwithlittleregardforthecategorizationsofthosebeing studied).Webelievethatthisstrategy,whichallowsexplicit comparisontootherstudies,shouldbeencouragedinallthe socialsciences.
Procedures
Toassessthestudents’socializationwiththeirclassmates, weaskedthemthefollowingquestionsbasedonthemost commonsocialconflictsthatresultfromgenderdivergent behavior and the influence of these conflicts on gender divergentchildrenduringclass:
1. Doyoulikeyourclassmates?
2. Whoisyourbestfriend?Isamaleorafemaleyourbest classmate?
3. Whichgamesdoyouliketoplay? 4. Whichsportsdoyoulikethemost?
5. Withwhomdoyouprefertoplay?Boysorgirls? Thesequestionsrelatetothestudents’socialbehavior, and the answers reflect the students own perceptions of issues that correspond to observations made during the PEclasses.Question1reflectsthestudents’ownviewof theirsocialsituation,andwhethertheyareintegratedinthe social structure – this corresponds to our observations of their interaction with peers during PE classes. Questions 2 and 5 reveal whether the students interact more with membersoftheirownortheothersex–thiscorresponds toourobservationsoftheirinteractionwithpeersofeither sexduringPEclasses.Questions3and4revealthepersonal preferences of the participants. We summarize these into preferencesforsolitary,interactive,orcollaborativeactivities, whichallowedustoverifywhethertheindicatedparticipants likeordislikesports.
In addition, to identifying if there is any difference between the gender divergent participants and their peers with respect to information about sexual education, we asked them whether they knew what human sexuality is, andwewerecarefultoavoidbeingsuggestiveorotherwise embarrassingthestudents.
Tocomplementourobservationsofthestudents’behavior and our interviews with them, we also carried out semi-structuredinterviewswiththesixPEteachers.Otherteachers alsohadsimilarconcernsandexperienceswiththisissue,but declinedtotakepartbecausetheythoughtitwouldimpose ontheprivacyoftheirpupils.
Results
ObservationsofgenderdivergentstudentsduringPE class
Student1isapre-adolescentboy.Hehasgenerallygood relationships with his peers in class, and is cheerful and extrovert.Hedoesnotliketodoanyoftheactivitiesassigned totheboysinhisPEclass,and,wheneverpossibleheruns toplaywithtwoofhisfemalepeersinanotherplayground. Heshowsthesamebehaviorinallobservedclasses.Hehas pronouncedbodymovements,characteristicoffemales.He notonlyswingshisarmstothesides,butalsowaveshisarms intheairwithfreeandgentlemovementsofhishands.He likestoplaytagwithhisfemalepeers,andisusuallyquite creativeandmotivatedtoplaywiththegirls.Heusuallystays awayfromtheotherboys,whoteaseandbullyhim.Heseems tobestigmatizedbyhismalepeers.
Student2wasobservedduringsoccerclasses,wherehe constantly sought interaction with the group. In addition, heoftentalkedtohisclassmatesandactedasamemberof
thegroup.Hehasknock-kneesanddifficultycoordinating his leg movements. This physical condition gives him a clumsywalkingandrunningpattern.Furthermore,healso hasanunusualchestwithoversizedbreaststissueandother difficultiesingeneralbodycoordination.Heappearstobe slightlydisabled.Duetohisunskillfulbehavior,whichmight troublehisclass’steam,hedidnottakepartinthegamesat theschoolchampionship.Unliketheothergenderdivergent students,thisstudentfeltverymotivatedwhentheteacher pushed or stimulated him to repeat attempts. Despite his bodily limitations, he enjoyed taking part in the PE class activities.
Student3wasobservedduringvolleyballclasseswherehe displayedagoodrelationshipwithhisclassmates.Hisbody languagewasaccentuatedbymore“lightarm”movements compared to others; for example his ball receiving was usuallycarriedoutinatypicallygirlishmannerwithlimp wrists.Hemovedinaverycarelessway,asiftryingtoshow hislackofinterestinthePEclassandhehadasharpvocal tone.Nevertheless,heseemedratherextrovertandwasaware ofalltheclassactivities.Wealsonoticedthatthisstudent triedtostayclosetothePEteacherandalwaystriedtoattract hisattention.Despiteourattemptstobediscreet,hemade considerable efforts to figure out who we were, and was constantlyawareoftheentirePEclassenvironment.
Student 4 was also observed during the volleyball classes. His body movements resembled those of other boys in his class with good coordination. He mixed very littlewithhispeers,andwasexcludedbytheothersfrom group activities in the class. This student demonstrated difficultieswithvolleyballgesturesduetohislackofskillin termsofvisualperceptionandhandcoordination.Because oftheselimitations,hemadenotechnicalcontributionto thevolleyballgame,whichrequiresrelaxationofthehand musclesandasubsequentcontractiontoaccomplishtheball reception.Hekeptquietmostofthetime,andappearedto beaveryintrovertindividual.
Student5wasobservedduringhandballclasses,where he showed behavior that was noticeably different from that of his male peers. Whenever possible, he moved far awayfromhispeers.Duringwarm-up,heranwithstrong contractedmovementsandheshowedagreatconcernforhis ownclothes.Duringclass,helookeduncomfortableinhis PEuniform,oftenpullinghispantsupandhisshirtdown inordertomakehimselfmorecomfortable.Frequently,he puthisfingersinhismouth,andgnawedhisfingernailsasif anxious.Heglanceddistrustfullyaroundtoassurehimself that nobody was observing him. He gave the impression thathewasworriedabouttheobservers’presenceduring thefirstfewdays,althoughheforgotaboutuslateron.The lastdayofobservation,heapproachedustoaskaboutthe time.Whenhehadtoparticipateinthecollectivegame,he avoidedtouchingtheball.Inshort,hedidnotrelaxinclass, andhisdiscomfortwasevidentwhenhehadtoparticipate inPEclasses.
heis“odd”sincehedoesnotpresentthesameenergythat theothersboysdoinclass,andaccordingtohispeers,“he resemblesagirl.”
Student 7 was the only girl included in this study. She was very extrovert and self-confident in her social interaction as well as in her body skill coordination. She wasverycommunicativeandwillingtoparticipateinany activity,howeverherpeersandtheteachercomplainedthat shewasquitebrusqueandhadarudewayofparticipating intheactivities.Shedifferedfromothersinclassbecause ofhertomboyishgesturesandthebodylanguagesheused duringthephysicalactivitiesinclass.Shelovedballgames as well as intense exercises, and her preferred sport was soccer.Shedemonstratedgoodrelationshipswithhermale peersinclassandwastreatedexactlylikeoneofthem.As aconsequenceofherphysicalskillincollectivesports,she hadahighstatusamongtheboysandwasverywelcomeby theminthegroup.
Student 8 was observed during the week of school championships during which he did not take part in the competitions.Whilehispeersparticipatedonthemaincourt representingtheirclass,hestayedonanunusedcourtplaying volleyball with the girls. He was very extrovert in social interactions, but when he moved he attracted everyone’s attention because of his feminine walk and gestures. Although his peers teased him, he looked quite authentic inhisbehavior,anddemonstratedastrongself-confidence. Hehadgoodrelationshipswiththegirls,whowerehisbest friends.Throughouttheobservationperiodhenevergotvery closetohismaleclassmates.Heseemedtopreferbeingwith girlsratherthanwithanotherboy,whowasalsoobservedas genderdivergent.
Student 9 was also observed during the school championshipswhereheseemedquiteshy.Hedidnotmix wellwithhismalepeers.Insteadoftakingpartintheofficial games,hepreferredtoplayvolleyballwiththegirls.Insome games,theteacheraskedhimtoparticipateontheofficial volleyballteam.Itwasnoticedthat,althoughhemadean efforttodowellinthevolleyballgame,hewasverytense whenobservedbytheothers.HedidnotseemateaseinPE class.Intheinterviewhewasquiteshy.Nevertheless,the interviewernoticedthathehadgoodverbalfluencyandgot alongverywellwiththeinterviewer.
Student10wasalsoinstudent9’sclass.Hewasobserved intheschoolchampionshipgames,specificallyinvolleyball. Hisgesturesinthegamewerealittleaccentuatedrelative to his peers, with body movements unnecessary for the activity.Heinteractedverywellwiththegroup.Inspiteof his feminine corporal expression and voice, his behavior seemed quite close to the average for boys. He also had morecontroloverhisbodymovements,asifdeliberately controlling his movements when he ran or crouched to receivethevolleyball.Healwaystalkedtohisclassmates duringthegames,correctingthemormakingobservations ontheiraccomplishments,andhealsotookpartinallthe sportingactivities.Theresearchersgottheimpressionthat this student constantly needed to make other members of the group aware of his presence, perhaps as a strategy to controltheirperceptionofhislackofskills.Bycallingforthe group’sattentionwithhiscorrectionsandhiscontributions
asaleader,perhapshewastryingtohidehissocialidentity as“different”.
Wesummarizethepropertiesofthe10studentsobserved inPEclassesbythreecriteriainTable1:Motorcoordination skills, androgynous behavior, and social preference for sameorothersexcompany.Students2and4havemotor coordination trouble, but do not have any androgynous behavioranddonotpreferthecompanyoftheothersex.It seemsreasonabletoassumethattheywereoriginallyselected becauseofatypicalmotorcoordination,whichgavethem gesturesthatwere“lessmasculine”.Students1,7,8,and 9 showed clear preference for associating with members oftheothersexandhavedistinctandrogynousbehaviors. Thatis,theyarefarbettersocializedwithmembersofthe othersex.Theremainingstudents,3,5,6,and10havesome androgynous behavior, but still prefer to associate with membersoftheirownsex.
Differencesbetweengenderdivergentchildrenand theirpeers
Tounderstandthestudents’preferencesandtheirown understandingoftheirrelationshiptoothers,wesummarized the data from the confidential and personal interviews in TablesII-V.Students1through10aretheperceivedgender divergentstudentsdescribedabove.Studentsthrough11–20 arethenon-genderdivergentstudents.Notethatstudent7is theonlyfemaleinthestudy.
Table2summarizesthestudents’responsestoquestions 1-5 from the methodology section. To the question, “do youknowwhathumansexualityis?”,fourofthesupposed genderdivergentstudentssaidtheyknew,fivestillneededto learnmoreaboutit,onesaidthatheknewverylittle,close to nothing. Among the controls, six said that they knew somethingaboutit,twoknewjustalittle,andthelasttwo knewnothingaboutit.
AsseeninTable2,sixofthegenderdivergentstudents, butnoneofthecontrolstudents,dislikedtheirpeersinthePE class.Thus,comparedtothecontrols,thegenderdivergent students were more dissatisfied. Among the indicated studentsinTable3,fivehadbestfriendsoftheothersex,and fourhadapersonofthesamesexasbestfriend.However, Table1.Observedcharacteristicsofgender-divergentchildren.
Student
1.Motor coordination
trouble
2.Androgynous bodymovements
3.Seeksother-sex company.
1 No Yes Yes
2 Yes No No
3 No Yes No
4 Yes No No
5 No Yes No
6 No Yes No
7 No Yes Yes
8 No Yes Yes
9 No Yes Yes
onedidnothaveanyfriendsatall.Amongcontrolstudents, threeansweredthattheyhadapersonoftheothersexasa bestfriend,andsevenansweredthattheyhadapersonofthe samesexastheirbestfriend.
Itwasnoticedthroughouttheinterviews,thattheindicated students who preferred another sex peer as best friend commonlyjustifiedtheirchoice.Generally,theyperceived thegirlsasmoreunderstanding,calmer,andfriendlierthan theboys.Theseviewswereofferedspontaneously,sincewe didnotaskthemforanyexplanationfortheirpreference. The control students did not offer similar justifications; theysimplyansweredthatagirlwastheirbestfriend.Itis important to point out that the indicated students did not identifythemselveswiththefemaleidentity,butrathersimply preferredacalmersocialtiethantheymightfindwiththeir malepeers.
Finally,Table2showsthatthegenderdivergentstudents were more prone than the control students to choose swimmingastheirfavoritesport.
Table2.IndividualStudents’ResponsestotheQuestions:1.Doyoulikeyourclassgroup?2.Whoisyourbestmate?Isamaleorafemaleyourbestclassmate? 3.Whatdoyouliketoplay?4.Whichsportsdoyoulikethemost?5.Withwhomdoyoupreferplaying,boysorgirls?
Student 1.Likeclass 2.Bestfriend 3.Preferredplay 4.Preferredsport 5.Playwith
1 No Female Volleyball,hide-and-seek Volleyball Girls
2 Yes Male Biking,videogame. Volleyball,basketball Girls
3 No Male Videogame,hide-and-seek Volleyball,basketball,swimming Both
4 No Nofriends Tennis,chess,guessinggames Tennis,carrace Girls
5 Yes Male Volleyball,puzzle Swimming,volleyball Girls
6 Yes Female Hide-and-seek,tag,school Swimming,jogging Both
7 Yes Male Soccer,volleyball,hideandseek Basketball,volleyball,soccer Both
8 No Female Skating,dancing Skating,playingactor Girls
9 No Female Volleyball,hand-ball Swimming Girls
10 No Male Volleyball,soccer Karate,basketball Boys
11 Yes Female Videogame,soccer Skateboarding,soccer Boys
12 Yes Female Hide-and-seek,soccer Soccer,volleyball Boys
13 Yes Male Videogame,soccer Soccer,volleyball,basketball Boys
14 Yes Male Biking Biking,basketball Boys
15 Yes Male Volleyball,basketball Swimming,basketball,volleyball Boys
16 Yes Female Videogame,cards Soccer,handball Both
17 Yes Male Volleyball,soccer Soccer Boys
18 Yes Male Volleyball,soccer Soccer,volleyball Boys
19 Yes Male Volleyball Soccer,volleyball,handball Boys
20 Yes Male Biking,videogame Volleyball,biking,diving Boys
Tables4and5belowexpandtheresultsfromcolumns3. Preferredactivitiestoplayand4.PreferredsportsinTable 2.Duetothesmallsamplesize,wemustbecarefulwhen interpretingdifferencesinpreferenceforoneactivityorthe other.Wedo,however,observeaninterestingpatternwhen weidentifyeachactivitybytype.
Collaborative(C)activitiesaretypicallyteamsportsthat requirecollaborativeinteractionwithothersandwherethe teamdependsontheeffortsoftheindividual.Inthissituation the good performance of the group depends directly on individual accomplishment of determined physical action orstrategy.
In interactive (I) activities individuals socialize with others,who,however,donotdependonothers’efforts(e.g., peoplecandancewithothers,irrespectiveoftheirdancing capabilities).Interactivesportsaregroupactivitiesinwhich individualstakepartbutthereisnopersonalresponsibility forthegroupoutcome.Inthissituationthereismorefreedom andlesscommitmentoftheindividualtothegroupresult.
Solitary (S) activities are activities that are typically donealone.Insolitaryactivitiestheindividualdoesnotneed anybodyelsetoparticipate.Thesecouldbeavocationssuch asreadingorrunning.
Table4expandsonthedatafromcolumn3inTable2 “preferredactivitiestoplay”.Thegenderdivergentstudents preferred playing activities without group pressure, and theymentionedfrequently“moreorless”toexpresstheir preferences.Somementionedoneactivity,mostmentioned two,andsomementionedthree.Weaddedthecontribution Table 3.Sex of Closest Friends of the Participants. Summary of Data
FromTable1.
Sexofclosestfriends Genderdivergentstudents Randomlyselectedstudents
Oppositesex 60%
Both 30% 10%
todifferentactivitiesfromeachstudentbyscoring10%for agiveninterest,ifitisthestudentsonlyinterest,5%ifitis oneoftwointerests,3.3%ifitisoneofthree,and0%ifthe studentisnotinterested.Thenumbersdonotsumto100% duetoroundingoff.
Thetypesofactivityarearbitrarydivisionsofacontinuum, andwecannotidentifyanindividualstudent’sapproachtoa givenactivity.Itistechnicallypossibletobeinactive“playing soccer”,butthiswouldmakethepersonaliabilitytotheteam. Itispossibletoplayvideogamesinaveryinteractiveand socialsetting,butitisbasicallyaone-person-one-machine activity.Webelievethatourclassificationsoftheactivities arefaithfultothestudents’intentions,butweareawareof possibleindividualdifferences.
The divergent students participated more rarely in collaborativeactivitiesthandidtheirpeers.Notethatthey arenot“anti-social”anddonotemphasizesolitaryactivities, buttheyaremorepronetobeinteractivethancollaborative. That is, they do participate in social activities, but chose predominantly those where individual failure does not compromise the group. These are also less “aggressive” activitiesthatinvolvelessbodycontactandarelesscomplex. Unfortunately,ourdatacannotclarifywhetherthedivergent students shy away from aggressive activities because of possiblestigmatizationbecausetheycompromisethegroup, orbecausetheyareafraidofbodycontactwiththeirpeers,or becausetheyreallydislikehighcomplexityactivitieswhere youhavesimultaneouslytorun,jump,kick,andsoon.In anycase,thedataillustratesmajordifferencesbetweenthe groupswithrespecttopreferencesforphysicalactivity.
Table 3 summarizes the sex of the students’ closest friendsoftheparticipants,andshowsagainthatthedivergent studentsacknowledgeacloserrelationshiptotheothersex
thandotheirpeers.ComparethistoTable1,wherefourofthe indicatedstudentswereobservedtoassociatepreferablywith membersoftheothergender.Noneofthecontrolsshowed thisbehavior,whichsuggeststhatthedivergentstudentsin actionaswellasbytheirownstatementsaremuchcloserto membersoftheothersexthantheirsamesexpeers.
Itisimportanttonotethatthestudentsindicatedasgender divergentbytheteachersdiffermarkedlyfromtheirpeersin severalways.Someofthedifferencesareobservable;others areexpressedbytheindividualsthemselves.Thedifferences includemotorcoordination,socialinteraction,andpersonal preferences.Itisequallyimportanttoemphasizethatthese studentsdonot“suffer”fromatreatableconditionandthat theteacher’soriginalassessmentofgenderdivergenceisfar frominfallible.
Two of the divergent students (2 and 4) have motor coordinationproblemsthatborderonaslightdisability,but donotshowanyandrogynousbehaviorandonlyoneofthe studentshasapreferenceforfriendsoftheothersex.Except forapossibleprejudicecausedbytheirmotorcoordination problems,theyarehardlymore“effeminate”thantheirmale peers(exceptionforthegirl).Theyseemtobemarginalized due to their motor coordination rather than any kind of androgynous behavior. That is, a cursory review even by individualswhoknowthestudentswellmayidentifythem as“different”butnotnecessarilydistinguishbetweengender divergenceandmotorcoordinationproblems.
Teachers’viewofgenderidentityandroles
The interview with PE teachers began with personal andprofessionalquestions.Translatedquotesareplacedin quotationmarks.Inordertomaintaintheirconfidentiality, Table4.ExpandingtheDatafromTable2,Column3.Preferredplay,data
fromTable2.
Playactivity Type Genderdivergentstudents Randomlystudents
Basketball C 5%
Biking S 5% 15%
Boardgames I 12% 5%
Dancing I 5%
Handball C 5%
Hide-and-seek I 17% 5%
School I 3%
Skating S 5%
Soccer C 8% 25%
Tag I 3%
Tennis I 3%
Videogames S 10% 20%
Volleyball C 23% 25%
Totalcollaborative C 36% 55%
Totalinteractive I 43% 10%
Totalsolitary S 20% 35%
Table5.ExpandingtheDatafromTable2,Column4.Preferredsport,similar toTable3.TheNumbersdonotaddupto100%DuetoRoundingOff.
Preferredsport Type Genderdivergentstudents Randomlystudents
Acting C 5%
Basketball C 17% 12%
Biking S 8%
CarRacing I 5%
Diving S 3%
Handball C 8%
Jogging S 5%
Karate I 5%
Skating S 5% 5%
Soccer C 3% 37%
Swimming S 23% 3%
Tennis I 5%
Volleyball C 27% 23%
Totalcollaborative C 52% 80%
Totalinteractive I 15% 0%
weinterviewedtheteachersoutsideoftheirworkplaceand identifythembynumbers1through6.
We asked the teachers about their past professional experience with presumed gender divergent students and howtheytreattheminclass.Teacher1,whoatthetimeof thestudyhadothergenderdivergentstudents,said,“Itry togivethemmoralsupportandsocializethem”.Teacher3, whoalsohadpreviousexperience,said“Itrytobeopen,I trytobreakthebarriers,andIrequestsomerespectfrom the group”. Teacher 5 managed situations by “giving the sameattentionIgivetheothers;Idon’tallowthegroupto teasehim/her,andItrytosocializethem”.Teacher6,who hadonepreviousexperience,said,“itwasdifficulttoteach PEclasswiththiskindoftrouble;girlsdidn’taccepthim in class, but the student didn’t want to take classes with boys.Heusedtobeagoodstudent,andItriedtodoallI couldduringtheclasses,asyouknowfeelingsspokelouder insidemeandIfollowedthem,sinceprofessionallyIwas notpreparedforit”.
Wealsoaskedhowtheydefinethisdifferent“behavior” amongtheindicatedstudents.Allsaidsomethinglike“the differenceliesintheirwayofspeaking,walking,anddressing, andinhavingonlyonefriendwithwhomtheyplaymostof thetime,seekingisolationfromotherpeers,andsomekind ofprotectionfromtheteachers”.Noneoftheinterviewees possessed any knowledge of this issue; they just noticed theconflictscausedbytheintoleranceinrelationtothese “different”students.
Weaskedfortheirviewsonhomosexualitytogaugetheir viewsongenderandsexualorientation.Teacher1said,“I thinkitisimproperbehavior,itisstrangetome.”Teacher2 said,“Ithinkitisakindofdisease,adeviation,something badlyresolved;itshouldbetreated.”Teacher3simplystated: “I suppose it must be related to a hormonal deficiency; I don’tbelievethatanyonecanchangehisorherpersonality somuchjustbychoice,Ibelievethisisbiological.”Teacher 4:“Ithinktheymustbebattlingtolearnhowtobeaman; ontheotherhand,Ibelieveitcouldbeafamilyproblem or a genetic influence. I am confused. It shocks me when I see it”. In summary, it appears that these teachers see homosexualityassomethingdeviantfromthenaturalorder. Teacher5said,“Ibelievethereisjusttoomuchfreedomin today’seducation,forinstance,thesecollectiveshowersor the grandparents’ bad influences. But I also believe they oughttoberespected;theyarepartofsociety”.Teacher6 said,“Ithinkitcouldbeeithertoomuchfreedomorsimply personalchoice;Idon’tknow,Ihaveverylittleknowledge aboutthesubject.Itisdifferentwhentheyperformitasaform ofartlikedrag-queens,inaprofessionalway”.Teachers5 and6demonstratealittlemorewillingnesstounderstandand acceptsexualdifferences.Weaskedtheteachershowthey treatboysandgirlsinclass,particularlywhethertheytreat themdifferently.Fiveofthemaffirmedthattheytreatboys andgirlsdifferentlyandaremoreseverewithboys.Theysaid theyweretryingtofulfilltheboys’needs,asboysdemand moreeffortinclass.Theyclaimedthatthemalestudentslike thepressureofmorerigidtreatment.
The treatment of the girls is illustrated by this view: “forgirlsthetreatmentisslack;Iconcentratemoreonthe tenderaspects;thegirlsaremoremalleable,morepolite”.
Insummary,theytrytoapplyamorefeminineanddelicate treatmenttogirlsbecauseaccordingtooneofthefemale teachers,thegirlswhoaretreatedlikeboysbecometomboys. Onlyoneoftheteacherstriedtoofferthesametreatmentto bothgendersinclasses.
We asked for their views on gender and body motor performance orientation – that is what are the differences betweenboysandgirls?Theyagreedthatboysaremoreagile, more dynamic, more physically skilled and stronger. They maintainedthatboysmoreeasilyexecutecomplexmovements, havegreaterspaceperception,andgreaterabilitytoassimilate information.Accordingtotheteachers,girlsareslower,less coordinated,moredelicateandweaker.Oneoftheteachers didadmitthatthereispossiblynodifferencebetweenthetwo genders:“Ithinktheycaninsomewaybesimilaroreventhe otherwayaround;itdependsonwhatyouwanttocompare andwhenyoucompare”.Whenweaskedtheteacherswhat theythoughtthereasonscouldbeforthedifferencesmentioned above,theyallemphasizedhowchildrenareeducated:“Boys havemorefreedom,girlsusuallystayinsidethehouse”.But inrelationtotheirownnatures,theyrespondedbysaying“... boysarephysicallystronger.”
Weaskedfortheirpreferenceforteachingmaleorfemale PEclasses,andallthreefemaleintervieweespreferredtogive classestofemalestudents.Ofthethreemaleinterviewees, onepreferredtogiveclassestoboys,onehadnopreference, andonepreferredgirls.
The teachers saw gender differences as a major issue incoeducationalphysicaleducationclasses.Teachers4,5, and6pointedoutmanydifferencesbetweenboysandgirls thatrelatedtobodycoordinationabilities.Theyalsoagreed thattheboysstoodoutrelativetothegirlsinactivitiesthat demandmorestrengthandagilitysincetheyarestrongerand havemorewilltolearn;whereasthegirlsareslower,more frail,andunwillingtopracticephysicalactivities.Duetothis perceptionwecanunderstandwhytheyidentifiedstudents2 and4asgenderdivergent.
The main difficulty encountered when working with gender divergent students, according to the teachers, was what to do regarding the difficulty the students had in interactingwiththeirpeersandtheirvisiblepreferencefor activitiesoftheothersex.
Discussion
Someofthedesignatedstudentshaddistinctqualities, thatis,theyexpressedapreferenceforassociationwiththe othersexandadislikeofactivitiesoftheirownsexpeers. Theydisplayedsomeandrogynousbehaviorandparticipated in activities of the other sex that identify them as gender divergent.Thesedesignatedstudents,identifiedas1,3,5,6, 7,8,9,and10,showsomedivergencesfromtheirownsex, andatleastonecharacteristictypicaloftheothersex.Other students,identifiedas2and4,donotshowthesamegender divergence, but do have notable, unusual motor patterns. Thatis,theoriginaldesignatedgroupof10studentsincludes somewithgenderdivergentaspects,andsomewithslight motorhandicaps.
divergentboys;apreferenceforassociatingwithmembers oftheothersex,participatinginsportspopularwithother gender,etc.Thedataareinsufficienttoconcludethatgender divergentgirlshavethesamesocialcharacteristicsasgender divergent boys, but at least we have no indication to the contrary.Wenotethatthegirlinthisstudywasaccepted asanequalparticipantbyhermalepeers,andwasinmany respectslessmarginalizedthanmanyofthegenderdivergent boys.Thatgirlswithmasculineattributesmayenjoyhigher statusthanboyswithfeminineattributesmayhelpexplainthe findingsbyDonelsonandGullahorn(1977)andHemmerand Kleiber(1981)thattomboyism,althoughquitecommon,is lessrecognizedasabnormal.Therelativepaucityoftomboys inthisstudymaybeartifactoftheemicsamplingstrategy.
ThisstudysuggeststhatPEteachersconfuse“gender-divergence” with uncoordinated motor behaviors. This maybebecausePEclassesemphasizemotorabilitiesand coordinationandPEteachersmaypayparticularattention tothesecharacteristicsandusethem(wrongly)asacriterion forgenderdivergence.Inourinterviewswiththeteachers, weaskedhowtheyrecognizedgender-divergentstudentsand allsaidsomethinglike“thedifferenceliesintheirwayof speaking,walkinganddressing,...”.Physicalappearanceand motorbehaviorplayanimportantroleforthePEteacher’s classificationofstudents.
Although motor behaviors may not be the best way to identify gender-divergent children, there are gender differencesinmotorbehaviors.ThomasandFrench(1985) documentedgenderdifferencespriortopubertyin15of20 physicaltasks.Themaindifferenceappearstobethatboys becomeinvolvedinmorecompetitivegamesthangirlsand generally participate in games that last longer. There are known differences between genders in this age group in terms of motor patterns and individuals that manifest the motorpatternoftheothergendermaybeperceivedasgender divergent. In this study the gender-divergent children did manifestmoreandrogynousmotorbehaviors,buttheirmotor coordinationwassimilartootherchildren,suggestingthat PEteachersconfuseandrogynousmotorbehaviorwithlack ofcoordination.
Although gender stereotyping is well documented in schoolsandmalechildrenwithconflictivesexualidentity have been thoroughly studied during the past decade, there is not much discussion about their implications for theeducationalprocessinourtraditionalschools.Inorder to include these “excluded” children in PE classes (and perhaps in other school activities as well), we need more studiesclarifyingthedifferencesinordertosuggestalternate physicalactivitiesforPEclassesinwhichtheseexcluded children might be better able to participate. This requires studiesofalternativephysicalactivitiesthatcontemplateand valuedifferencesamongchildrenmotororientation.Cardoso (1994b, 2002, 2005) suggested that we should consider “motororientation”asagoodconcepttoanalyzedifferent motor abilities across sex, gender and sexual orientation. Boththosestudentswholackphysicalcoordinationandthose whoshowmoreandrogynousmotorbehaviorsneedmore opportunitiesinclasstoshowtheirmotorabilitiesthatcould bemoreorientatedtodance,skating,gymnastics,etc.
References
Bates,J.,Bentler,P.&Thompson,S.(1979).Genderdeviantboys compared with normal and clinical control boys.Journal of AbnormalChildPsychology,7,243-259.
Blanchard,R.,Dickey,R.&Jones,C.(1995).Comparisonofheight andweightinhomosexualversusnon-homosexualmalegender dysphorics.ArchivesofSexualBehavior,24,543-554. Cardoso,F.L.(1994a).Ogêneroeomovimentohumano.Revista
BrasileiradeCiênciasdoEsporte,15,265-268.
Cardoso, F. L. (1994b). Orientação sexual masculina em uma comunidadepesqueira.DissertaçãodeMestrado,Universidade deSantaCatarina,Florianópolis.
Cardoso,F.L.(2002).“Fishermen”–Masculinityandsexualityina Brazilianfishingcommunity.SexualityandCulture,6,45-72. Cardoso,F.L.(2005).Culturaluniversalsanddifferencesinmale
homosexuality:ThecaseofaBrazilianfishingvillage.Archives ofSexualBehavior,34(1),105-111.
Davenport, C. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys.
ArchivesofSexualBehavior,15,511-517.
Donelson,E.&Gullahorn,J.(1977).Women–Apsychological perspective.NewYork:Willey.
Duda,J.&Alison,M.(1990).Cross-culturalanalysisinexercise andsportpsychology.JournalofSportandExercisePsychology, 12,114-131.
Frasher, R. & Walker, A. (1972). Sex roles in early reading textbooks.Teacher,25,741-749.
Green,R.(1974).Sexualidentityconflictinchildrenandadults. NewYork:BasicBooksandViking/Penguin;London:Gerald Duckworth.
Green,R.(1976).One-hundredtenfeminineandmasculineboys: Behavioralcontrastsanddemographicsimilarities.Archivesof SexualBehavior,5,425-446.
Green,R.(1987).Thesissyboysyndromeandthedevelopmentof homosexuality.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Green, R., Neuberg, D. & Finch, S. (1983). Sex-typed motor behaviorsof“feminine”boys,conventionallymasculineboys, andconventionallyfemininegirls.SexRoles,9,571-579. Green, R., Williams, K. & Goodman, M. (1985). Masculine or
feminine gender identity in boys: developmental differences betweentwodiversefamilygroups.SexRoles,12,1155-1162. Grellert,E.,Newcomb,M.&BentlerP.(1982).Childhoodplay
activities of boys and girl’s homosexual and heterosexuals.
ArchivesofSexualBehavior,11,451-478.
Harris,M.(1968).Anaturezadascoisasculturais.RiodeJaneiro: CivilizaçãoBrasileira.
Hemmer,J.&Kleiber,D.(1981).Tomboysandsissies:Androgynous children?SexRoles,7,1205-1212.
Hockenberry,L.&Billingham,E.(1987).Sexualorientationand boyhood gender conformity: development of the boyhood genderconformityscale(BGCS).Archivesofsexualbehavior, 16,475-487.
Jackson,P.(1968).Lifeinclassrooms.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart &Winston.
Levy,B.&Stacey,J.(1973).Sexismintheelementaryschool:a backwardandforwardlook.PhiDeltaKappan,55,105-109. Lynch, J. (1975). Equal opportunity or lip service? Sex-role
Reha,R.&Nappi,A.(1975).Areyoursexstereotypesshowing?
ElementarySchoolJournal,76,70-74.
Romero, E. (1994). A Educação Física a serviço da ideologia sexista.RevistadoColégioBrasileirodeCiênciasdoEsporte, 15,226-234.
Saario,T.,Jacklin,C.&Tittle,C.(1973)Sex-rolestereotypinginthe publicschools.HarvardEducationalReview,43,386-415. Thomas,J.&French,K.(1985).Genderdifferencesacrossagein
motor performance: a meta-analysis.Physiological Bulletin, 98,260-282.
Wakefield, J., Sasek, J., Friedman, A. & Bowden, J. (1976). Androgyny and other measures of masculinity-femininity.
JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,44,766-770. Whitam, F. (1983). Culturally invariable properties of male
homosexuality: tentative conclusions from cross-cultural research.Archivesofsexualbehavior,12,207-226.
Whitam,F.(1991).Childhoodcross-genderbehaviorofhomosexual femalesinBrazil,Peru,thePhilippines,andtheUnitedStates.
Archivesofsexualbehavior,20,151-170.
Whitam, F. & Mathy, R. (1986).Male homosexuality in fours
Societies:Brazil,Guatemala,thePhilippines,andtheUnited States.NewYork:Plaeger.
Zucker,K.(1990).Genderidentitydisordersinchildren:clinical descriptionsandnaturalhistory.EmR.Blanchard&B.Steiner (Orgs.),Clinicalmanagementofgenderidentitydisordersin childrenandadults(p.1-23).Washington:AmericanPsychiatric Press.
Zucker, K. & Bailey, M. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior andsexualorientation:aconceptualanalysisandquantitative review.DevelopmentalPsychology,31,43-55.
Recebidoem01.02.2005 Primeiradecisãoeditorialem04.08.2005 Versãofinalem11.11.2005