Where there are sports, there will inevitably be competition. The nature of sports is to breed competition, but can all competition and its results be measured on the same scale? Different variables lead to different outcomes, and in the issue of gender separation in sports, this fact could not be more valid. Therefore, contrary to many beliefs, keeping athletics separated by gender is not anti-feminist; in fact, this separation, based in both comparable athletic performance and biology, actually promotes feminist goals of equality by recognizing and celebrating both genders in their own right.
Those who argue that the gender gap in sports should be bridged claim that women are physically capable of consistently competing with men and that the gender separation allows the treatment of women as lesser beings. A famous argument for this view lies in the “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match in 1973 between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs that had King winning in straight sets (Kimmelman par. 16). Michael Kimmelman, author of “Women Who Hit Very Hard and How They’ve Changed Tennis,” uses this point as a launching pad to assert that women, especially in recent years, are catching up to men in terms of physical ability. This, however, is only true to a degree, as the majority of women still do not physically match the majority of men. Another claim that gender integration would be beneficial argues that by keeping the genders separated, viewers expect women to retain a certain degree of femininity as opposed to masculinity, which may be viewed as unattractive. Sara Maratta, author of “Move Over Boys, Make Room in the Crease,” explains by stating, “Female players, although most likely as fit and talented as most men, must constantly monitor and tailor their persona to fit the stereotypical mold of what a female athlete should look like in the eyes of image-conscious fans” (Maratta par. 8). Essentially, this belief holds that women athletes are subject to more appearance scrutiny than men athletes. While it is true that women do face challenges in being taken seriously in their sports, it does not necessarily follow that men’s and women’s sports should be combined.
To argue bluntly, men are more athletic than women when compared directly. Though the opposition objects that the incline of physical improvement over time for women is much steeper than that of men, this statistic falls flat when the fact is pointed out that said steep incline only lasted from around 1950-1980, after which, it leveled off and became similar to that of men (Epstein par. 9). Explaining this point perfectly, author of “How Much Do Sex Differences Matter in Sports?” David Epstein observes, “Elite women are not catching elite men nor maintaining their position. Men are ever so slightly pulling away” (Epstein par. 9). An explanation for the aforementioned steep incline for female physical improvement is more likely due to the sudden popularity spike in female sports, not the actual athletic incline. Women are not catching men, whether in speed, strength, or endurance, as statistics show that the average performance gap between professional male and female athletes favors males by at least six percent and up to nineteen percent in different areas; for example, some women’s Olympic track records would not even make the men’s Olympics qualifying times (Epstein par. 10). This is not to say that women are not athletic, but rather that, when compared side-by-side, men are generally able to outperform. Thus, combining genders in sports would not only be pointless, but sorely predictable.
Correspondingly, these differences are not random; men’s and women’s bodies are biologically different in ways that affect physical performance. The main culprit is testosterone. Increased testosterone levels in men lead to many physical features that differ from women’s traits. These features include having narrower hips, less fat, denser bones that support more muscle, and a higher percentage of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (Epstein par. 10). These characteristics all aid athleticism. Further, a direct comparison of a body’s abilities with and without high testosterone levels validates the claim that biology makes a difference. Joanna Harper, former United States cross-country champion, is a transgender woman who experienced running both as a man and as a woman (Epstein par. 11). She reports that within the first month of hormone therapy, she was slower: “I felt the same when I ran. I just couldn’t go as fast” (qtd. in Epstein par. 12). The evidence clearly shows that men and women have different anatomies, so why should this not affect their physiologies as well? Men and women are, simply put, different creatures that have understandably different levels of natural ability.
To address, now, how feminism comes into play, the separate achievements by women and men do not take away from the successes of each other. Recognizing these differences rather than ignoring them is actually far more equal than not. As author David Epstein eloquently insists, “We must be vigilant to ensure that all women who want to compete have the opportunity to do so, but the idea that women’s athletic performances must be equivalent to men’s in order to be deemed remarkable belittles the achievements of female competitors” (Epstein par. 17). To put in other words, the fact that a woman Olympian’s record time is marginally slower than a man’s does not make her accomplishment any less impressive. The fact that her body, with the same amount of training, does not possess the literal capability to match the man’s does not make her a lesser participant in her craft. At the launch for the feminist campaign HeForShe, which calls men to stand up for gender equality, United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson urges, “If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer…” (Watson). In short, sports should be about working hard and celebrating achievement instead of pointing out and intensifying ridiculous comparisons.
Though some hold that gender separation in sports is anti-feminist, this separation, rationalized by compared athletic ability and biology, actually promotes feminist equality goals by commending both men and women in their own right. In the world of sports and the competition they indubitably foster, men and women simply have different physical variables that yield different outcomes. Trying to measure all of these diverse outcomes on the same scale only clouds the ability to see what competition is truly about: celebrating achievement, and in a world where men and women are both free to compete on a level that suits and complements their abilities, that celebration makes winners of all athletes.
Those who argue that the gender gap in sports should be bridged claim that women are physically capable of consistently competing with men and that the gender separation allows the treatment of women as lesser beings. A famous argument for this view lies in the “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match in 1973 between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs that had King winning in straight sets (Kimmelman par. 16). Michael Kimmelman, author of “Women Who Hit Very Hard and How They’ve Changed Tennis,” uses this point as a launching pad to assert that women, especially in recent years, are catching up to men in terms of physical ability. This, however, is only true to a degree, as the majority of women still do not physically match the majority of men. Another claim that gender integration would be beneficial argues that by keeping the genders separated, viewers expect women to retain a certain degree of femininity as opposed to masculinity, which may be viewed as unattractive. Sara Maratta, author of “Move Over Boys, Make Room in the Crease,” explains by stating, “Female players, although most likely as fit and talented as most men, must constantly monitor and tailor their persona to fit the stereotypical mold of what a female athlete should look like in the eyes of image-conscious fans” (Maratta par. 8). Essentially, this belief holds that women athletes are subject to more appearance scrutiny than men athletes. While it is true that women do face challenges in being taken seriously in their sports, it does not necessarily follow that men’s and women’s sports should be combined.
To argue bluntly, men are more athletic than women when compared directly. Though the opposition objects that the incline of physical improvement over time for women is much steeper than that of men, this statistic falls flat when the fact is pointed out that said steep incline only lasted from around 1950-1980, after which, it leveled off and became similar to that of men (Epstein par. 9). Explaining this point perfectly, author of “How Much Do Sex Differences Matter in Sports?” David Epstein observes, “Elite women are not catching elite men nor maintaining their position. Men are ever so slightly pulling away” (Epstein par. 9). An explanation for the aforementioned steep incline for female physical improvement is more likely due to the sudden popularity spike in female sports, not the actual athletic incline. Women are not catching men, whether in speed, strength, or endurance, as statistics show that the average performance gap between professional male and female athletes favors males by at least six percent and up to nineteen percent in different areas; for example, some women’s Olympic track records would not even make the men’s Olympics qualifying times (Epstein par. 10). This is not to say that women are not athletic, but rather that, when compared side-by-side, men are generally able to outperform. Thus, combining genders in sports would not only be pointless, but sorely predictable.
Correspondingly, these differences are not random; men’s and women’s bodies are biologically different in ways that affect physical performance. The main culprit is testosterone. Increased testosterone levels in men lead to many physical features that differ from women’s traits. These features include having narrower hips, less fat, denser bones that support more muscle, and a higher percentage of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (Epstein par. 10). These characteristics all aid athleticism. Further, a direct comparison of a body’s abilities with and without high testosterone levels validates the claim that biology makes a difference. Joanna Harper, former United States cross-country champion, is a transgender woman who experienced running both as a man and as a woman (Epstein par. 11). She reports that within the first month of hormone therapy, she was slower: “I felt the same when I ran. I just couldn’t go as fast” (qtd. in Epstein par. 12). The evidence clearly shows that men and women have different anatomies, so why should this not affect their physiologies as well? Men and women are, simply put, different creatures that have understandably different levels of natural ability.
To address, now, how feminism comes into play, the separate achievements by women and men do not take away from the successes of each other. Recognizing these differences rather than ignoring them is actually far more equal than not. As author David Epstein eloquently insists, “We must be vigilant to ensure that all women who want to compete have the opportunity to do so, but the idea that women’s athletic performances must be equivalent to men’s in order to be deemed remarkable belittles the achievements of female competitors” (Epstein par. 17). To put in other words, the fact that a woman Olympian’s record time is marginally slower than a man’s does not make her accomplishment any less impressive. The fact that her body, with the same amount of training, does not possess the literal capability to match the man’s does not make her a lesser participant in her craft. At the launch for the feminist campaign HeForShe, which calls men to stand up for gender equality, United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson urges, “If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer…” (Watson). In short, sports should be about working hard and celebrating achievement instead of pointing out and intensifying ridiculous comparisons.
Though some hold that gender separation in sports is anti-feminist, this separation, rationalized by compared athletic ability and biology, actually promotes feminist equality goals by commending both men and women in their own right. In the world of sports and the competition they indubitably foster, men and women simply have different physical variables that yield different outcomes. Trying to measure all of these diverse outcomes on the same scale only clouds the ability to see what competition is truly about: celebrating achievement, and in a world where men and women are both free to compete on a level that suits and complements their abilities, that celebration makes winners of all athletes.
Works Cited
Epstein, David. "How Much Does Sex Matter in Sports?" Washington Post, The. N.p.: Y, 02. N. pag. Regional Business News. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Kimmelman, Michael. "Women Who Hit Very Hard and How They’ve Changed Tennis." They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 512-523. Print.
Maratta, Sara. "Move Over Boys, Make Room in the Crease." They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 537-543. Print.
Watson, Emma. "HeForShe Launch." United Nations Special Meeting. United Nations Headquarters, New York. 21 Feb. 2016. YouTube. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Kimmelman, Michael. "Women Who Hit Very Hard and How They’ve Changed Tennis." They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 512-523. Print.
Maratta, Sara. "Move Over Boys, Make Room in the Crease." They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 537-543. Print.
Watson, Emma. "HeForShe Launch." United Nations Special Meeting. United Nations Headquarters, New York. 21 Feb. 2016. YouTube. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.