On the second level of the Olympic Museum in Switzerland lives a handheld fan from the 1924 Paris Olympics featuring five sportswomen. The museum describes the fan as a souvenir from the Games and an advertisement for a French perfume company. However, this fan is much more than an advertisement or souvenir. Drawing upon new materialist theory, which envisions objects as lively, this article looks toward the ways the fan was productive in developing ideas around gender at the Olympics. Using an object biography, this research explores how the fan contributed to the New Woman femininity of the 1920s and currently produces a narrative of the International Olympic Committee as being a gender progressive organization. In so doing, it explores how an object that is often overlooked by many at the museum plays a powerful role in understandings of gender across the history of the Games.
{"title":"Objects, Olympics, and Femininity: Exploring the Impact of a 1924 Handheld Fan on Gender at the Games","authors":"Julie Brice","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.02","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 On the second level of the Olympic Museum in Switzerland lives a handheld fan from the 1924 Paris Olympics featuring five sportswomen. The museum describes the fan as a souvenir from the Games and an advertisement for a French perfume company. However, this fan is much more than an advertisement or souvenir. Drawing upon new materialist theory, which envisions objects as lively, this article looks toward the ways the fan was productive in developing ideas around gender at the Olympics. Using an object biography, this research explores how the fan contributed to the New Woman femininity of the 1920s and currently produces a narrative of the International Olympic Committee as being a gender progressive organization. In so doing, it explores how an object that is often overlooked by many at the museum plays a powerful role in understandings of gender across the history of the Games.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"10 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141038307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Historians have identified George Coleman Poage as the first African American Olympian. Poage won two bronze medals in the hurdles at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. In that same year, the name of another potential Black Olympian, Joseph Stadler, appeared briefly in a few newspaper stories previewing the games. Stadler clearly competed in St. Louis, winning a silver medal and bronze medal in the now-archaic forms of standing jumps. Whether he should join Poage on the roster of pioneering African American Olympians, however, remains a mystery among Olympic researchers—as does his racial identity. Analyzing the historical record regarding these claims and employing new information from census data and other public records reveals that Stadler was most likely white. His “misidentification,” however, reveals more than just a trivial episode about an inaccurate reading of racial identity from limited sources. The long history of narratives about Joseph Stadler's identity reveals important patterns about the social construction of race, illuminates the complexities of more than a century of seeking to depict the Olympics as a fulcrum of racial progress in American culture, and showcases the dangers of attempting to read “race” from historic photographs.
{"title":"Uncertain Blackness: The Mysterious Case of Joseph Stadler","authors":"M. Dyreson","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Historians have identified George Coleman Poage as the first African American Olympian. Poage won two bronze medals in the hurdles at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. In that same year, the name of another potential Black Olympian, Joseph Stadler, appeared briefly in a few newspaper stories previewing the games. Stadler clearly competed in St. Louis, winning a silver medal and bronze medal in the now-archaic forms of standing jumps. Whether he should join Poage on the roster of pioneering African American Olympians, however, remains a mystery among Olympic researchers—as does his racial identity. Analyzing the historical record regarding these claims and employing new information from census data and other public records reveals that Stadler was most likely white. His “misidentification,” however, reveals more than just a trivial episode about an inaccurate reading of racial identity from limited sources. The long history of narratives about Joseph Stadler's identity reveals important patterns about the social construction of race, illuminates the complexities of more than a century of seeking to depict the Olympics as a fulcrum of racial progress in American culture, and showcases the dangers of attempting to read “race” from historic photographs.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"13 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141030717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I draw on the philosopher of history Hayden White's typology of arguments to explain different accounts of bidding for the olympic games. White's typology helps explain the irreconcilable disconnect between representations of bidding for and hosting the olympic games put forward by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its academic supporters in olympic education, on the one hand, and their critics, on the other. While I advocate for contextual-based arguments as the most appropriate for understanding bidding at different points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I conclude with an irony: the IOC's representations of bidding and hosting, which are based on organicist arguments presented in romantic and idealized narratives, continue to resonate better with a broad audience than fact-laden and eloquent contextualist arguments.
{"title":"Bidding for the Olympic Games: An Anatomy of Arguments","authors":"Douglas Booth","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.04","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article, I draw on the philosopher of history Hayden White's typology of arguments to explain different accounts of bidding for the olympic games. White's typology helps explain the irreconcilable disconnect between representations of bidding for and hosting the olympic games put forward by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its academic supporters in olympic education, on the one hand, and their critics, on the other. While I advocate for contextual-based arguments as the most appropriate for understanding bidding at different points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I conclude with an irony: the IOC's representations of bidding and hosting, which are based on organicist arguments presented in romantic and idealized narratives, continue to resonate better with a broad audience than fact-laden and eloquent contextualist arguments.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141039133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In May 1980, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognized the National Olympic Committee of Zimbabwe (ZOC) after the latter had spent five years in exile under its former name, the National Olympic Committee of Rhodesia (ROC). Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwean government's desire to have a team compete at the 1980 Moscow Olympics delayed the multiracial restructuring of the ZOC. The government's efforts to reform the ZOC, replacing the old white ROC members, transformed into a two-year-long contentious struggle. After an intervention by the IOC in June 1982, a compromise was reached. The composition of the new ZOC represented the government's greater control over sport in the country. The reformation of the ZOC demonstrates the complex process of transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe and the difficulties of decolonization in sport. In examining these events, this article bridges the gap between colonial Rhodesian and postcolonial Zimbabwean sport and presents a case study of decolonization within a sports administration.
{"title":"Rhodesian Readmission and the Decolonization of the National Olympic Committee of Zimbabwe","authors":"James Alexander Ivey","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In May 1980, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognized the National Olympic Committee of Zimbabwe (ZOC) after the latter had spent five years in exile under its former name, the National Olympic Committee of Rhodesia (ROC). Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwean government's desire to have a team compete at the 1980 Moscow Olympics delayed the multiracial restructuring of the ZOC. The government's efforts to reform the ZOC, replacing the old white ROC members, transformed into a two-year-long contentious struggle. After an intervention by the IOC in June 1982, a compromise was reached. The composition of the new ZOC represented the government's greater control over sport in the country. The reformation of the ZOC demonstrates the complex process of transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe and the difficulties of decolonization in sport. In examining these events, this article bridges the gap between colonial Rhodesian and postcolonial Zimbabwean sport and presents a case study of decolonization within a sports administration.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"52 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141030431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Olympia holds a central place in conceptions of modern sport, Hellenism, and the Olympic Games. This article traces the concurrent development of the site and Panhellenism and Hellenism through its landscape, built environment, and its reception over the past 3,000 years. By tying together Pierre de Coubertin's Olympism to the physical landscape of ancient Olympia, this article argues that the site itself has contributed, through multiple permutations and through several key changes in the early Iron Age, Roman period, and nineteenth century to the global Hellenism that is at the foundation of the modern Olympic Games.
{"title":"The Archaeology of Hellenism: Olympia and the Presence of the Past","authors":"Peter J. Miller","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.01","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Olympia holds a central place in conceptions of modern sport, Hellenism, and the Olympic Games. This article traces the concurrent development of the site and Panhellenism and Hellenism through its landscape, built environment, and its reception over the past 3,000 years. By tying together Pierre de Coubertin's Olympism to the physical landscape of ancient Olympia, this article argues that the site itself has contributed, through multiple permutations and through several key changes in the early Iron Age, Roman period, and nineteenth century to the global Hellenism that is at the foundation of the modern Olympic Games.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"136 30","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141034491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The discussion on the inclusion of transgender people in sport has two basic positions, each accentuating different arguments. One focuses on biology, emphasizing how the increase in testosterone levels in boys during puberty, which drives biological and morphological changes, is the lead cause of major performance differences between biological men and women. And because of these differences, it is necessary to uphold a category for women protected against male biology. The other emphasizes the connection between identity and rights and stresses that sport cannot carve out its own separate space when society at large recognizes legal identity as key in societal matters. Therefore, transgender athletes have a right to participate in the category of the gender they identify with. As such, the discussion is a struggle over science, rights, and the proper understanding of what sport is and ought to be.Since 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved from an anatomy- and biology-oriented position on this matter to a rights- and identity-oriented position. This article focuses on the “IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations.”1 The Framework presents a ten-principle approach to guide International Federations’ (IFs) regulations and criteria for eligibility in the men's and women's categories. As such, the IOC does not want to abolish these categories, as suggested by some philosophers,2 but merely asks IFs to consider revising their criteria. The IOC thus acknowledges that a separation is desired, while they question what determines eligibility in these categories. In this article, I will assess the IOC Framework and identify weaknesses and failures in the line of reasoning for its principles. I agree with several basic tenets of the principles in the framework (non-discrimination, the importance of evidence, the primacy of health and bodily autonomy, and the stakeholder-centered approach). However, many of these items are framed and interpreted in problematic ways. This is especially seen in the ignorance of sex differences, the disregard of the logic of categories, the “no presumption of advantage,” and the negligence of female athletes’ rights.I begin by noticing how the absence of trans men from the discussion exposes its central dilemma, namely that trans women hold a performance advantage over biological women. Hereafter, I recount what the performance differences between males and females amount to before I describe the evolution in the IOC's guidelines for transgender athletes. In the subsequent main body of the text, I go through seven of the ten principles to analyze their content and consequences. Before I conclude, I address the issue of human rights in this context. My discussion is directed at elite sports. In grassroot and recreational sports, other conditions may apply, and so assessments and conclusions may differ. Yet, fairness is important at all le
{"title":"The Negligence of Biological Reality","authors":"Ask Vest Christiansen","doi":"10.5406/26396025.4.2.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.4.2.03","url":null,"abstract":"The discussion on the inclusion of transgender people in sport has two basic positions, each accentuating different arguments. One focuses on biology, emphasizing how the increase in testosterone levels in boys during puberty, which drives biological and morphological changes, is the lead cause of major performance differences between biological men and women. And because of these differences, it is necessary to uphold a category for women protected against male biology. The other emphasizes the connection between identity and rights and stresses that sport cannot carve out its own separate space when society at large recognizes legal identity as key in societal matters. Therefore, transgender athletes have a right to participate in the category of the gender they identify with. As such, the discussion is a struggle over science, rights, and the proper understanding of what sport is and ought to be.Since 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved from an anatomy- and biology-oriented position on this matter to a rights- and identity-oriented position. This article focuses on the “IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations.”1 The Framework presents a ten-principle approach to guide International Federations’ (IFs) regulations and criteria for eligibility in the men's and women's categories. As such, the IOC does not want to abolish these categories, as suggested by some philosophers,2 but merely asks IFs to consider revising their criteria. The IOC thus acknowledges that a separation is desired, while they question what determines eligibility in these categories. In this article, I will assess the IOC Framework and identify weaknesses and failures in the line of reasoning for its principles. I agree with several basic tenets of the principles in the framework (non-discrimination, the importance of evidence, the primacy of health and bodily autonomy, and the stakeholder-centered approach). However, many of these items are framed and interpreted in problematic ways. This is especially seen in the ignorance of sex differences, the disregard of the logic of categories, the “no presumption of advantage,” and the negligence of female athletes’ rights.I begin by noticing how the absence of trans men from the discussion exposes its central dilemma, namely that trans women hold a performance advantage over biological women. Hereafter, I recount what the performance differences between males and females amount to before I describe the evolution in the IOC's guidelines for transgender athletes. In the subsequent main body of the text, I go through seven of the ten principles to analyze their content and consequences. Before I conclude, I address the issue of human rights in this context. My discussion is directed at elite sports. In grassroot and recreational sports, other conditions may apply, and so assessments and conclusions may differ. Yet, fairness is important at all le","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135323142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas Bach, the current International Olympic Committee (IOC) president, has been a proponent of “updating” the Olympics. His stewardship of Agenda 2020 has placed an emphasis on reaching a new demographic: “I am delighted that Olympic Games in Tokyo will be more youthful, more urban and will include more women” (77). Action Sports and the Olympic Games investigates how the IOC's inclusion of action sports was used to meet the objective of reaching those audiences. In turn, it examines the response to these efforts by different stakeholders within the action sports communities.To be transparent, I have known the authors for many years as we all share an interest in the social-political dynamics of action sports (these include sports that were historically grounded in a more artistic and participant-driven activity such as surfing, snowboarding, and skateboarding). Additionally, I have a high regard for their work as it is always thoroughly researched and skillfully uses theory to bring new insight into these sport/lifestyle cultures. Therefore, I was excited to review this latest joint effort by Wheaton and Thorpe. I say this as I am wary not to simply be a cheerleader of their work, but to highlight key contributions.The book is organized into three main sections. the first section includes introduction, methodology, and theory chapters. The second section has four chapters which provide the historical contexts of the governance processes for the IOC and for action sports. They feature the debates that were internal to the action sports communities with regard to Olympic inclusion as well as the negotiations among the International Federations (IFs), the action sport industry and athletes, and the IOC. To illustrate this, they provide a history of how windsurfing (1984), snowboarding (1998), and BMX (2008) were added to the Olympics. This sets up the third section, which examines the current context and political process and how that has differed in the past. The third section features in-depth case studies of skateboarding and surfing. They also dedicate a chapter to investigating the impact Olympic inclusion had on gender equity in skateboarding, surfing, and sport climbing. Although each chapter can stand on its own, the book does a good job integrating the main themes throughout each chapter culminating in a more robust understanding of the shifting political landscapes and power negotiations. Because the chapters build off each other, I will not cover each chapter separately, but instead provide a few examples that represent the key themes of their work.Before I discuss some of the key content, I will provide an overview of their methodology to demonstrate the extensive work they have done to understand and represent a variety of stakeholders’ perspectives and strategies. First, this represents a ten-year span of collecting data using mixed methods. They were recipients of an IOC Advanced Research Grant to examine youth perceptions of the
{"title":"Searching for Relevance: The Olympic Games and Action Sports: A Review Essay of Belinda Wheaton and Holly Thorpe, <i>Action Sports and the Olympic Games</i>","authors":"Becky Beal","doi":"10.5406/26396025.4.2.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.4.2.06","url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Bach, the current International Olympic Committee (IOC) president, has been a proponent of “updating” the Olympics. His stewardship of Agenda 2020 has placed an emphasis on reaching a new demographic: “I am delighted that Olympic Games in Tokyo will be more youthful, more urban and will include more women” (77). Action Sports and the Olympic Games investigates how the IOC's inclusion of action sports was used to meet the objective of reaching those audiences. In turn, it examines the response to these efforts by different stakeholders within the action sports communities.To be transparent, I have known the authors for many years as we all share an interest in the social-political dynamics of action sports (these include sports that were historically grounded in a more artistic and participant-driven activity such as surfing, snowboarding, and skateboarding). Additionally, I have a high regard for their work as it is always thoroughly researched and skillfully uses theory to bring new insight into these sport/lifestyle cultures. Therefore, I was excited to review this latest joint effort by Wheaton and Thorpe. I say this as I am wary not to simply be a cheerleader of their work, but to highlight key contributions.The book is organized into three main sections. the first section includes introduction, methodology, and theory chapters. The second section has four chapters which provide the historical contexts of the governance processes for the IOC and for action sports. They feature the debates that were internal to the action sports communities with regard to Olympic inclusion as well as the negotiations among the International Federations (IFs), the action sport industry and athletes, and the IOC. To illustrate this, they provide a history of how windsurfing (1984), snowboarding (1998), and BMX (2008) were added to the Olympics. This sets up the third section, which examines the current context and political process and how that has differed in the past. The third section features in-depth case studies of skateboarding and surfing. They also dedicate a chapter to investigating the impact Olympic inclusion had on gender equity in skateboarding, surfing, and sport climbing. Although each chapter can stand on its own, the book does a good job integrating the main themes throughout each chapter culminating in a more robust understanding of the shifting political landscapes and power negotiations. Because the chapters build off each other, I will not cover each chapter separately, but instead provide a few examples that represent the key themes of their work.Before I discuss some of the key content, I will provide an overview of their methodology to demonstrate the extensive work they have done to understand and represent a variety of stakeholders’ perspectives and strategies. First, this represents a ten-year span of collecting data using mixed methods. They were recipients of an IOC Advanced Research Grant to examine youth perceptions of the ","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135323143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On November 16, 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released its “IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations.” Often referenced simply as the Framework, the document updated the IOC's 2015 guidance for transgender and non-binary athletes to compete in international sport. The IOC's new Framework came in the wake of several high-profile decisions by International Federations (IFs) and rulings by the Court of Arbitration for Sport that specifically focused on the role of testosterone, fairness, and safety for women athletes.Outside of the IOC, the issue of transgender athletes in sports has also become a topic of intense debate, not only among politicians and the media, but also in many scholarly circles. On one side of the debate, there are those who argue that transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in sports based on their gender identity. On the other side, there are those who believe that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage and should not be allowed to compete against cisgender athletes.Supporters of inclusive policies for transgender athletes argue that denying them the right to participate in sports is discriminatory and goes against the principles of inclusivity and equality. They argue that transgender athletes are no different from cisgender athletes, and that their gender identity should be the sole determining factor when it comes to their participation in sports. Furthermore, they argue that transgender athletes have undergone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or gender reassignment surgery, which has brought their physical strength and endurance into line with their opponents.Opponents of transgender athletes competing alongside cisgender athletes argue that such competition is unfair because of the physiological differences that exist between the two groups. They point out that transgender athletes, especially those who were assigned male at birth and underwent a male puberty, still have physical advantages over cisgender athletes despite undergoing HRT. For example, transgender athletes who were assigned male at birth may have larger lung capacities, greater muscle mass, greater bone density, or other anthropometric advantages that gives them an edge over cisgender women. Others have pointed out that such differences may present safety issues for cisgender athletes in contact sports such as rugby, boxing, or mixed martial arts. They argue that allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports based on their gender identity is therefore unfair to cisgender athletes who do not have the same physiological advantages.With such debate, this forum invited two scholars to examine the suitability and effects of the IOC's Framework. Both scholars draw on philosophical and scientific arguments to offer different reactions to the debate. Veronica Ivy is a philosopher turned activist with extensive knowledge of both the scientific and philos
2021年11月16日，国际奥委会发布了《基于性别认同和性别差异的公平、包容和非歧视国际奥委会框架》。该文件通常被简称为《框架》，更新了国际奥委会2015年关于跨性别和非二元性别运动员参加国际体育比赛的指导意见。国际奥委会的新框架出台之前，国际单项体育联合会(IFs)做出了几项引人注目的决定，体育仲裁法庭(Court of Arbitration for Sport)也做出了裁决，这些裁决特别关注睾酮的作用、女性运动员的公平和安全。在国际奥委会之外，体育运动中的跨性别运动员问题也成为了一个激烈争论的话题，不仅在政治家和媒体之间，在许多学术界也是如此。争论的一方认为，应该允许跨性别运动员基于性别身份参加体育活动。另一方面，有些人认为跨性别运动员有不公平的优势，不应该被允许与顺性别运动员竞争。支持跨性别运动员包容性政策的人认为，剥夺他们参与体育运动的权利是一种歧视，违背了包容和平等的原则。他们认为，跨性别运动员与顺性别运动员没有什么不同，他们的性别认同应该是他们参加体育运动的唯一决定因素。此外，他们认为变性运动员接受了激素替代疗法(HRT)或性别重新分配手术，这使他们的体力和耐力与对手一致。反对跨性别运动员与顺性别运动员竞争的人认为，这种竞争是不公平的，因为这两个群体之间存在生理差异。他们指出，跨性别运动员，特别是那些出生时被指定为男性并经历了男性青春期的运动员，尽管接受了激素替代疗法，但仍然比顺性别运动员具有身体优势。例如，出生时被指定为男性的变性运动员可能有更大的肺活量、更大的肌肉量、更大的骨密度，或其他人体测量优势，使他们比顺性女性更具优势。还有人指出，这种差异可能会给参加橄榄球、拳击或综合格斗等接触性运动的顺性运动员带来安全问题。他们认为，允许跨性别运动员基于自己的性别身份参加体育比赛，对没有相同生理优势的顺性别运动员来说是不公平的。在这样的辩论中，本论坛邀请了两位学者来研究国际奥委会框架的适用性和效果。两位学者都从哲学和科学的角度对这场辩论做出了不同的回应。维罗妮卡·艾薇(Veronica Ivy)是一位哲学家出身的活动家，她在科学和哲学问题上都有广泛的知识，而且作为一名公开变性的精英运动员，她有着丰富的经验。Ask Vest Christiansen同样利用生理学数据和哲学推理来强调与国际奥委会关于跨性别运动员的框架和政策有关的权利和公平问题。虽然两位学者在一些观点上存在分歧，但把这两篇文章放在一起看，会让当前的共识点和正在进行的争论点变得清晰起来。事实上，由于两位作者的辛勤工作，这个论坛表明，尽管有国际奥委会的指导方针，关于体育运动中变性运动员的争论远未结束。随着医学、科学和伦理见解继续重塑这一激烈争论的问题，仍有许多问题和问题尚未解决。同时，该论坛提醒我们，学者可以不同意而不讨厌。事实上，正是在这些分歧的时刻，讨论、反思和倾听不仅可以揭示我们对体育的共同热爱或我们共同的人性，还可以说明潜在的前进方向。本着这种精神，我们邀请您参加我们的跨性别运动员与奥运会论坛。
{"title":"The International Olympic Committee's Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations","authors":"John Gleaves","doi":"10.5406/26396025.4.2.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.4.2.01","url":null,"abstract":"On November 16, 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released its “IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations.” Often referenced simply as the Framework, the document updated the IOC's 2015 guidance for transgender and non-binary athletes to compete in international sport. The IOC's new Framework came in the wake of several high-profile decisions by International Federations (IFs) and rulings by the Court of Arbitration for Sport that specifically focused on the role of testosterone, fairness, and safety for women athletes.Outside of the IOC, the issue of transgender athletes in sports has also become a topic of intense debate, not only among politicians and the media, but also in many scholarly circles. On one side of the debate, there are those who argue that transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in sports based on their gender identity. On the other side, there are those who believe that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage and should not be allowed to compete against cisgender athletes.Supporters of inclusive policies for transgender athletes argue that denying them the right to participate in sports is discriminatory and goes against the principles of inclusivity and equality. They argue that transgender athletes are no different from cisgender athletes, and that their gender identity should be the sole determining factor when it comes to their participation in sports. Furthermore, they argue that transgender athletes have undergone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or gender reassignment surgery, which has brought their physical strength and endurance into line with their opponents.Opponents of transgender athletes competing alongside cisgender athletes argue that such competition is unfair because of the physiological differences that exist between the two groups. They point out that transgender athletes, especially those who were assigned male at birth and underwent a male puberty, still have physical advantages over cisgender athletes despite undergoing HRT. For example, transgender athletes who were assigned male at birth may have larger lung capacities, greater muscle mass, greater bone density, or other anthropometric advantages that gives them an edge over cisgender women. Others have pointed out that such differences may present safety issues for cisgender athletes in contact sports such as rugby, boxing, or mixed martial arts. They argue that allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports based on their gender identity is therefore unfair to cisgender athletes who do not have the same physiological advantages.With such debate, this forum invited two scholars to examine the suitability and effects of the IOC's Framework. Both scholars draw on philosophical and scientific arguments to offer different reactions to the debate. Veronica Ivy is a philosopher turned activist with extensive knowledge of both the scientific and philos","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135323147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Mega-events have long been promoted as opportunities for cities to become more globalized, thereby enhancing tourism- and consumption-based economic development. But does this mega-event strategy actually work for smaller cities? This article compares the recent history of mega-event planning to cities’ ratings on the Global and World City (GaWC) ranking system, a typology for evaluating cities’ connectivity within the global economy. We surveyed 138 cities that bid on or hosted a variety of multi-sport mega-events. Competition for the most prominent mega-events is dominated by the most globalized “alpha” ranked cities, though less-globalized cities regularly bid for and host smaller mega-events. On average, hosting a mega-event has no significant effect on a city's GaWC ranking. Using a subsample of bids for the Summer Olympics, we further find that there is no specific model of mega-event planning in alpha cities: simply being a large and highly globalized city appears to be central to their success. This suggests mega-events are not a realistic mechanism for smaller and less-globalized cities to advance their global ambitions.
{"title":"Are Mega-Events Only for Global Cities? Analyzing Host Cities through the Global and World Cities Framework, 1990–2020","authors":"Alexandre Faure, John Lauermann","doi":"10.5406/26396025.4.2.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.4.2.04","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mega-events have long been promoted as opportunities for cities to become more globalized, thereby enhancing tourism- and consumption-based economic development. But does this mega-event strategy actually work for smaller cities? This article compares the recent history of mega-event planning to cities’ ratings on the Global and World City (GaWC) ranking system, a typology for evaluating cities’ connectivity within the global economy. We surveyed 138 cities that bid on or hosted a variety of multi-sport mega-events. Competition for the most prominent mega-events is dominated by the most globalized “alpha” ranked cities, though less-globalized cities regularly bid for and host smaller mega-events. On average, hosting a mega-event has no significant effect on a city's GaWC ranking. Using a subsample of bids for the Summer Olympics, we further find that there is no specific model of mega-event planning in alpha cities: simply being a large and highly globalized city appears to be central to their success. This suggests mega-events are not a realistic mechanism for smaller and less-globalized cities to advance their global ambitions.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135323145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I'm really tired of repeating myself. People keep telling me that the topic of including trans and/or intersex women in women's sport is “complicated.” But it's not. It's very simple. Are trans women really women, full stop, or not? If you think “Yes,” then there's no debate: trans and intersex women, as women, belong in women's sport. If you think “No,” then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind. You didn't arrive at that belief through reasoning, and you won't get out of it that way either. It's a little like arguing with a flat-Earther: if you are convinced that the Earth is flat, then you'll find any reason, no matter how irrational, to hold on to that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence.But this is what I find myself repeating over and over: to those who already think that trans and intersex women are really, fully women, I don't need to provide further evidence. So, I find myself arguing against people who already think that trans and intersex women are “male” and therefore there must be some unfair performance advantage, despite my repeatedly pointing out that there's no reliable scientific evidence supporting their claim. It often doesn't take much to scratch the surface of their views to find that they really just think that trans women are men in dresses. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that trans women, in particular, are grossly statistically underrepresented in elite sport; it seems, instead, then that trans women are possibly at a competitive disadvantage compared to their cis counterparts.I've penned peer-reviewed scholarly articles on trans and intersex athlete rights to inclusion.1 I've presented detailed arguments about the science, law, and ethics (particularly regarding sport as a human right). I've penned articles and op-eds for such major news outlets as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Economist, and so many others I've literally lost count. I've appeared on all major news networks, including going into the “lion's den” of Fox News's New York headquarters to go toe-to-toe with someone I think I'm safe in calling transphobic, Abigail Shrier. I've appeared in more documentaries than I can even enumerate.Each time I say the same thing: sport is a human right (just read the first sentence of the International Olympic Committee's fourth Fundamental Principle of Olympism: “Participation in sport is a human right.”) and the burden of proof is on those seeking to exclude a group from a human right. That's how human rights law works. And it's very clear that those seeking to exclude trans and intersex women from women's sport have not met that burden. In fact, I've argued in print that I think it's unlikely that they'll ever be able to meet that burden.But it's like arguing with a wall. You see, the “common sense” position is that trans women are “male” and that they must—even though no evidence supports this—retain an unfair advantage, so the burden of proof is really on
问题是，男性体内未改变的内源性睾酮水平几乎为零，远低于顺性女性的平均水平。部分原因是这样的建议需要操纵“正常”的概念，以排除所有使索赔无效的情况。正如我常说的，“当然，如果你忽略所有重叠的情况，男性和女性之间没有内源性睾丸激素重叠!”从2004年雅典奥运会开始，国际体育联合会开始允许变性人以变性身份参加比赛，直到2021年东京奥运会，共有超过5.4万名奥运会选手。跨性别运动员的数量?零。许多国际单项体育联合会在2016年里约奥运会上采纳了更具包容性的2015年更新的国际奥委会跨性别建议，根据该建议，2016年里约和2018年索契奥运会的参赛人数超过1.4万人。关于2015年更新的国际奥委会建议的大部分新闻报道都是变性女性将接管并主导里约奥运会。到底有多少跨性别运动员参加了比赛?再次零。即使在2021年的东京奥运会上，也有四名跨性别运动员参加了比赛(其中一人实际上并没有参加比赛，因为她是替补)，但没有一名跨性别女性获得奖牌。唯一获得奖牌的变性人是奎因，她是加拿大女子足球队的非二元性别成员，赢得了金牌。每次人们制造恐慌，声称跨性别女性将“接管”或“主宰”女子体育运动时，这都没有得到现实的证实。变性女性从未赢得过精英(公开赛)世界冠军，没有人保持过精英(公开赛)世界纪录，没有人获得过奥运会奖牌，也没有人赢得过高尔夫和网球等重大体育赛事的冠军。这是对变性女性的非理性恐惧。我们叫它什么?变性。重要的是要如实描述。太多“善意”的人害怕使用这个词，我猜是因为害怕疏远别人或“分裂”。你知道什么是分裂吗?编造跨性别女性主宰女性运动的幻想——尽管所有证据都与之相反——并利用这种恐惧来否认跨性别女性以女性身份参加比赛的基本人权。我从来没想过要成为运动员权益的“积极分子”。真的，我只是想参加我的自行车比赛，看看我能在我喜欢的运动中走多远。到目前为止，这已经导致了2018年和2019年的两届UCI大师赛道自行车世界锦标赛。我曾经有过奥运会的梦想，直到创伤导致的创伤后精神紧张性精神障碍和其他由骚扰等引起的精神障碍让我的梦想破灭了。实现如此崇高的目标当然很难，但当人们积极地尽其所能禁止你竞争时，即使你在最严格的审查下遵守每一条规则，难度就更大了。他们还是因为我的存在而叫我“骗子”。关于跨性别女性参加女子体育比赛是否公平，有很多争论。在混乱中经常被忽略的是，有跨性别运动员和非二元性别运动员。“成功的跨性别运动员在哪里?”我都数不清了。但商业上最成功的跨性别运动员都是跨性别者:曾六次入选美国男双运动员代表队的克里斯·莫西尔(Chris Mosier)在2016年里约奥运会期间为耐克做了电视广告;职业拳击手帕特里西奥·曼努埃尔曾在《滚石》杂志上发表专题文章。第一位获得奥运奖牌的变性人奎因在2021年东京奥运会上与加拿大女子足球队一起获得了奖牌。变性男摔跤手麦克·贝格斯(Mack Beggs)因被迫参加高中女生组的摔跤比赛而声名鹊起，他经常被当作变性女性在体育运动中存在问题的一个例子。毕业后，他在大学的男子摔跤队很开心。现在他专注于综合格斗。令人惊讶的是，那些非理性地反对跨性别女性参加体育运动的人认为他是一个跨性别女性。变性人经常受到赞扬，但随后就被遗忘了。她们从社会想象中消失了，因为她们不符合只关注体育运动中的跨性别女性的主流叙事。在某些情况下，就像Beggs一样，他们被用作对抗跨性别女性的棋子，以一种至多可以被粗略地称为“逻辑”的扭曲手法。尽管跨性别者至少因为他们的“勇敢”获得了一些媒体的报道和赞誉——这本身就是一个完全不同的问题，植根于厌女症和性别歧视——但非二元性别运动员却完全被忽视了。体育运动本身的结构往往不包括非二元性别的人。如果一个人不容易被划分为二元的男人/女人，那么他应该在哪里竞争?许多规则要求运动员选择一个，然后他们在四年内不能改变主意。 没有任何理由，世界铁人三项将不允许跨性别运动员参加女子比赛，如果他们在四年内参加过男子比赛!该政策是这样写的:“运动员必须提供一份书面并签署的声明，证明她在过去4年内没有参加过铁人三项或相关综合运动项目的正式男子比赛，也没有参加过游泳、自行车、田径或越野滑雪等我们的联合运动项目。”他们对此完全没有提供任何理由。对于任何想要参加铁人三项的优秀跨性别女性来说，这实际上是一个职业杀手。这种体育的二元结构来自高层，来自国际奥委会和体育仲裁法庭(CAS)。2015年，国际体育仲裁院对双性女运动员迪蒂·昌德(Dutee Chand)做出了一项具有里程碑意义的裁决，该裁决的部分内容是:“比赛只有两类:男性和女性。这些类别合在一起旨在涵盖所有希望参加竞技体育的运动员。国际体育仲裁院实际上是体育界的最高法院。尽管他们之前的决定并不构成他们未来决定的先例(事实上，他们在卡斯特·塞门亚一案中的推理与他们在查德一案中的推理实际上是180度大转弯)，但他们的决定严重影响甚至限制了国际金融机构可能采取的政策。在这种情况下，希望参加国际体育比赛的运动员只能参加“男性”或“女性”类别的比赛。一般的“理解”是，性和性别之间至少有一些严格的区别。所以，有人可能会问我为什么在使用通常被理解为“性别”术语的“男人/女人”或“男孩/女孩”和通常被理解为“性”术语的“男性/女性”之间犹豫不决。原因是双重的。首先，体育对“sex”和“gender”没有任何区别:它们可以互换使用。在前面提到的国际体育仲裁委员会的案例中，前面引用的段落部分写道:“一项阻止一些女性参加比赛的规则……这与奥林匹克主义的基本原则“每个人都必须有从事体育运动的机会，不受任何形式的歧视”背道而驰。第二，政府对“性”和“性别”没有任何区别，至少通常没有。虽然变性人并不能普遍地获得法律承认他们的(变性)性别，但在许多国家他们可以。美国、加拿大、英国、澳大利亚、德国和一长串其他国家都允许跨性别者更改其法律文件上的性别名称，包括出生证明。例如，在加拿大，跨性别女性可以被法律承认为“女性”。从2022年1月起，在不列颠哥伦比亚省，任何12岁或以上的人都可以在他们的出生证明上更改性别，因此他们所有的身份证件都不需要任何医疗要求，甚至不需要医生的证明。不列颠哥伦比亚省完全是一个自我认同的省!“女性”和“女人”(或“女孩”)之间没有法律上的区别。当然，不同的政府对跨性别者有不同的要求，以获得法律上的承认，在联邦和州/省的层面上可能存在差异。这样的例子有很多。想想英国2004年的《性别承认法》(Gender Recognition Act)的措辞:“如果向一个人颁发了完整的性别承认证书，那么这个人的性别就成为后天性别(因此，如果后天性别是男性，这个人的性别就成为男性，如果是女性，这个人的性别就成为女性)。”注意“male gender”的用法，“the person's sex变成that of a man”。“gender”和“sex”这两个词可以组合使用，也可以互换使用。合法身份证明文件只列出“男”或“女”或其缩写“M”或“f”。护照上没写"男"或"女"体育或“女性专用”的社交空间(如浴室)是基于性别而不是性别而隔离的，依赖于性别和性别之间的严格区分，这种想法根本不是事实。原因很简单，体育和政府并没有严格区分性别和性别。为什么这很重要呢?一些反对跨性别女性参
{"title":"Trans Women Are Women, and Sport Is a Human Right","authors":"Veronica Ivy","doi":"10.5406/26396025.4.2.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.4.2.02","url":null,"abstract":"I'm really tired of repeating myself. People keep telling me that the topic of including trans and/or intersex women in women's sport is “complicated.” But it's not. It's very simple. Are trans women really women, full stop, or not? If you think “Yes,” then there's no debate: trans and intersex women, as women, belong in women's sport. If you think “No,” then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind. You didn't arrive at that belief through reasoning, and you won't get out of it that way either. It's a little like arguing with a flat-Earther: if you are convinced that the Earth is flat, then you'll find any reason, no matter how irrational, to hold on to that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence.But this is what I find myself repeating over and over: to those who already think that trans and intersex women are really, fully women, I don't need to provide further evidence. So, I find myself arguing against people who already think that trans and intersex women are “male” and therefore there must be some unfair performance advantage, despite my repeatedly pointing out that there's no reliable scientific evidence supporting their claim. It often doesn't take much to scratch the surface of their views to find that they really just think that trans women are men in dresses. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that trans women, in particular, are grossly statistically underrepresented in elite sport; it seems, instead, then that trans women are possibly at a competitive disadvantage compared to their cis counterparts.I've penned peer-reviewed scholarly articles on trans and intersex athlete rights to inclusion.1 I've presented detailed arguments about the science, law, and ethics (particularly regarding sport as a human right). I've penned articles and op-eds for such major news outlets as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Economist, and so many others I've literally lost count. I've appeared on all major news networks, including going into the “lion's den” of Fox News's New York headquarters to go toe-to-toe with someone I think I'm safe in calling transphobic, Abigail Shrier. I've appeared in more documentaries than I can even enumerate.Each time I say the same thing: sport is a human right (just read the first sentence of the International Olympic Committee's fourth Fundamental Principle of Olympism: “Participation in sport is a human right.”) and the burden of proof is on those seeking to exclude a group from a human right. That's how human rights law works. And it's very clear that those seeking to exclude trans and intersex women from women's sport have not met that burden. In fact, I've argued in print that I think it's unlikely that they'll ever be able to meet that burden.But it's like arguing with a wall. You see, the “common sense” position is that trans women are “male” and that they must—even though no evidence supports this—retain an unfair advantage, so the burden of proof is really on","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135323146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：