2
Section One: The Fundamentals
A) History and Context
Exercise 1: Notebook Prompt
| One point that surprised me in the episode that I did not know about prior to listening was that women were required to go through physical inspections, known as “nude parades.” These nude parades were not only required, but they were extremely invasive and humiliating. It was also stated that this was a procedure-only mandate for female athletes. This added on to the unequloty in the sports field that women already endured because men were never questioned.
Some athletes were disqualified based on genetic variances rather than any true competitive advantage since these tests did not take into consideration the normal biological variety among women. Although sex testing has changed over time, it still disproportionately affects female athletes and perpetuates strict and exclusive notions regarding gender in sports. The episode emphasized how these regulations further marginalized women in sports by focusing more on limiting who was permitted to compete than on ensuring fairness. |
B) Timeline of History
Exercise 2: Notebook Prompt
What other significant case/milestone would you add to this timeline? Note it in your notebook along with a brief (one or two sentences) explanation of why you feel it is important.
|
1968: Male and Female Chromosonal Testing in the Olmypics. This chromosomal test will remedy growing worries about sports gender verification. This was first used during the Summer Olympics and marked a change toward determining an athlete’s sex by biological markers. Although the goal was to stop any gender misrepresentation, the test was contentious and frequently wrong, necessitating changes in the decades that followed. This milestone is noteworthy because it was a turning point in the creation of official procedures for sex verification, bringing up continuing moral dilemmas about the relationship between biology, gender identity, and athletic competitiveness. |
C) Gender coding in Sports
Exercise 3: Notebook Prompt
Has the gendering of sport ever been a constraint on your involvement? How?
Or, if not, why do you think this is?
| The gendering of sports has put a constraint and barrier on many people’s lives. The way I have grown up, I’ve been brought up with different sports being catered for different genders. Its not that I have ever believed in/followed those norms in sports, but I feel that most of society also views it that way, which has influenced many people.
For example, if you compare sports like figure skating and gymnastics to hockey or baseball, society’s views on these sports have put a heavy gendered norm where one is more for girls and the others for boys. The differences between the sports and how society has projected them to be have more to do with whether they are more feminine or masculine. Where in reality, male and female both are a part of all types of sports teams. In my own experience, I haven’t felt those differences in my own life. The elementary/high school I went to were extremely supportive and encouraged everyone to join sports teams. I have not personally been on any real sports teams, so I would not be the best person to answer this. I still do understand how, in many situations, the gender expectations that have been engraved into many brains and how slowly, but surely, there is change happening to over come those expectations!
|
D) How is sport gendered in the popular imagination?
Exercise 4: Padlet/Notebook Prompt
While most sports are in fact unisex, gender coding remains pervasive, particularly at the professional level, although with a foundation established in youth competition. Participate in the poll below to share your views on how popular sports are gendered in the popular imagination. Also feel welcome to add or suggest sports that you feel strongly conform to the gender binary!
After you contribute to the padlet prompt, record your response in your notebook AND briefly discuss in two or three sentences how these responses and the polling figures in general confirm or contradict your assumptions about gender-coding and sports. Did anything surprise you?
| Some examples from the polls I answered were English football, track and field, lacrosse, dance, swimming, figure skating, cheerleading, and tennis.
I found that the difference between whether it is gendered towards male, female, or both is if the sport is more masculine or feminine. Sports like lacrosse, hockey, and football seem more masculine. because of the level of violence, compared to sports such as figure skating, dance, swimming, and cheerleading.
The sports that were more neutrally voted for were swimming and tennis, which did not surprise me.
|
Section Two: Breaking it down
A) Title IX
Exercise 5: Notebook Prompt
In a longer version of the interview excerpted in the video above, Leah Thomas states “Trans women competing in women’s sports does not threaten women’s sports as a whole because trans women are a very small minority of all athletes and the NCAA rules around trans women competing in women’s sports have been around for 10+ years and we haven’t seen any massive wave of trans women dominating”?
Do you agree with this statement? See also the image above suggesting that the issue may be overblown by politicians and influencers who don’t actually care that much about women’s sports.
Please share any thoughts you have in your Notebook by clicking on the audio button above or writing a few sentences.
| I do not agree with Thomas’s statement because of biological factors. I believe that every gender and minority should be given the equal chance to play but if you compare the biological features of men and women, strength is a big factor that differentiates the two. If one identifies as trans, they can still do so without the medical transition, which still causes the body to function normally. This can create an unfair game, specifically in sports such as wrestling, shot put, or even football, where aggression and force are used.
Although trans women are a very small minority in the general population of female athletes, without the right circumstances, I believe that it would not truly be a fair game.
|
B) Unfair Advantage?
Exercise 6: Notebook Prompt
What does the host and writer, Rose Eveleth, have to say on the issue of unfair advantage?
Can you think of other examples of unique biological or circumstantial advantages from which athletes have benefitted enormously that have nothing to do with gender?
|
Rose Eveleth explores the concept of “unfair advantage,” especially as it relates to athletes such as Caster Semenya. She questions how governing organizations, like World Athletics, define justice and decide which inherent qualities need to be controlled. While some biological advantages, like Michael Phelps’s distinct physiology, are praised rather than limited in women’s sports, the episode examines how other biological features, like Semenya’s naturally high testosterone levels, are viewed as harmful. Eveleth draws attention to the inconsistent application of these regulations by sports organizations, raising concerns about why certain advantages are considered “unfair” whereas others are tolerated as a necessary component of the activity. She talks on how, in spite of the fact that there isn’t any conclusive scientific proof that testosterone by itself gives athletes with DSD, like Semenya, a significant competitive advantage, they have been forced to medically reduce their testosterone levels. Beyond the biological dispute, Eveleth explores the issue’s ethical and social implications. She emphasizes the fact that what is considered “fair” is more than just quantitative characteristics like hormone levels; it is also about cultural notions of gender and ethnicity. By focusing largely on policing women’s bodies, particularly those of women of colour, the system reinforces larger disparities rather than guaranteeing equal opportunities. Finally, Eveleth contends that the concept of “unfair advantage” is far more nuanced than it appears, driven as much by social biases as science. |
Again, let’s turn to Katie Barnes who points out that we tend to forget amidst all the debate that “sports, by design, are not fair” (235), that “the reality of sports is that we accept unfairness all the time” (235).
Do you agree? Why? In your experience, how fair are sports? Feel welcome to add a video response in the padlet and provide an example if you’re willing. Make sure you include a screenshot of your response in your notebook.
| Access to better coaching and training facilities, as well as genetic traits such as an atheletes height how long one may be able to hold their breathe for, for swimming, can create disparities that rules alone cannot eliminate.
For instance, Michael Phelps has a biological advantage over his rivals due to his body’s special adaptation for swimming, which includes an exceptionally large wingspan, very flexible ankles, and reduced lactic acid generation. However, rather than being limited, these qualities are praised. Conversely, Caster Semenya’s natural testosterone levels had been considered as an unfair competitive advantage that needed to be addressed by medicinal means. This discrepancy emphasizes how selectively fairness is frequently implemented in sports. Sports can be equal and unequal due to a persons capabilties due to many different aspects of their lives. Hard effort and ability are important, but so are wealth, genetics, and even the subjective judgments of referees. Ultimately, even if regulations are designed to level the playing field, some advantages are just inherent to human nature, making total justice unachievable. |
Optional Response:
What does Robins mean when she argues that:
“The aims of transvestigating an Olympic athlete are not, in any meaningful sense, anything to do with sports, or fairness, or even with women (cis women, at least) as a social category. Rather, they have everything to do with transness, and the public expression of transfemininity.
For my money this has never been about sport.
What it has always been is an excuse to publicly relitigate the existence of trans women.”
Make a note in your Notebook.
| Robins argues on “transvestigating” athletes—like the Algerian boxer Imane Khelif at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris—is more about disparaging trans women and the open display of transfemininity than it is about sports or justice. When Robins states, “This has never been about sport,” she is implying that the scrutiny and criticism of athletes who are deemed “too feminine” or “too masculine” extends beyond athletic competition. The goal is to use these incidents to spark larger discussions regarding trans women’s presence and rights in society. Rather than being a sincere concern for sports equity, this seems to be a reflection of the current cultural and political struggle around trans identities.
According to Robins, the goal of these attacks is to weaponize sports in order to undermine the validity of trans identities and reaffirm social anxieties or uneasiness with transgender individuals, not to provide cis women with an equal opportunity. Therefore, the problem is not so much with the athletes as it is with a larger movement to openly challenge and discredit the existence and rights of trans women. |
