WAG IGC requiring female campers to wear shorts or leggings

[profmom]

So how do adults better protect children from the people who create and supply the market for these pictures? Or are we already doing everything that we can?

(I don't consider myself a helicopter parent, but I will confess to poring over the daily galleries when my son is at IGC. I may or may not have even purchased one or two here and there that I really liked . . .)

 

[bogwoppit]

I know federations can ban convicted pedophiles from attending meets. So that needs addressing on the local level. Probably also reporting to the police.

I also think that the internet has become the wild west for so many things, we need to create laws to protect better. I also know that some countries work harder to manage sport photography, including parents in the stands, in order to protect.

But definitely we can do better.

 

[gymmomx2]

So hear me out, just thinking out loud.

How is making shorts an official part of the gymnastics uniform any different than making helmets mandatory for skiing? Many years ago, kids didn't wear helmets on the hill. Now they have to, for safety reasons. My local ski hill won't allow children to ski without helmets. Adults can do whatever they want but for kids the choice is not given. My kids don't even question it because they have never known any different. Children aren't empowered to make THAT decision, it's already been made for them.

Perhaps comparing shorts to helmets is apples to oranges. Or perhaps not. Both arguably relate to safety albeit a different kind. Adults make decisions every day for children to protect them. I don't trust my child to always make the best choices, KWIM? I talk to them and guide them but if at the end of the day they decide they don't want to wear helmets, I'm going to mandate helmets anyway. If, as someone said earlier in this thread "The world is a dangerous place, and sadly it is especially dangerous for young women; we should not mince words when warning them of the dangers that exist in the world, the evil that lurks in the shadows", then why are we adults not making choices for them that might protect them instead of thrusting that choice onto them in the name of empowerment? My DD understands that sexual abuse is NEVER the victim's fault. But I think she also understands that there are things we can do to make it less easy for abusers to abuse. If making shorts mandatory prevents accidental exposure of private parts and makes the crotch region less conspicuous, why is it wrong for the adults (coaches/gyms/USAG) to make rules that protect the children?

 

[profmom]

In the US, some plea agreements and parole agreements do involve being placed on a sex offender registry and agreeing to stay away from places where children congregate, but this is difficult to enforce even before we get into the complexities of federalism.

One of the barriers quite honestly is that I think it's hard for parents to talk about it! Suzie Gym Mom does not want to think about whether or not that guy by himself may be on a sex offender registry when he hands her the $10 admission fee to enter the meet. There is still so much shame around sexuality in the US that I'd guess most gyms would be terrified to have a frank conversation about spotting and thwarting pedophiles, because to have such a conversation first requires acknowledging that they are there. We see the same phenomenon taken to the extreme with the Instagymmie parents, no?

 

[bogwoppit]

So hear me out, just thinking out loud.

How is making shorts an official part of the gymnastics uniform any different than making helmets mandatory for skiing? Many years ago, kids didn't wear helmets on the hill. Now they have to, for safety reasons. My local ski hill won't allow children to ski without helmets. Adults can do whatever they want but for kids the choice is not given. My kids don't even question it because they have never known any different. Children aren't empowered to make THAT decision, it's already been made for them.

Perhaps comparing shorts to helmets is apples to oranges. Or perhaps not. Both arguably relate to safety albeit a different kind. Adults make decisions every day for children to protect them. I don't trust my child to always make the best choices, KWIM? I talk to them and guide them but if at the end of the day they decide they don't want to wear helmets, I'm going to mandate helmets anyway. If, as someone said earlier in this thread "The world is a dangerous place, and sadly it is especially dangerous for young women; we should not mince words when warning them of the dangers that exist in the world, the evil that lurks in the shadows", then why are we adults not making choices for them that might protect them instead of thrusting that choice onto them in the name of empowerment? My DD understands that sexual abuse is NEVER the victim's fault. But I think she also understands that there are things we can do to make it less easy for abusers to abuse. If making shorts mandatory prevents accidental exposure of private parts and makes the crotch region less conspicuous, why is it wrong for the adults (coaches/gyms/USAG) to make rules that protect the children?

Erm helmets are actually proven to protect from head injury. No such proof exists for shorts and abuse, because the last USAG abuser actually gave the girls shorts to wear whilst he abused them. Hundreds of girls were abused whilst wearing shorts.

 

[gymmomx2]

Erm helmets are actually proven to protect from head injury. No such proof exists for shorts and abuse, because the last JUSAG abuser actually gave the girls shorts to wear whilst he abused them. Hundreds of girls were abused whilst wearing shorts.

Bog, I'm talking about pictures of young gymnasts being sold/shared on the internet - child pornography. These also are also real.

 

[bogwoppit]

Bog, I'm talking about pictures of young gymnasts being sold/shared on the internet - child pornography. These also are also real.

I hear you, but do we really want to go down a road where we force more clothing on girls? Perhaps we need to deal with the pedos first.

 

[bogwoppit]

In the US, some plea agreements and parole agreements do involve being placed on a sex offender registry and agreeing to stay away from places where children congregate, but this is difficult to enforce even before we get into the complexities of federalism.

One of the barriers quite honestly is that I think it's hard for parents to talk about it! Suzie Gym Mom does not want to think about whether or not that guy by himself may be on a sex offender registry when he hands her the $10 admission fee to enter the meet. There is still so much shame around sexuality in the US that I'd guess most gyms would be terrified to have a frank conversation about spotting and thwarting pedophiles, because to have such a conversation first requires acknowledging that they are there. We see the same phenomenon taken to the extreme with the Instagymmie parents, no?

This is perhaps where change needs to happen. What can be done legally to protect children? IG and parents is a whole place that definitely needs some change.

 

[John]

When I think about this issue I think about two things.

1. How does the message that DD must wear more clothes change her life? How does it make her feel about herself, now and as she grows older? How does this affect her as she goes from child to young woman?
2. Mandating that DD wear more clothes really deter a pedophile from looking at her or protect her, or Fantasizing about her? No

For me, it does more harm to her and her life to take her empowerment, her freedom to be her, away.

@bogwoppit I think like you. They are butt cheeks. Everyone has them, be proud of your physical image and love yourself.

 

[Flippin'A]

This sport needs to give the gymnasts and their parents more of a voice. If you want your child to wear shorts while practicing or competing gymnastics, you should be able to do that regardless of what gym your child attends. If your gymnast feels hot or uncomfortable wearing leggings or a shirt in the case of boys, they should have the right to take them off. This photo issue is a serious one for sure, but asking the kids to fix the problem with what they wear isn't the answer because it puts the burden of stopping abuse on the one being abused (victim blaming.)

None of this makes IGC a bad camp, or any of you bad parents for sending your kids there. It's possible to have the best intentions and just not use the right methods to get there. I'm glad they're listening and softened the policy, but it does bother me that the phrasing in their statement clearly showed that they didn't understand why their decision was problematic, simply that some people were angry so they made some changes.

 

[profmom]

John, I would like your daughter to live in a world in which the aesthetic value of her athletic excellence need not depend upon her competition uniform's capacity to display her b̶e̶a̶u̶t̶i̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ subjection to the sexualized male gaze. For a choice to be real, it must be made available in meaningful ways that shift the structure of power. Complying with a norm that is modeled everywhere but particularly at the top points of a hierarchy is not a free choice. I've never been a fan of "feminism is all about letting me choose my choices." I am not saying we should force girls to wear shorts, but without sending the message that shorts are appropriate, comfortable, and aesthetically acceptable, we are not going to change a very messed up culture. And the culture needs to change. I thought that, whatever else our disagreements might be, that was a pretty clear consensus.

Flippin'A, I know that tone is difficult to capture over the internet, but I don't need your absolution to send my child to IGC, which he has experienced as a very positive, safe, fun, and empowering place. And as for giving parents a voice, I think it's ridiculous to paint IGC as the bad guy here, given that they put a policy out, got feedback, and changed within a week, unlike some other institutions of which your child might currently be a member.

 

[TumbleTimes4]

I’ve never seen a Camp that doesn’t offer photos online (and my girls have been to over a dozen different ones combined), but that’s almost besides the point here. IGC is trying to push the idea along that shorts are ok. I think it’s an idea that needs a good hard push even taking abuse and photos out of the conversation, because it should have been a competition option all along. That said, unless usag is going to ban every person at meets from ever taking a photo, IGC dropping the recommendation and the photo gallery is meaningless. I know that a dad at a local gym is a pedophile. He’s no longer on probation and does come to meets. His daughter is the same level as my daughter. What is to stop him from snapping pics of my daughter in her leo that inexplicably rides up in the front? She’s pulls it down dozens of times per meet, but I guarantee that irresponsible photos of her would still be easy to snap. USAG isn’t going to ban parents from photography anytime soon. I guess I just don’t think shorts will become a viable OPTION for girls until some coaches/teams/camps start really pushing it. Personally, I appreciate IGC and if we weren’t too poor for their camp, I would send my girl on principal to support them.

So hear me out, just thinking out loud.

How is making shorts an official part of the gymnastics uniform any different than making helmets mandatory for skiing? Many years ago, kids didn't wear helmets on the hill. Now they have to, for safety reasons. My local ski hill won't allow children to ski without helmets. Adults can do whatever they want but for kids the choice is not given. My kids don't even question it because they have never known any different. Children aren't empowered to make THAT decision, it's already been made for them.

Perhaps comparing shorts to helmets is apples to oranges. Or perhaps not. Both arguably relate to safety albeit a different kind. Adults make decisions every day for children to protect them. I don't trust my child to always make the best choices, KWIM? I talk to them and guide them but if at the end of the day they decide they don't want to wear helmets, I'm going to mandate helmets anyway. If, as someone said earlier in this thread "The world is a dangerous place, and sadly it is especially dangerous for young women; we should not mince words when warning them of the dangers that exist in the world, the evil that lurks in the shadows", then why are we adults not making choices for them that might protect them instead of thrusting that choice onto them in the name of empowerment? My DD understands that sexual abuse is NEVER the victim's fault. But I think she also understands that there are things we can do to make it less easy for abusers to abuse. If making shorts mandatory prevents accidental exposure of private parts and makes the crotch region less conspicuous, why is it wrong for the adults (coaches/gyms/USAG) to make rules that protect the children?

Thank you to both of you for such great statements. We can talk about empowerment all day long until we are red in the face, but there are some facts that will never change and we must accept that. There will always be pedophiles, no matter how empowered our girls are. And it’s up to us as parents to protect them to the best of our abilities. The dark world of the sexualization of little girl gymnasts will always exist because sick people will always exist. We have to accept that reality. And so if requiring shorts protects embarrassing crotch shots and helps to cut back on the number of images shared and number of girls exploited in the dark web, then yes absolutely require them. You can still teach young girls that what they wear does not put them at fault for sexual abuse but what they wear can offer them some protection from peodophiles with cameras. Let’s teach and live in reality.

And I can not understand going after an organization that is trying to make improvements and be proactive in protecting our girls and offering a solution to change that everyone has been screaming for. We whine about wanting shorts and the inappropriateness of college leos and then scream empowerment and roast an organization that is trying to change the culture that we want changed. You can’t have it both ways. Radical change is often brought about by radical methods, and that’s what we are talking about here. Let’s nit forget that many on this thread have said that IGC has made great policies to protect our athletes and that USGA continues to protect themselves and do nothing.

 

[sce]

Do you think they are reading this thread? Could the negative feedback they are talking about us?

It’s being talked about in a lot of places and many people have emailed them.

 

[Flippin'A]

Flippin'A, I know that tone is difficult to capture over the internet, but I don't need your absolution to send my child to IGC, which he has experienced as a very positive, safe, fun, and empowering place. And as for giving parents a voice, I think it's ridiculous to paint IGC as the bad guy here, given that they put a policy out, got feedback, and changed within a week, unlike some other institutions of which your child might currently be a member.

Truly not trying to be condescending or sound like I'm trying to give you permission or anything like that. I added that last bit in an effort to make it clear that I didn't see IGC as a "bad" organization and I absolutely see that they're trying to do the right thing. I was just sharing my thoughts about why I didn't think this was the way to approach it. I'm someone who experienced an abusive gym environment as a kid, and one of the most obvious results of that was that no one felt like they could speak up. You did what they told you to do, ate what they told you to eat, and wore what they told you to wear, and I don't want my daughter to go through that. I believe that she can still enjoy gymnastics without that side of things. That's the perspective I'm coming from. Maybe I'm completely off base, but when it comes to protecting my daughter in gymnastics my priority is always going to be giving her a voice.

 

[tpMom]

I've gone back and forth on this. It's maybe easier for me to be okay with a policy requiring shorts because two years ago, when my seven year old daughter came to me in tears because she didn't want to have to compete without her shorts on, I gave her what I thought to be the only two choices she had - either take off her shorts or don't compete. This was when I was a new gymnastics mom - I really didn't know very much about the sport. I had never heard of giants, or mobility scores, or closed door practices, or Larry Nassar. All I knew was that the uniform to compete as a gymnast was the team leo. I can tell you all that, with the benefit of this forum, 2 years of experience, and my own growth as a mom and a person, I feel a great deal of shame that I didn't try to fight for my daughter's right to cover her body if she wanted to. So, I obviously have a kid who is more comfortable in shorts or pants and it's easy for me to applaud any rule that allows her to wear them.

I think the overall goal should be to protect the athlete's bodily autonomy. Nassar didn't abuse gymnasts because he saw their upper thighs -- he abused athletes because he had the opportunity and ability and desire to take control of their bodies away from them. THAT'S what we need to be battling against. And we don't fight that by making rules about what the athletes are permitted to wear.

I also think @Geoffrey Taucer stated the other side of the debate very clearly and eloquently - the point is to allow gymnasts autonomy over their bodies, and requiring them to cover their legs is just as much of an example of controlling their bodies as requiring them not to. So I also agree with most of the people here arguing against the new recommendation; seriously, I'd love to get together with you all to discuss the dress codes in my children's middle school which make me see red every time I see a different rule for girls so that they aren't a "distraction."

However, something I keep getting stuck on is that we are talking about a uniform, which, basically by definition, is required clothing for a collection of people belonging to the same group. Every sport in which my children have ever participated has had a required uniform. For soccer it was a pair of super ugly and uncomfortable blue shorts and a team shirt (plus shin guards, soccer socks, and appropriate footwear), for basketball it was an equally hot and uncomfortable pair of black shorts and a team shirt (plus appropriate socks and footwear). I've heard of gymnastics teams which require the purchase of several leos each year. Team members are required to wear a special practice leo on Fridays, and another team leo during performances, and maybe even another leo for meets. This year for states, the state of NM provided leos to every athlete for the state competition and required every girl in every level at every session to wear these new leos (which seemed to fit poorly, pull in uncomfortable places, and literally caused my daughter's skin to bleed where a seam rubbed under her arm for the length of the session.) I know from reading posts on this forum that many gyms have a required hair style for gymnasts - and not just for meets but also for practices.

In each of these examples, the requirement of ANY uniform is, in some way, taking some bodily autonomy over the athletes. Let's be honest - how many of us have seen team girls try on their competition leos for the first time in the spring and then compare notes about whether it was more itchy and uncomfortable than the previous year? The difference between asking an athlete to wear a uniform that might feel too hot or too itchy and asking an athlete to wear a uniform that makes them feel too naked is real and it's significant.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I've gone back and forth on this. It's maybe easier for me to be okay with a policy requiring shorts because two years ago, when my seven year old daughter came to me in tears because she didn't want to have to compete without her shorts on, I gave her what I thought to be the only two choices she had - either take off her shorts or don't compete. This was when I was a new gymnastics mom - I really didn't know very much about the sport. I had never heard of giants, or mobility scores, or closed door practices, or Larry Nassar. All I knew was that the uniform to compete as a gymnast was the team leo. I can tell you all that, with the benefit of this forum, 2 years of experience, and my own growth as a mom and a person, I feel a great deal of shame that I didn't try to fight for my daughter's right to cover her body if she wanted to. So, I obviously have a kid who is more comfortable in shorts or pants and it's easy for me to applaud any rule that allows her to wear them.


I also think @Geoffrey Taucer stated the other side of the debate very clearly and eloquently - the point is to allow gymnasts autonomy over their bodies, and requiring them to cover their legs is just as much of an example of controlling their bodies as requiring them not to. So I also agree with most of the people here arguing against the new recommendation; seriously, I'd love to get together with you all to discuss the dress codes in my children's middle school which make me see red every time I see a different rule for girls so that they aren't a "distraction."

However, something I keep getting stuck on is that we are talking about a uniform, which, basically by definition, is required clothing for a collection of people belonging to the same group. Every sport in which my children have ever participated has had a required uniform. For soccer it was a pair of super ugly and uncomfortable blue shorts and a team shirt (plus shin guards, soccer socks, and appropriate footwear), for basketball it was an equally hot and uncomfortable pair of black shorts and a team shirt (plus appropriate socks and footwear). I've heard of gymnastics teams which require the purchase of several leos each year. Team members are required to wear a special practice leo on Fridays, and another team leo during performances, and maybe even another leo for meets. This year for states, the state of NM provided leos to every athlete for the state competition and required every girl in every level at every session to wear these new leos (which seemed to fit poorly, pull in uncomfortable places, and literally caused my daughter's skin to bleed where a seam rubbed under her arm for the length of the session.) I know from reading posts on this forum that many gyms have a required hair style for gymnasts - and not just for meets but also for practices.

In each of these examples, the requirement of ANY uniform is, in some way, taking some bodily autonomy over the athletes. Let's be honest - how many of us have seen team girls try on their competition leos for the first time in the spring and then compare notes about whether it was more itchy and uncomfortable than the previous year? The difference between asking an athlete to wear a uniform that might feel too hot or too itchy and asking an athlete to wear a uniform that makes them feel too naked is real and it's significant.

So much this. My DDs have been forced to grow up faster in some ways due to the current requirements of this sport- I would never have considered the need to shave one’s privates as a requirement for a kids sport until we saw how little coverage some leos give. If my DD competes next year I already see a fight on my hands. The team leo was super expensive and took too long to arrive- and the coach overrode my DD and myself and ordered her a size smaller than we requested (because she’s “so thin” and she didn’t want it too big)- so it already doesn’t fit in the crotch. Come next year I will have to insist DD either compete with shorts, a totally different and cheaper leotard (she’ll be a senior and another $300+ leo isn’t happening), or she won’t compete at all. It drove me absolutely bonkers to see her pulling on her leo at the crotch during states. She pulled it down over 20 times. That cannot be the ideal circumstances to throw your everything into your routines.

 

[Sasha]

I have not read this entire thread, but sharing my thought process:

I asked myself, if pedophiles didn't exist in the world, and that had nothing to do with reasoning behind a new uniform change, would I support the decision to mandate shorts at a club or camp?

Honestly, yes. Over the years of hearing about the multitude of issues with the current standard, which is a leotard only as the competitive attire, I think moving to a new uniform standard with shorts (tight, like bar shorts) is the right call.

I see this as simply a design problem - what attire permits range of movement and ability for judges to view performance (e.g., straightness of arms and legs), while permitting the best comfort for the athlete?

Gymnasts are in so many positions, and bodies are all so different. Forget sexualization, forget pedophiles, not every gymnast wants to be worried about being exposed or uncomfortable.

While I wholeheartedly agree that framing this change in response to the sexualization issue is 100% wrong, I do think the outcome of moving toward shorts as the standards is right for the sport. I understand others disagree. Thank you for respectful dialog.

 

[John]

John, I would like your daughter to live in a world in which the aesthetic value of her athletic excellence need not depend upon her competition uniform's capacity to display her b̶e̶a̶u̶t̶i̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ subjection to the sexualized male gaze. For a choice to be real, it must be made available in meaningful ways that shift the structure of power. Complying with a norm that is modeled everywhere but particularly at the top points of a hierarchy is not a free choice. I've never been a fan of "feminism is all about letting me choose my choices." I am not saying we should force girls to wear shorts, but without sending the message that shorts are appropriate, comfortable, and aesthetically acceptable, we are not going to change a very messed up culture. And the culture needs to change. I thought that, whatever else our disagreements might be, that was a pretty clear consensus.

Flippin'A, I know that tone is difficult to capture over the internet, but I don't need your absolution to send my child to IGC, which he has experienced as a very positive, safe, fun, and empowering place. And as for giving parents a voice, I think it's ridiculous to paint IGC as the bad guy here, given that they put a policy out, got feedback, and changed within a week, unlike some other institutions of which your child might currently be a member.

@profmom I'll start with a comment. Dani does not have long beautiful lines. Further long beautiful lines should not matter, skills should matter (an argument for another time).

To me, my opinion is shorts or no shorts is not much different than god or no god, Jesus or no Jesus, Jewish or Muslim. To me, this is all personal choice. Every female athlete should be able to choose shorts or no shorts, legging or no leggings, ponytail or bun, period. These are all personal choices. For the sake of argument if a gym has requirements of giants for level 7 then so be it because I have the right to move Dani to another gym. Currently, I believe an athlete could wear shorts to compete, she may have a fight on her hands but I believe it is legal. What needs to change is there should be no fighting over shorts and a female gymnast should have the choice.

Bottom line what I want to change is the personal choices, leave those to the individual athletes and their families to do what is best for them.

@profmom I believe we mostly agree.

 

[Gigi]

I read all the comments. Agree with points on both sides. Still don't see why there is an outrage of allowing shorts.

If you don't want your daughter to wear shorts, then don't. But why force the rest of the gymnasts not to? Some girls like to wear leotards, some girls don't like the exposure and they feel objectified. We are not all made of one mold. It is empowering to allow girls to wear as little as they want and not feel shame and it is empowering not to be required to expose more than they feel comfortable.

 

[duyetanh]

I read all the comments. Agree with points on both sides. Still don't see why there is an outrage of allowing shorts.

If you don't want your daughter to wear shorts, then don't. But why force the rest of the gymnasts not to? Some girls like to wear leotards, some girls don't like the exposure and they feel objectified. We are not all made of one mold. It is empowering to allow girls to wear as little as they want and not feel shame and it is empowering not to be required to expose more than they feel comfortable.

Agreed. As long as it isn’t a requirement, It is all good.