Gender quotas have become a significant tool in the pursuit of gender equity in Australian society. From Labor caucuses and corporate board rooms to university panels and industry bodies, mandated quotas for women and gender minorities have become a norm in overcoming the structural inequities that have advantaged men for so long. Even the Liberal Party, the often-caricatured ‘bastion of meritocracy’, is currently embroiled in heated internal disagreement over its use.

While debate over the propriety of gender quotas will likely continue until the universal end of gender-based discrimination (some may call this, with a little jest, the ‘destruction of patriarchy’), is it true that quotas are actually effective in overcoming gender-based entry barriers? And more importantly: are they able to create meaningful change, or are they a band-aid solution to much deeper socio-cultural issues?

My study, which I encourage you to read in full here, analyses the growth of participation by women and gender minority athletes in the ANU’s inaugural Inward Bound (IB) orienteering ultramarathon event between 2014 to 2024. By observing changes in non-male participation over the decade, two significant surges in female and gender-diverse participation are observed: the first when an initial 18% team gender quota was introduced, and the second when this was strengthened to 50%. 

Anecdotes and archives demonstrate that a small number of women athletes were always committed to being involved in IB, regardless of what barriers they faced. What the data and history reveal, however, is that many more women have sought participation when the opportunity is presented to them. An opportunity that has been historically absent.

Numbers don’t lie

Participation figures prior to the introduction of the 2016 IB gender quota show women and gender diverse athletes made up around 15-20% of the total cohort. For most, this meant being one of four or five women in a team of 28 from their college. With teams being dominated by male athletes, stories of both overt and discreet gender-based discrimination were not uncommon. 

The introduction of the 18% gender quota in 2016 (stipulating 5 of 28 athletes from each college had to be female identifying) almost doubled female participation to 30% of the total cohort. The impact of a modest quota having such an outsized impact is striking. A number of factors likely contributed to this outcome, such as IB coaches being nudged to cater to female and gender diverse athletes by creating a more inclusive training environment, as well as a level of ‘critical mass’ in college squads having a draw-in effect on the friends of existing participants.

While women and gender diverse participation increased modestly over the following years, the quota’s strengthening to 50% in 2022 saw non-male participation rise to 47% from the previous race’s 36%. While the ambitious quota ultimately fell short of its objective, the result was a gender-inclusive IB the likes of which had never been seen in IB history. 2023 and 2024 saw 45% and 48% non-male participation respectively, reflecting a close (but ultimately imperfect) achievement of representational equity amongst IB’s participants.

Quotas impact beyond superficial representation

It is easy to view gender quotas as a cosmetic, intended to disguise ugly realities by changing the faces of those participating while leaving systematic prejudices untouched. The trope often refers to a tokenistic woman used for a company’s ‘PR’ image, while the white men in grey suites make the real decisions. For the IB community, however, quotas have had an irreversible impact on squad culture and social attitudes at the ANU. 

By greatly increasing the number of female and gender diverse participants in the sport, college leadership teams have observed a huge shift in the presence of non-male athletes at the decision-making table. The presence of female and gender diverse coaches has in turn significantly impacted squad dynamics, ensuring accommodations important to non-male participants are catered for while giving meaningful role models to new athletes. 

The improvements in coaching representation have also accompanied the elevation of impressive female and gender diverse athletes to become ‘Big Names in Inward Bound’ (BNIBs), reflecting that the popular recognition of the IB Community’s most-impressive participants cuts across gendered lines. As with all sporting communities, popularly recognised ‘legends’ become incredibly important for new participants’ expectations of what is achievable. Hence, the growth of non-male BNIBs is greatly important to the culture of a gender-equitable IB community. 

While immense progress has been made in the last decade to improve female and gender diverse participation in IB, challenges nonetheless remain in pursuit of full gender equity. Female and gender diverse athletes are significantly represented in the lower-distance divisions (only 11.4% of division 7 athletes were male in 2024!), and the community is still yet to fully comply with the 50% quota. Despite this, the gender quota has played a pivotal role in enabling progress so far, enabling and emboldening activists and leaders to create real change in the IB community.