It’s not uncommon for captains and coaches to structure their sub-rotations based on gender to reduce the possibility of breaking the gender rule during a game. A typical example might be having one “male” beater rotation, one “female” beater rotation, two “male” quaffle rotations and two “female” quaffle rotations, with non-binary players being “slotted in” wherever there are gaps.
This should be done with extreme care since it’s a practice that unintentionally, but easily, can disadvantage or deny opportunities to marginalised players. Examples of questions captains and coaches using such practice should ask themselves:
- Is this structure forcing marginalised players to play specific positions? (e.g. beater and wing chaser)
- Could this rotation’s structure or name lead to one of our players being misgendered?
- Have these rotations been structured to give us the minimum required representation?
- Are non-binary players being “othered” by the structure of our sub rotations?
- Are non-binary players being split into AFAB and AMAB by the subrotations?
Alternatives to gender-based sub-rotations include rotations based on skillset, stamina, or random within position. In such cases it might be helpful to have someone in the sub box (a non-playing coach, friend of the team, etc) making sure a given substitution doesn't break gender.
Gender-based sub-rotations is seen at the highly competitive end of the sport, but is also seen in smaller clubs who struggle with balanced recruitment when it seems like using gendered positioning is the only way to play a valid roster.
In all situations, the intent of this section is to prompt club leadership to consider these questions (and others like them) and reflect on steps they need to take to mitigate the unintended consequences it can have. An example reflection can be found in this post from 2018, written by Sheffield Quidditch Club’s then-Coach.