WAG IGC requiring female campers to wear shorts or leggings

[Texasmomof3]

I have nothing against altering uniforms to meet the needs of the sport. I have a huge issue with claiming shorts prevent abuse.

 

[3rd_time_around]

Would love to hear opinions on this -

If this hadn't been in relation to abuse and USAG made the adjustment out of the blue, say 5 years ago, for the comfort level of the gymnasts, coaches, and spectators combined, would anyone have batted an eye at the decision?I am sure some would have questioned why but the majority would have cheered it because deep down, we would prefer our little (and not so little) girls to have a little more coverage when performing their skills, especially with the way the leo cuts are going to high hips, narrow but coverage, etc.

No, I would not have cheered as it would ruin the look of the uniform (just being honest). I also think so many of the shorts the girls wear in the gym are so tight and small that it just looks like the leotard has a strange color section on it. There is a JO rule about the hip cut of the leotard, so that deters clubs from ordering the French cut anyway. (I wish the leo companies would stop offering the French or high cut.)

 

[raenndrops]

No, I would not have cheered as it would ruin the look of the uniform (just being honest). I also think so many of the shorts the girls wear in the gym are so tight and small that it just looks like the leotard has a strange color section on it. There is a JO rule about the hip cut of the leotard, so that deters clubs from ordering the French cut anyway. (I wish the leo companies would stop offering the French or high cut.)

Actually, there is also a rule about the hip cut in college...
Different girls are shaped differently... not all hips are cut the same. And a lot of girls wear shorts to practice that are smaller than their leotards (because they do stretch and you dont have to worry about girth).
If we are talking about shorts for competition, I think they should match the bottom of the leotard (I have seen this at YMCA Nationals in the past) and the coaches order the size that is appropriate for the girl... not what she has been wearing for the last 4 years because she can still get them on (Yes, YG, who is wearing an AM in leotards most of the time still wears CL, AXS, and AS shorts to practice... but her reason for the AM leo is girth and the AS shorts look perfectly fitted while the CL are a touch too small and show the leg seams of her leotard). When fitted properly, it is no different than the seams of undergarments under a leotard... and you dont have to worry about a gap of skin between the leg cut of the leotard and the WAISTBAND of the undergarment - which I have also seen in competition.

 

[Flippin'A]

Would love to hear opinions on this -

If this hadn't been in relation to abuse and USAG made the adjustment out of the blue, say 5 years ago, for the comfort level of the gymnasts, coaches, and spectators combined, would anyone have batted an eye at the decision?I am sure some would have questioned why but the majority would have cheered it because deep down, we would prefer our little (and not so little) girls to have a little more coverage when performing their skills, especially with the way the leo cuts are going to high hips, narrow but coverage, etc.

I wouldn't have cared. My objection never had anything to do with shorts vs no shorts, what I have an issue with is the implication that wearing shorts would help to stop abuse, and making kids wear shorts would help to change the culture.

 

[profmom]

I think we could do a better job culturally of discouraging the sexualization of prepubescent girls both as a general rule and within the sport. Is that a controversial statement to anyone? (I am just thinking now about the two years my daughter spent at old L5 doing her routine to what EVERYONE called "the stripper music.")

And let's be very clear here. I don't believe that anyone at IGC or in this thread has made the argument that wearing shorts stops physical sexual abuse or that girls who choose not to wear shorts should be blamed if they are victimized. Some have made the argument that wearing shorts may make it less likely that photographs of gymnasts will wind up being used by pedophiles for gratification.

Structural change only very rarely happens solely by individual choice. If girls are told, "oh, you and your parents can choose to have you compete in shorts, I guess. After all, it is allowed according to the rules, I suppose, if you have some reason for wanting to do that," we should not be surprised if that choice is not made.

One minor note of clarification: the justification for the high cut leos is often expressed as "it makes the girls look like they have long beautiful lines." In my opinion, that aesthetic preference at times skates very close to a desire to make the girls the objects of the sexualized male gaze and distracts from what we ought to care about among JO gymnasts: their facility in performing the skills correctly.

 

[tucktwisttumble]

I think we could do a better job culturally of discouraging the sexualization of [prepubescent girls]

I would change this to "I think we could do a better job culturally of discouraging the sexualization of bodies."

I say this because I think the Western world has over sexualized absolutely everything - and shamed individuals [girls & woman particularity] for it. Maybe I am not saying this clearly but let me use a couple of examples:

Europe (*See Note Below):

• Nudity is not taboo. It is not "weird" for children to see the naked bodies of their parents, or for kids to feel comfortable walking around naked in front of their parents.**
• Little boys AND little girls go topless at the beach, Nipples are nipples and there is no sensitivity about it
• Bras? Great - wear one if you want, or don't. No one would stop/stare/make a scene if you can see a womans nipple through her shirt
• Men of ALL AGES wear speedos - some cover next to nothing. Again - no one blinks.

In the Western world:

• From a very young age nudity is immediately a "taboo" topic. You show nobody nothing.
• You bring a young girl to a pool - and let her run topless - people will stare/question you/ you might even be asked to "appropriately dress your daughter"
• Bras? - slowly becoming more acceptable to choose not to wear one. But they are still very much the cultural norm
• Speedos? Unlikely. Men wear shorts to their knees.

**I would like to mention that these young children are still taught that their bodies belong to them. And no body is allowed to touch them (as you would teach your children) however, they are also taught that there is no need to be ashamed of your body. Everyone has "parts" and YES they can be used sexually, there are also OTHER PURPOSES to our bodies and these "parts", and nudity in and itself does not need to be unnecessarily sexualized.

I strongly believe it is a cultural difference in Canada/USA as opposed to our European counterparts - I disagree with the teachings of "naked bodies are for sex". I was very much raised with the European mentality regarding nudity, and I am extremely comfortable with my body. I am also extremely confident in my ability to say NO and my ability to protect myself should I feel I have been put in a compromising situation (and I have been.)

Now that I have competently derailed: I believe that it should be up to the athletes. Both shorts and no shorts should be acceptable. But 'forcing' an attire is also wrong (you can have 'options' within a uniform).

I don't think we as a society are capable of adapting a different mentality regarding nudity - however, I think it is important to note that this topic likely would not be as heavily debated in other countries - due to my arguments posted above. Predators will attack regardless of clothing. What these girls were wearing didn't stop Nassar - and unfortunately it will not stop the next monster. Teaching girls to protect themselves - to know their bodies - and to understand what is "appropriate" and 'inappropriate" will.

* I am very Italian. I also have close German friends who were raised [in Germany] similarly. So that is where I am speaking from. I know there are other European board members and please feel free to correct/agree/disagree on my generalizations (and yes I am aware they are broad generalizations)

 

[gymcoach34]

I'm pretty sure IGC required girls to wear T shirts in the pool when we attended YEARS ago. They told us it was to prevent bullying, or the boys looking at the girls. It was pretty horrifying attitude back then too.

 

[GymFan96]

Oh gosh where to even begin? Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya used to workout in leotards, plus they were all the rage in aerobics classes everywhere. Leotards have been around for DECADES! There’s nothing sexual or inappropriate about them.

Do y’all think shorts should also be required for swimming, skating, diving, ballet, cheer, etc that’s just ridiculous, get a grip!

I’m glad John isn’t putting this stupid rule at Flip Fest! And most kids I’ve seen there wore shorts anyway.

Fully agree females deserving the rights of males, but even males have mandatory attire for gymnastics. Tell me again why we can't mandate the same for girls?

We DO mandate certain attire for girls. For example they can’t compete in a two-piece.

Furthermore, the question of agency is more complicated with children. If a 20 year old wants to choose a sexualized self presentation, that is one thing, but it's a really different thing if that bleeds down to become in effect a requirement for a prepubescent girl. I do think there is some turf to stand on from which you can advocate for a wider range of acceptable competitive and workout attire that does not constitute body shaming.

Are you saying girls who like to practice in a standard gymnastics leotard without shirts or pants is a “sexualized” presentation of themselves??

And to keep photos of campers from winding up in the possession of pedophiles, I am all for it. I send my kid to IGC to go to camp, have some fun, and maybe learn a thing or two, not for him to become the unknowing star in some creep's fantasy life. (Yes, Virginia, the creepy galleries are not limited to girls.)

Do you make him wear a shirt to the beach?

Wow! I can't believe how many people are outraged by this. Really?? If you don't like their policies, don't send your gymnast to their camp. Someone needs to explain to me how covering up more of these young girls bodies is a bad thing.

I think banning the classic leotard that has been around for decades is sending the message that there is something wrong or dirty about it, and therefore with girls bodies as well. There’s nothing obscene about a bare leg.

 

[GymFan96]

Just because an image ends up on a “porn” site doesn’t make it porn! Also just because someone uses an image for their own gratification doesn’t make it porn. Please learn the definition of porn!

Also with phones these days, everyone is holding a camera 24/7. You have no idea if someone at the beach or pool is taking pics of your child in their swimsuit and posting or sharing them. That’s just the unfortunate reality of modern life.

But "The Nasser situation" included a LOT of Child Pornography Images in addition to the sexual assaults. In fact, he was sentenced to 60 years for the porn charges.

Marvin Sharpe was arrested for child pornography too. I’d consider that recent as well.

What Nassar and Sharp had was ACTUAL true porn involving nudity. How is that in any way related to a straddle jump pic in a leotard??? They would have still created and traded these images regardless of girls wearing shorts, or meet photography being banned.

Their announcement clearly stated they were doing it to accelerate the change sport wide, not necessarily specific to the photographs that are taken at their camps. Seriously, all you have to do is look at past covers of USAG magazines to see what we are talking about in terms of revealing photos. You know - the ones of gymnasts flying over the bar in straddle position or a needle kick on the beam. It doesn't actually have to be a "wardrobe slip" for it to be enticing to a predator.

 

[raenndrops]

Oh gosh where to even begin? Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya used to workout in leotards, plus they were all the rage in aerobics classes everywhere. Leotards have been around for DECADES! There’s nothing sexual or inappropriate about them.

Do y’all think shorts should also be required for swimming, skating, diving, ballet, cheer, etc that’s just ridiculous, get a grip!

I’m glad John isn’t putting this stupid rule at Flip Fest! And most kids I’ve seen there wore shorts anyway.



We DO mandate certain attire for girls. For example they can’t compete in a two-piece.



Are you saying girls who like to practice in a standard gymnastics leotard without shirts or pants is a “sexualized” presentation of themselves??



Do you make him wear a shirt to the beach?



I think banning the classic leotard that has been around for decades is sending the message that there is something wrong or dirty about it, and therefore with girls bodies as well. There’s nothing obscene about a bare leg.

1. NOBODY is saying there is anything inappropriate about leotards in and of themselves. YES, they have been around for decades... but the CUT of the leotard has changed. Aerobics leotards were often thong cut... BUT they wore tights under them.

2. Ballet wears tights under their leotards too, and they are not as high cut as gymnastics leotards. A lot of cheer teams have gone to boyshort style under their skirts... and some wear the shorts in competition too. There are a lot of competition swimmers that do swim in shorts (long ones even). I swim in swimshorts. YG wears boyshort bottoms swimming. OG wears them too when she can find them in her size.

3. IGC has already CHANGED the "stupid rule" as you describe it. It is NOT a requirement anymore.

4. Not the same and TECHNICALLY, guys compete in a 2 piece. Allowing girls to wear shorts if they choose is a positive step.

5. No one is saying that girls who like to practice in just a leotard is a "sexualized presentation of themselves" ... rather, what is being said is that they should have the option to wear shorts or leggings if they would like to be more covered up. We used to have a set of sisters on our team who did NOT ever wear tank leotards... always wore shorts or leggings over their leotard in practice ... and immediately put their warm up pants back on at meets after competing an event because their family believed in ALL MEMBERS being covered for modesty.

6. A lot of parents do have their sons wear shirts at the beach.

7. NOBODY is talking about BANNING the leotard! As I previously mentioned, the leotard has been around for decades, but the cut has definitely changed. You seem to think that because people think it is a good idea to allow girls to cover up that we are denying them something. (My Math Professor used to tell us that Just because "A" is a viable option, it does not mean that "B" can't also be possible.)

 

[ProvB]

Just because an image ends up on a “porn” site doesn’t make it porn! Also just because someone uses an image for their own gratification doesn’t make it porn. Please learn the definition of porn!

Also with phones these days, everyone is holding a camera 24/7. You have no idea if someone at the beach or pool is taking pics of your child in their swimsuit and posting or sharing them. That’s just the unfortunate reality of modern life.





What Nassar and Sharp had was ACTUAL true porn involving nudity. How is that in any way related to a straddle jump pic in a leotard??? They would have still created and traded these images regardless of girls wearing shorts, or meet photography being banned.

Until you experience the day when you find preteen girls gymnastics pictures amongst you husbands porn collection, and then you care more about the option to not have your child’s pictures online, or allow your child to wear shorts in competition. Unfortunately because of the definition of porn, even with context, there is nothing illegal about it. That doesn’t make it something I want to be a part of my child’s gymnastics career. If there is 5% of girls gym pictures ending up in the porn folders of old men’s computers, that is too many for me.

 

[RTT2]

Until you experience the day when you find preteen girls gymnastics pictures amongst you husbands porn collection, and then you care more about the option to not have your child’s pictures online, or allow your child to wear shorts in competition.

Yikes. If I ever discovered something like that the big problem I would have would not be my daughter's leotard.

 

[skschlag]

Do you make him wear a shirt to the beach?

.

Actually...yes, he does wear a shirt at the beach. In addition, he HAS to wear a shirt at gym as well. At his first gym, it was because boys without their shirts were "too distracting" to the girls. Now it is due to Safe Sport. And I am not upset about it, nor do I feel that it is victim shaming. It just is what it is. Does he like working out in a shirt....no. He would happily go shirtless at practice. But we chose this gym for its coaching, and therefore accept their rules.

 

[profmom]

Ah, GymFan, we can always count on you to throw gasoline on any fire around here.

I think it is a completely legitimate choice for 20 year olds of any gender or gender identity to portray themselves in a sexualized manner. I am fine with college athletes doing floor routines that are, quite frankly, sexy! And no one around here has ever said "ban leotards." I am not sure why you seem to be going the other direction -- that pressing for any kind of alternative or even discussing alternative team garb constitutes shaming. If you ever become a parent, you may understand better why we parents don't like the idea of photos of our children doing gymnastics skills winding up on some unknown man's hard drive for him to use for sexual gratification.

As I have said before, I am not a fan of the brand of faux feminism that is all about "we have to make it so that women can choose all of their choices" without any attention to the structural power dynamics and the pervasiveness of patriarchy in culture, law, and policy. Choosing all of our choices is what got us to, "oh, well, Geddert produces champions, and you need a tough coach to produce champions, and the parents can always walk away if they don't like it." The damaging sort of pornography is about power. It is about the power of men (or those standing in the position of men) to sexualize the subordination and disempowerment of women (or those standing in the position of women) and to render them objects of consumption, stripping away agency and autonomy so that they merely serve to gratify the male gaze. It is about making disempowerment and objectification sexy. If you don't get it, go do your own google searching and look for galleries with the obvious key words. There you will see the photos of little girls right next to photos of stuff that anyone would acknowledge is hard-core pornography. I guarantee you 100% that Sharp and Nassar had plenty of photos of gymnasts in straddle positions.

Why is is SUCH a huge problem to say that choosing all our choices should entail the creation of a meaningful option to choose not to self-present in a sexualized manner? Or that the sexualization of children for adult pleasure is a bad thing?

 

[GymFan96]

@profmom I admitted that some outfits are too sexualized and inappropriate. For example in the other thread, I called out the Nastia Cup plunging corset leo. I totally realize there’s a limit. If any underage girls are being made to wear leos cut like the college ones, I would agree that is wrong too. I just don’t see the problem with a normal, properly fitted Leo.

@raenndrops The cut has not changed, if anything it’s gotten more modest. Please recall how high-cut the USA’s team leos were in the 90s. Now has it changed since the days of Olga Korbut? Yes.

@ProvB Do you think a tiny pair of spandex shorts would really stop all the creepy predators from liking gymnastics? Please remember that high school volleyball is also very popular with these types.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I thought it was interesting- I had a conversation with my DDs head coach about wearing matching bar shorts for next season. My DDs leo rides up in the front and since it’ll be her last season, and likely a truncated one, we really can’t afford another brand new $300 leo. HC genuinely thinks that there is a 2.0 deduction per event for wearing shorts. She listened without anger when I told her I was sure that wasn’t so, and agreed to confirm for herself in the code, but she still doesn’t like the idea. It goes to show how much an uphill battle it will be to normalize shorts for those who want them.

 

[wandrewsjr]

I thought it was interesting- I had a conversation with my DDs head coach about wearing matching bar shorts for next season. My DDs leo rides up in the front and since it’ll be her last season, and likely a truncated one, we really can’t afford another brand new $300 leo. HC genuinely thinks that there is a 2.0 deduction per event for wearing shorts. She listened without anger when I told her I was sure that wasn’t so, and agreed to confirm for herself in the code, but she still doesn’t like the idea. It goes to show how much an uphill battle it will be to normalize shorts for those who want them.

If you want to show the coach, the info is in both Rules and Policies and the JO and Xcel Code. The attire descriptions are in the Athlete Membership section of R&P page 24-25. Attire descriptions and application of deduction instruction can be found in JO and Xcel code General Judge Info/Chief Judge Deductions (pg 14 electronic code for JO and pg 173 Xcel) It's 0.2 one time, on one event, after a warning. Two tenths total. Saw this taken a couple times this season, both Xcel, athlete and coach choosing to take deduction to wear shorts. I do think there will be a movement to allow more expanded uniform choices and it will come from Xcel. It's stated purpose is to offer flexibility to coaches and gymnasts, give a variety of gymnasts the opportunity for a rewarding gymnastics experience.

 

[MILgymFAM]

If you want to show the coach, the info is in both Rules and Policies and the JO and Xcel Code. The attire descriptions are in the Athlete Membership section of R&P page 24-25. Attire descriptions and application of deduction instruction can be found in JO and Xcel code General Judge Info/Chief Judge Deductions (pg 14 electronic code for JO and pg 173 Xcel) It's 0.2 one time, on one event, after a warning. Two tenths total. Saw this taken a couple times this season, both Xcel, athlete and coach choosing to take deduction to wear shorts. I do think there will be a movement to allow more expanded uniform choices and it will come from Xcel. It's stated purpose is to offer flexibility to coaches and gymnasts, give a variety of gymnasts the opportunity for a rewarding gymnastics experience.

Wow, so we were both wrong! There is a deduction to wear shorts?! I had been under the impression that as long as they were bar shorts and matched the leo, there was no deduction. Well that’s a huge barrier in and of itself. Not because 0.2 is a huge deduction, but because it says how usag feels about shorts and coaches will follow suit. I notice it says that unitards are allowed.. but shorts are not. How curious to me. It makes me feel even stronger in my belief that someone will have to force the issue.

 

[raenndrops]

If you want to show the coach, the info is in both Rules and Policies and the JO and Xcel Code. The attire descriptions are in the Athlete Membership section of R&P page 24-25. Attire descriptions and application of deduction instruction can be found in JO and Xcel code General Judge Info/Chief Judge Deductions (pg 14 electronic code for JO and pg 173 Xcel) It's 0.2 one time, on one event, after a warning. Two tenths total. Saw this taken a couple times this season, both Xcel, athlete and coach choosing to take deduction to wear shorts. I do think there will be a movement to allow more expanded uniform choices and it will come from Xcel. It's stated purpose is to offer flexibility to coaches and gymnasts, give a variety of gymnasts the opportunity for a rewarding gymnastics experience.

I didnt see no BAR shorts... only no BOXER shorts.

According to the R&P, the gymnast is obligated to:
"Present herself in the proper attire. A deduction for “inappropriate ” attire will be applied for any infraction.

a. No bare midriffs, backless leotards, leotards with "spaghetti" straps, T-shirts or Boxer shorts.

b. NO underwear (including sport bras) should be exposed.

c. The leg opening on competitive leotards must NOT be cut or rolled above the gymnast's hipbone.

d. Sleeveless leotards and unitards with long legs, as well as gymnastics footwear, are permitted for competition."

I also remember reading somewhere that the leg cut can be as low as a line around something (low enough to basically allow for a 1 inch inseam or maybe 1.25 inch inseam ... I want to say it had something to do with below the buttocks, but I cant remember).

 

[wandrewsjr]

I didnt see no BAR shorts... only no BOXER shorts.

According to the R&P, the gymnast is obligated to:
"Present herself in the proper attire. A deduction for “inappropriate ” attire will be applied for any infraction.

a. No bare midriffs, backless leotards, leotards with "spaghetti" straps, T-shirts or Boxer shorts.

b. NO underwear (including sport bras) should be exposed.

c. The leg opening on competitive leotards must NOT be cut or rolled above the gymnast's hipbone.

d. Sleeveless leotards and unitards with long legs, as well as gymnastics footwear, are permitted for competition."

I also remember reading somewhere that the leg cut can be as low as a line around something (low enough to basically allow for a 1 inch inseam or maybe 1.25 inch inseam ... I want to say it had something to do with below the buttocks, but I cant remember).

“Acceptable attire is one piece leotard w/w/out sleeves and no bare midriff—unitards with long legs, w/w/out sleeves are acceptable"
It's in both the Xcel(p.173) and JO(p.14) code. All shorts - bar, boxer, basketball, swim trunks...will incur the 0.2 one time deduction.