The topic of Women’s sport has engendered increasing scholarship across differing disciplines in recent years; however, in the philosophy of sport literature, it has not been as abundant as it might be. In this special issue of Sports, Ethics and Philosophy, on Women’s sport, philosophy of sport and feminist issues, one of the aims is to make a significant contribution to the philosophy of sport literature, on women’s sport, by women scholars.
One of the more hotly debated topics is the protected category of women’s sport from a fairness perspective. A significant number of the authors in this special issue contribute to this wide- ranging debate. It needs to be noted that to take on this topic at this time of great division, often exposes authors to unwarranted ad hominem attacks in social media, and this case was no exception. It requires a deep commitment and respect for our literature to write about this topic and we do damage to our profession if we allow ourselves to be bullied into silence.
Pam Sailors takes up the gauntlet on issues surrounding the inclusion of transgender and intersex athletes in the women’s category in sport. She notes voices on one edge of this debate warn that allowing transgender and intersex athletes to participate in women’s sport will push women out of sport entirely, while the other edge dismisses as a transphobic/racist/bigot anyone advocating for less than full and unconditional inclusion. Taking a more nuanced position, she argues against artificially restricting the scope of the question by demanding a simple yes or no answer, noting that for some sports, it may make no difference whether one has high testosterone or has experienced male puberty, and that should make a difference in the policy we create for the inclusion of trans and intersex athletes in the women’s category. However, Sailors concludes that any changes that affect who is included in the women’s category must advance, or at least not impede, the goals for the service of which the category is protected in the first place.
Sarah Teetzel addresses the concept of feminist allyship in the context of inclusion and fairness in sport. Noting that successful women athletes, all with a history of growing and promoting women’s sport, who have spoken publically about what they perceive to be the unfairness of transwomen competing in women’s elite sport, were simultaneously celebrated for sharing their thoughts on a complex issue, and labelled transphobic for expressing anti-inclusive and transphobic views; Teetzel clarifies what allyship involves and then examines whether athletes are obliged to promote inclusive sport. She argues that elite women athletes have an obligation to promote women’s sport, but not one that extends as far as a requirement to actively act as allies. By looking at trans athlete eligibility rules, Teetzel argues that the typical arguments from unfairness and performance advantages fail to demonstrate why trans athletes should not be welcome to compete, but that a requirement of allyship requires more from women athletes than we can reasonably expect.
Mizuho Takemura examines the IAAF DSD regulations to illustrate and analyze the unique ethical dilemma which arises in this situation. Takemura offers a practical philosophical discussion of the IAAF’s regulations by attempting to clarify the difference between ‘discrimination’ and ‘distinction’, that lends partial support to the IAAF DSD Regulations from 2018, and argues that the paradigm of modern sports itself can be a target of criticism because sometimes the logic of competitive sports takes a priority over human rights. Takemura gives the example, athletes of being required to give up their rights to privacy for doping controls and the restricted eligibility requirements of athletes with artificial legs, where exclusions are regarded as providing an unfair enhancement of performance. She argues that discrimination and unjustifiable violation of human rights are not inherent in the IAAF’s specific regulations but inherent in the paradigm of modern sports, thus identifying the need to consider more fundamental questions about the theoretical basis for an ethics that is compatible with the logic of modern competitive sports. Takemura’s analysis leads her to the proposal that the IAAF and the CAS’s stance was best understood and justified from the point of Rule Utilitarianism and by appealing to the difference between discrimination and distinction, she concludes that in some cases like this, we may be warranted in drawing up legitimate disparities. But in so doing, the point is not to support IAAF’s DSD regulations per se, but to demonstrate how it relies on a paradigm of competitive sport, that may itself be questioned.
Irena Martinkova builds on an underutilized idea of ‘moving up a category’ from Jane English’s 1978 article on ‘Sex Equality in Sport’, arguing that it is of great importance for decreasing discrimination in sport. She argues that English’s suggestion that female athletes should be allowed to ‘move up’ to the male category suggests that talented athletes do not always need ‘category protection’. Distinguishing four types of categories: ‘open’, ‘semi-open’, ‘closed’, and ‘overlapping’, she advocates the wider use of open and semi-open or at least overlapping categories, arguing against the excessive use of closed categories, so that highly skilled athletes have the opportunity to ‘move up. Although most sports presently advantage male rather than female characteristics, we can expect inferior performance from female athletes, especially at the elite level, and especially in those sports where strength, explosive power and speed play a dominant role. However, Martinkova argues that at the non-elite level, performances of all sexes may not differ at all; and previously excluded athletes might benefit greatly from higher stakes competition, which might provide better conditions to improve in a more challenging environment, as well as helping to overcome gender stereotypes. Martinkova argues that we should not make decisions on behalf of athletes, as to with whom they should compete and to what values they should give preference, so long as they meet the skill requirements of the given competition and do not gain an unfair advantage. She concludes that changing the eligibility rules of sports may be a simple first step that is not organizationally intrusive and enables us to think in a more inclusive way.
Angela Schneider discusses the debate around women’s sport as a protected category from the first time that women were allowed to compete in the Modern Olympic Games. She argues that, unsurprisingly, the voice of women and women philosophers was not the dominant voice then, it was male researchers from the biological sciences, and what is now called ‘sport science’, who were dominant in discussions on the justification for the protection of the women’s sport category, with a few notable exceptions. Schneider then addresses the conceptual and moral underpinnings of the women’s category and eligibility rules of sport through a critical analysis of the discussion in the sport philosophy literature of ‘auxiliary rules’ as eligibility rules. She argues that the concept of a ‘protected category’ is tied logically to the concept of fair play—we try to reduce large gaps in advantages and group people together with more similar abilities (historically that has been, e.g. weight, age, handicap, non- doped and sex). The thing that is protected is ability groupings for fairness and they are far from perfect, but they are generally accepted by the community of practitioners. It has been defined and enforced through the rules in sport and generally requires some kind of certification for inclusion. But an obvious fact about having separate women’s events, is that logically it must be possible to exclude and exclusion is not a popular stance and in fact, many have argued that the onus is on inclusion from a human rights perspective. She identifies a root problem in the literature and discourse on the concept of fairness in that fairness in the sense of ‘level playing field’ and fairness in a justice sense ‘right to sport’, are quite distinct, but tend to get run together often in this discussion. The question: ‘what policy should we adopt to ensure fairness in level playing field sense’ is quite different than the question ‘what policy should we adopt to ensure fairness in the human rights sense’? This challenge puts sport policymakers in an intractable position. On the one hand, no qualifying athlete should have to ‘dope down’ to compete in the Olympic Games. On the other hand, women athletes in the community of practitioners argue that ‘sex equality in competitive sport is a legitimate goal and that separating athletes in competition by biological sex traits is the only way to achieve this goal, given the physical advantages associated with male puberty and testosterone levels in the male range’. Hence, a new auxiliary rule creating new sub-classification of women athletes with testosterone higher than the stipulated cut off seems logical on the face of it. Unfortunately, these cases are statistically rare, so it might be argued that there may not enough competitors for it to be its own sub-category at the Olympic Games. However, Schneider argues strongly that the community of women athletes should have the most significant voice in the discussion of the matter. The process followed has to respect and hear their voices without bullying and name calling in response. They have a right to be heard, which has hardly ever happened for women’s sport in the past. Historically, the criteria for the women’s sport protected category has been determined more by men. That is not to say that men’s voices, or voices outside of the women’s sport community of practitioners, cannot be heard, but they should not be the deciding factor.
Leslie Howe examines the concept of recognition and its connection with identity and respect. She addresses the question of how women are, or are not, adequately recognised or respected for their achievements in sport and whether eliminating sex segregation in sport is a solution. Howe proceeds with an analysis of the concept of excellence in sport, as well as the relationship between fairness and inclusion in an activity that is fundamentally about bodily movement. She argues that attempts to address the problem of women’s recognition in sport need to do so in ways that neither eliminate sport as a fairness regulated system for developing individual excellence in bodily movement nor that prevent women’s achievement of sporting excellence, with the regard that belongs to them. Doing this requires us to decide whether sport is about champions or about individual excellence for Howe. Addressing inclusion is extremely important in expanding excellence in sport, but for this to be sport, inclusion is necessarily moderated by fairness. For Howe, this means a levelling of the playing field–everyone has to have a chance, not a certainty–and that means that the same principle of fairness requires both inclusion at the social level, in terms of advancing participation, and exclusion at the competitive level: only those against whom each can compete fairly are permitted in any given contest.
By explaining the significance of Flavia’s Thalassia’s victory in the stadion race for parthenoi at the Isolympic Sebasta Games in Napoli during Domitian’s reign in the late 1st c. CE, using mythology, iconography, history, literature, and philosophy, Heather Reid illustrates not only the Hellenic past of female footraces but also their purpose in the context of the Roman Empire and its significance for women’s sports today. Reid analyzes the legendary beauty of athletic women as a key value for Hellenic parthenoi and argues that it cannot be separated from gymnastic exercise, noting that the virtues and values of the parthenos revolve not around virginity or marriage, but rather independence—as illustrated by such divine parthenoi as Athena and Artemis. She argues that the athletic virtues of the parthenos are more relevant than ever, as sport has the power to cultivate those virtues and the sense of independence that accompanies them.
Charlene Weaving argues that pole dancing should not be included on the Olympic program despite the GAISF recognizing this activity as a professional sport because such potential inclusion contributes to an existing and extensive institutionalized culture of sexism and hypersexualization at the Olympic games. Weaving attempts to demonstrate that pole sport cannot be divorced from the stripping culture of exotic and erotic sexual connotations and as women athletes and women’s bodies have struggled to secure their place within the Olympic Movement, given the current heterosexist views of women athletes and institutionalized sexist culture of the games, including pole sport on the program would exacerbate the problems and continue to extend this concerning culture.
Building on the work of sport philosophers who have noted the potential of sport as meaningful narrative and storytelling, Colleen English argues that they fail to acknowledge that not all athletes experience sport in the same way, and that, in fact, many are marginalized based on their identity. Focusing on the marginalization of women athletes, and in particular, elite women athletes, in the narrative of sport, English demonstrates the most common athletic narratives serve to exclude women and remind female athletes of their secondary status. Reviewing the role of narrative and storytelling in sport, she then argues that gendered narratives pose a problem for women athletes—including both narratives intended to empower female athletes and narratives intended to compare male and female athletes, thus feminist narratives in sport are necessary in order to better advance sport because sport can change for women and girls only through larger cultural shifts that enhance inclusion and equitable treatment. English argues that similar arguments could be made about race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability, as sport is rife with storytelling possibility. But it also reflects broader culture—some people’s stories are told while other stories are ignored, thus better attention to how these stories reinforce the marginalization of some groups of athletes helps to move the potential of meaningful narrative further for English.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Andrew Edgar for all his encouragement, patience and support for this special issue on women and sport.