![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gender and the Olympics
Feb. 15th, 2014 03:42 pmMen's speedskating. Women's speedskating. Men's hockey. Women's hockey. Are these categories inclusive enough? Are they even relevant any more?
Are there sports where men have an inherent advantage over women? Or where women have an inherent advantage over men? Probably. But whence cometh this advantage?
If we're saying that men have the advantage over women, is it a PHYSICAL advantage? Is it down to men's generally larger size and proportionally greater strength? If so, maybe the answer is to categorize athletes the way they do, for example, in boxing, with heavyweights, welterweights, bantamweights or whatever.
Perhaps the advantage is SOCIOCULTURAL in nature, down to burqas or stiletto heels not being very practical attire for walking balance beams, or lack of the most desirable (or perhaps ANY) ice-times for hockey, or whatever. If so, that's obviously always in a state of flux, and considerably more rapid flux than we would expect of any evolutionary physical rapprochement between the sexes!
And then there's another whole can of worms. Just who decides what makes someone a man or a woman? Is it a question of genes and chromosomes? Of hormones? Of genitalia? Of self-identification? Tennis player Renee Richards (formerly Richard Raskind) argued in her memoir, Second Serve, that it was unfair for her to still have to compete as a male once she had begun hormonal treatments towards transforming Richard to Renee, because she had nowhere near the muscle-mass of the male players. But was it fair for other WOMEN to have to compete against someone who was still betwixt and between, still possibly having some male physical advantages, not to mention the sociocultural ones?
Do we need to add categories for the transgendered, gender-fluid, two-spirited, intersex (etc., etc.) communities? That could easily degenerate into an exercise in futility and absurdity, not to mention perhaps constituting illegal propaganda over in Sochi!
Maybe most Olympic categories should be mixed - that is open to men, women and any shade of sex or gender expression in between. I suppose they could still, for example, offer 3 sets of gold, silver and bronze medals for the first, second and third man to finish the (integrated) race; the first, second and third woman; and the first, second and third "other".
But of course, that's problematic too. Some countries would never countenance men and women appearing freely in public together, let alone competing in something very physical and (though perhaps less so in winter) wearing body-revealing garments.
Then too, where does it end? Do we need categories based on race as well? There's probably plenty of evidence that certain races are more apt to excel in certain sports - taller races in basketball, for example. Is it fair to make someone who's under five feet tall compete with someone who's seven feet tall?
To be sure, there ARE additional Olympic games. The Paralympics, for example, where the athletes all have some degree of physical disability. The Special Olympics for those with intellectual disabilities. I believe there's even a "Gay Games", though I think it has yet to match the fame or level of credibility of either the Paralympics or Special Olympics.
Mind you, even competition on the basis of nationality can be problematic. But that's a topic for another time.
Are there sports where men have an inherent advantage over women? Or where women have an inherent advantage over men? Probably. But whence cometh this advantage?
If we're saying that men have the advantage over women, is it a PHYSICAL advantage? Is it down to men's generally larger size and proportionally greater strength? If so, maybe the answer is to categorize athletes the way they do, for example, in boxing, with heavyweights, welterweights, bantamweights or whatever.
Perhaps the advantage is SOCIOCULTURAL in nature, down to burqas or stiletto heels not being very practical attire for walking balance beams, or lack of the most desirable (or perhaps ANY) ice-times for hockey, or whatever. If so, that's obviously always in a state of flux, and considerably more rapid flux than we would expect of any evolutionary physical rapprochement between the sexes!
And then there's another whole can of worms. Just who decides what makes someone a man or a woman? Is it a question of genes and chromosomes? Of hormones? Of genitalia? Of self-identification? Tennis player Renee Richards (formerly Richard Raskind) argued in her memoir, Second Serve, that it was unfair for her to still have to compete as a male once she had begun hormonal treatments towards transforming Richard to Renee, because she had nowhere near the muscle-mass of the male players. But was it fair for other WOMEN to have to compete against someone who was still betwixt and between, still possibly having some male physical advantages, not to mention the sociocultural ones?
Do we need to add categories for the transgendered, gender-fluid, two-spirited, intersex (etc., etc.) communities? That could easily degenerate into an exercise in futility and absurdity, not to mention perhaps constituting illegal propaganda over in Sochi!
Maybe most Olympic categories should be mixed - that is open to men, women and any shade of sex or gender expression in between. I suppose they could still, for example, offer 3 sets of gold, silver and bronze medals for the first, second and third man to finish the (integrated) race; the first, second and third woman; and the first, second and third "other".
But of course, that's problematic too. Some countries would never countenance men and women appearing freely in public together, let alone competing in something very physical and (though perhaps less so in winter) wearing body-revealing garments.
Then too, where does it end? Do we need categories based on race as well? There's probably plenty of evidence that certain races are more apt to excel in certain sports - taller races in basketball, for example. Is it fair to make someone who's under five feet tall compete with someone who's seven feet tall?
To be sure, there ARE additional Olympic games. The Paralympics, for example, where the athletes all have some degree of physical disability. The Special Olympics for those with intellectual disabilities. I believe there's even a "Gay Games", though I think it has yet to match the fame or level of credibility of either the Paralympics or Special Olympics.
Mind you, even competition on the basis of nationality can be problematic. But that's a topic for another time.
