This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
“Spo Belongs o E e yone… Bu No Du ing P egnancy” : Views o Finnish Spo
S akeholde s on P egnancy in Spo
© The Au ho (s) 2024
Published e sion
Raudasoja, Mi jam; Ryba, Ta iana V.
Raudasoja, M., & Ryba, T. V. (2024). “Spo Belongs o E e yone… Bu No Du ing P egnancy” :
Views o Finnish Spo S akeholde s on P egnancy in Spo . Sex Roles, Ea ly online.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11199-024-01515-9
2024
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sex Roles
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11199-024-01515-9
discou ses, hey a e mos ly un ounded (Ga aghan, 2009).
E en oday, new gene a ions o p egnan women a e likely
o eel p essu e o display app op ia e p egnancy beha io ,
such as ollowing ex ensi e and de ailed ecommenda ions
on die , li es yle, appea ance, and medical su eillance and
in e en ion (He e nan e al., 2011).
One pa icula ly con en ious social issue o p egnan
people is hei pa icipa ion in eli e and compe i i e spo .
Gi en i s inhe en logic o seeking peak pe o mance, some-
imes a he expense o o he a eas in li e (Douglas & Ca -
less, 2009), and widely p e alen sexis cul u e (Fink, 2016;
Goldman & Ge is, 2021; Hindman & Walke , 2020), spo
has adi ionally been pe cei ed as unsui able o p egnan
women. This a ionale has been and con inues o be jus i-
ied by e e ence o medical conce ns o e he heal h o he
mo he and he de eloping e us (Wea ing, 2020), despi e
lack o e idence (L’He ede e al., 2022; Sundgo -Bo gen e
al., 2019; Wowdzia e al., 2021). A hle es hemsel es ha e
To unde s and women’s posi ion in socie y, i is essen ial
o in es iga e how he emale ep oduc i e body is socially
cons uc ed and wha consequences his has in women’s
li es. The discou se o he emale ep oduc i e body as
agile and in need o p o ec ion is o en used as a jus i i-
ca ion o he exclusion o women om some pa s o he
public sphe e, pa icula ly du ing p egnancy (Mu phy e
al., 2011; Usshe , 2006). The limi s o accep able beha io
o p egnan women a e socially cons uc ed and cons an ly
unde nego ia ion. Mo eo e , p egnancy aboos a e some-
imes co obo a ed wi h medical e idence, e.g., p e en ing
ha m o he e us, bu as is o en he case wi h opp essi e
Mi jam Raudasoja
[email p o ec ed]
1 Depa men o Psychology, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä,
Jy äskylä, Finland
Abs ac
The social cons uc ion o p egnancy emphasizes he mo he ’s esponsibili y o he de eloping e us. Hence, ce ain
ac i i ies, such as pa icipa ion in compe i i e spo , a e o en cons uc ed as inapp op ia e du ing p egnancy. While expe
opinion ends o s ess cau ion, he di e si y o a hle e mo he s’ expe iences challenge hese dominan discou ses. Less is
known abou how pee s and o he s akeholde s in spo iew he pa icipa ion o p egnan a hle es. Knowledge o such a i-
udes is essen ial o unde s anding he posi ion o women in a speci ic socie y and he ba ie s o hei au onomy. Hence,
we examined su ey esponses om di e en spo s akeholde s (N = 540) in Finland. D awing on ela ional dialec ics
heo y (Bax e , L. A. (2011). Voicing ela ionships. Sage.), we used con apun al analysis o iden i y di e en discou ses
on he compa ibili y o p egnancy and spo , and hei in e play. Th ee discou ses we e iden i ied: an equali y discou se,
which emphasizes ha spo belongs o e e yone, and ha p egnan people should be accep ed and suppo ed in spo -
ing en i onmen s; a esponsibili y discou se, which cons uc s p egnancy as agili y and spo as po en ially dange ous
o he a hle e and he e us; and an incompa ibili y discou se, which cons uc s p egnancy as a disease and unaccep able
in spo ing en i onmen s. Ou analysis shows ha medicalized, au ho i a i e knowledge is he mas e s a egy used o
keep women ou o male social spaces du ing p egnancy. The indings o ou s udy highligh he ongoing s uggle o
ep oduc i e jus ice in a pa ia chal wo ld o de . To ad ance women’s posi ion in socie y and suppo he au onomy o all
indi iduals, iable p o essional guidelines and o ganiza ional policies mus be o mula ed and applied.
Keywo ds P egnancy · Compe i i e spo · Eli e a hle e · Discou se analysis · Rela ional dialec ics heo y ·
Rep oduc i e jus ice · Social jus ice in spo · P egnan a hle es · Gende bias
Accep ed: 22 Augus 2024
© The Au ho (s) 2024
“Spo Belongs o E e yone… Bu No Du ing P egnancy”: Views o
Finnish Spo S akeholde s on P egnancy in Spo
Mi jamRaudasoja1· Ta iana V.Ryba1
1 3
Sex Roles
ques ioned his o e ly cau ious app oach and some a hle es
ha e ained, compe ed, and e en achie ed supe io pe o -
mance du ing p egnancy wi hou ad e se e ec s on hem-
sel es o hei babies. Mo eo e , as a hle ic ca ee s ha e
become longe , women a hle es now mo e o en han be o e
e u n o compe i i e spo a e ha ing child en (Da enpo
e al., 2023; Massey & Whi ehead, 2022). This may induce
heigh ened p essu e o ain e ec i ely du ing p egnancy
and o apidly esume aining a e childbi h in o de o
minimize he leng h o he aining gap.
By s udying discou ses on p egnancy in spo , i is possi-
ble o gain insigh s in o he social nego ia ions on women’s
oles in socie y, and especially on he meaning o p egnancy.
P egnancy and spo p o ide a unique gende ed con ex
whe e eminine gende oles, especially a ound mo he -
hood, and he masculine cul u e o spo a e likely o clash.
S udying a i udes owa d p egnan people’s pa icipa ion
in spo is undamen al in unde s anding how sexis s e eo-
ypes a ound ep oduc i e oles c ea e ba ie s o au onomy
and s igma ize people who do no i hose s e eo ypes. F om
he poin o iew o equi y, di e si y, and inclusion (EDI), i
is essen ial o examine a i udes o spo in p egnancy. The
s udy con ibu es o he con inuing academic heo izing on
gende oles, sexism, disc imina ion and social con ol. The
s udy also adds o he eminis li e a u e on p egnancy and
p o essional li e, as spo ing sys ems a e he wo king en i-
onmen s o a hle es.
Rep oduc ion and Social Con ol
Opp essi e socie al p ac ices a e o en buil on gende essen-
ialism, an ideology which seeks o jus i y unequal gende
ela ions as ha ing biological unde pinnings and pe cei ed
inhe en gende di e ences, omi ing o minimizing he ole
ha en i onmen and cul u e play in c ea ing hose di e -
ences (Fine, 2010; P en ice & Mille , 2006). Womanhood
is con la ed wi h expec a ions o mo he hood, as women
a e encou aged o see mo he hood as he mos p ecious ole
in hei li es (Wall, 2013). Social and s uc u al con ol o
women in ensi ies in p egnancy (Chambe s, 2001), s ee ing
hem owa ds ce ain ac ions and social en i onmen s (such
as accep ing medical su eillance and ollowing ad ice on a
heal hy li es yle) and away om o he ac ions and en i on-
men s ( hose pe cei ed as isky o unheal hy, such as ce ain
jobs o hobbies). Resea ch sugges s ha while se e al s a -
egies a e used o con ol women du ing p egnancy, mode n
socie ies mos ly ely on in e nalized con ol exe cised by
women hemsel es (as opposed o ex e nal con ol p ac iced
by ins i u ions and legal bodies) (e.g., Nei e man, 2012).
Ex e nal con ol mos ly eme ges in si ua ions whe e women
a e seen as ansg essing he bounda ies o accep able
beha io and hence as pu ing hei babies a isk (Hebl e
al., 2007; Longhu s , 1999). This ype o con ol educes
p egnan people o ep oduc i e objec s and ins umen al-
izes hem as me e p oduce s o child en ins ead o seeing
hem as whole human beings (Dye e al., 2023; Nussbaum,
1995).
One pa icula ly e ec i e ool used o con ol women’s
beha io and choices du ing p egnancy is he discou se o
e al pe sonhood, in which he de eloping e us is al eady
cons uc ed as a pe son wi h i s own igh s and in e es s ha
may be in opposi ion o he igh s and in e es s o i s mo he
(Cosg o e & Vaswani, 2020; Hen icks, 2015). The powe
o his discou se has also been ein o ced by he coexis ence
o ano he powe ul discou se, ha o in ensi e mo he hood
(Hays, 1996). This discou se is buil on an ideology which
alo izes childhood as sac ed and p esc ibes biological
mo he s as he bes ca egi e s, who a e expec ed o p o ide
emo ionally abso bing, labo -in ensi e, ime-consuming,
cos ly, and expe -guided ca e (Hays, 1996). In sho , mo h-
e s a e expec ed o always pu hei child en i s , e en a
he expense o hei own well-being. Indeed, socie al alues
p esc ibe women o be wo ied o he “op imal” de elop-
men o hei o sp ing, o whom no sac i ice is conside ed
oo big.
I is a gued ha ecei ing and ac ing on medical ad ice
in p egnancy ep esen s gende ed ca ewo k (Mo gan, 1996)
ha comp ises bo h emo ional and embodied labo (Ga ell,
2011). Lup on (2012) a gues ha e hical and mo al equi e-
men s a e imposed on p egnan women, making i hei
esponsibili y o ca e o hei bodies and he e us, while
a he same ime po aying hem as a po en ial isk o he
de eloping e us. Lau endeau (2008, p. 385) claims ha
“ he e is no such hing as a no- isk p egnancy,” a no ion
which exempli ies he inc easing medicaliza ion o women’s
ep oduc i e unc ions (Ka z Ro hman, 2021; Melamed,
2023). Ul ima ely, a ibu ing esponsibili y o indi iduals is
a o m o social con ol ha a ec s all p egnan women, as
hey a e equi ed o display ce ain a i udes, beha io s and
ou wa d appea ance o a oid being labelled as bad mo he s
(Longhu s , 2005; Usshe , 2006; see also McGannon e al.,
2024). I also has he side e ec o o e looking s uc u al
inequali ies such as iolence, po e y, o acism (Cosg o e
& Vaswani, 2020; Mo ello-F osch & Shenassa, 2006).
P egnancy in pos mode n socie ies has also gained mo e
isibili y and accep abili y in he public sphe e, he eby
becoming an inc easingly public expe ience (Longhu s ,
2005; Ga ell, 2011). This has been accompanied by an
in ensi ica ion o he “public sc u iny” o p egnan women
(Fox e al., 2009; Longhu s , 1999), who a e expec ed o
adhe e o he social cons uc ion o a heal hy p egnancy
(He e nan e al., 2011). Using Glick and Fiske’s ambi alen
sexism heo y (1996), Mu phy and colleagues (2011) ound
1 3
Sex Roles
ha p egnancy ad ice is iddled wi h sexism. The ambi a-
len sexism heo y di e en ia es be ween hos ile sexism,
which e e s o nega i e a i udes owa ds women, o en
mani es ing in belie s ha women a e manipula i e, de i-
ous, e c., and bene olen sexism, which e e s o wa m bu
pa onizing a i udes owa ds women, po aying hem as in
need o male p o ec ion. In hei s udy, Mu phy e al. ound
ha bo h hos ile and bene olen sexism we e associa ed
wi h g ea e endo semen o p osc ip i e ules, such as he
belie ha p egnan women should no engage in s enuous
exe cise (Mu phy e al., 2011). Simila indings ha e been
epo ed in o he s udies (see Salmen & Dhon , 2021; Su on
e al., 2011). Findley and colleagues (2020) ound ha being
ad ised o a oid any physical ac i i y du ing p egnancy
made p egnan women eel ha o he s we e a emp ing o
assume owne ship o hei bodies.
The p esen s udy is si ua ed in Finland, in a cul u al con-
ex cha ac e ized by an ad anced s age o gende equal-
i y (Wo ld Economic Fo um, 2023). Despi e his, socie al
and cul u al nego ia ions o e he oles and di ision o
labo be ween pa en s o di e en gende s pe sis (Pe älä-
Li unen, 2007). This si ua ion means ha p egnan women
mus na iga e a con lic ing ideological landscape in which
con adic o y cul u al discou ses a e likely o appea (Rau-
dasoja e al., 2022). Eli e and compe i i e spo p o ides a
pa icula ly ich a ena o explo ing hese con adic ions,
hence in his s udy we ocus on he iews o di e en
spo s akeholde s on con inuing spo pa icipa ion du ing
p egnancy.
P egnancy in Eli e and Compe i i e Spo
Spo as a socie al p ac ice has adi ionally been ega ded
as unsui able o women, who in consequence ha e his o i-
cally been excluded om o ganized spo (Blaze , 2023;
Gu mann, 1991). A e women we e allowed access o
spo acili ies, p egnancy was, un il ecen ly, conside ed
a con aindica ion o spo , o a leas o igo ous spo
(Je e, 2011). These ou da ed discou ses o spo as ha m ul
and dange ous in p egnancy pe sis (Je e, 2011), e en in he
absence o scien i ic e idence o suppo hem (L’He ede
e al., 2022; Sundgo -Bo gen e al., 2019; Wowdzia e al.,
2021).
Fu he mo e, spo policies e lec a nega i e bias
owa ds ep oduc i e issues, equa ing aginal childbi h
wi h an acu e inju y (Bø e al., 2017). Recommenda ions
end o be o e ly cau ious and s ess po en ial isks e en
in he absence o esea ch e idence: Fo example, while
acknowledging ha no ad e se e ec s on e al o ma e -
nal heal h ha e no been epo ed, he In e na ional Olym-
pic Commi ee guidelines o pa icipa ion in spo du ing
p egnancy sugges se e al p ecau ions (Bø e al., 2016),
such as p egnan women should no ain abo e 90% o
maximal ae obic capaci y (p. 575), should no ain a al i-
udes g ea e han 1500–2000 m (p. 576), and should a oid
spo s ha may include a isk o auma om a collision o
o he simila e en (p. 576), a ge ed a eli e and compe i-
i e a hle es and o he spo s akeholde s. The jus i ica ion
o hese limi a ions is “ heo e ical conce n” o e po en ial
ha m o he e us (p. 576) o comes om s udies on p egnan
women in mo o ehicle acciden s and no in spo ing en i-
onmen s. In ac , he o icial guidelines do no ci e s a is ics
on he numbe o ac ual spo inju ies in di e en ypes o
spo , no do hey p o ide any examples o p egnan women
ha ing su e ed ad e se e ec s om in ensi e aining. A
ecen example o p egnan a hle es compe ing a a high
le el was a he Pa is Olympics, whe e he Egyp ian ence
Nada Ha ez (7 mon hs p egnan ) and he Aze baijani a che
Yaylagul Ramazano a (6.5 mon hs p egnan ) success ully
compe ed (Penney, 2024).
In esponse o scien i ic e idence on he sa e y and bene-
i s o bo h mo he and e us, many obs e ical p o essional
o ganiza ions now ecommend mode a e physical ac i i y
in p egnancy (e.g., ACOG Commi ee on Obs e ic P ac ice,
2020; B own e al., 2022). These ecommenda ions a e o en
a ge ed a he gene al popula ion and hence end o ecom-
mend a lowe in ensi y and amoun o aining han ha
equi ed o p o essional a hle es. S udies show ha because
e idence-based guidelines speci ically add essing eli e a h-
le es a e lacking, p egnan a hle es o en eel anxie y and
unce ain y (Da enpo e al., 2022; Ma ínez-Pascual e al.,
2017). Physicians o en ely on exe cise guidelines a ge ing
he p egnan popula ion in gene al and end o be excessi ely
cau ious in hei ad ice, causing p egnan a hle es o dis us
hem (Da enpo e al., 2022). Ohlendo e al. (2019) ound
ha p egnan unne s us hei embodied ins inc o know
wha adjus men s, i any, a e needed in hei aining. When
gi en con lic ing o non-e idence-based ad ice, hey los
us in hei heal hca e p o ide s who did no no ice ha
hey we e e y a uned o hei bodies. Fu he mo e, based
on hei s udy on Ins ag am pos s by wo eli e igu e ska e s
du ing p egnancy and pos pa um, McGannon e al. (2022)
epo ed ha hese a hle es aligned and esis ed he domi-
nan p egnancy and mo he hood na a i es: They displayed
wa m and nu u ing mo he hood in many ways, bu also
esis ed he cul u al unde s anding ha igo ous exe cise
was no sui able in p egnancy o ha mo he s should se
hei ca ee aspi a ions aside and ocus on mo he hood. I
hus seems ha es ic i e belie s a e being challenged, as
he spo ing wo ld aces inc easing numbe s o emale a h-
le es who become p egnan and ha e child en du ing hei
spo ing ca ee s.
1 3
Sex Roles
decisions, and h ough abo ion s igma, ha is, nega i e
e alua ions o hose who ha e ne e heless had an abo ion.
The spo ing communi y is a ui ul cul u al landscape
in which o in es iga e a wha poin he inhe en masculin-
i y o spo is likely o clash wi h mo e p og essi e gen-
de iews. As he ideal a hle e is a biological male (Ma in
& Ma in, 1995), an a hle e’s p egnancy is likely o e oke
nega i e esponses simply because p egnancy unde lines
he a hle e’s emaleness ( ega dless o hei gende iden-
i ica ion) and ma e nal quali ies. The emale gende ole
con lic s wi h he a hle e ole: he ideal woman and he
ideal a hle e sha e e y ew quali ies. When a emale a h-
le e becomes p egnan , his con lic is exace ba ed, possibly
e oking nega i e esponses in o he s i ha a hle e con in-
ues engaging in spo .
Cu en S udy
While he e is a g owing li e a u e on mo he hood and
spo (see e.g., Massey & Whi ehead, 2022; McGannon
e al., 2024), including a ew s udies on p egnan a hle es’
expe iences (see Da enpo e al., 2022; McG ego e al.,
2024), li le is known abou he a i udes o a ious spo
s akeholde s on p egnancy and spo . This s udy aimed o
add ess hese esea ch gaps by s udying he iews o a h-
le es, coaches, spo expe s (physio he apis s, psycholo-
gis s, physicians) and spo leade s on p egnan a hle es.
Mo e speci ically, he p esen s udy add essed he ollowing
esea ch ques ions: (1) How is he compa ibili y o p eg-
nancy and spo discu si ely cons uc ed? and (2) How do
he di e en discou ses in e ac wi h one ano he and wha
means a e used o legi imize hem?
We employed a c i ical eminis lens in seeking o iden-
i y po en ial in ingemen s on ep oduc i e jus ice in spo -
ing en i onmen s. By illumina ing he in e play be ween
egali a ian and es ic i e ideological belie s, ou s udy con-
ibu es o he b oade li e a u e on gende and inequali y
in p o essional social con ex s and highligh s why, despi e
a emp s o imp o e EDI, his objec i e migh no always be
achie ed. Rela ional dialec ics heo y (Bax e , 2011; Bax e
e al., 2021), which aims a iden i ying di e en discou ses
and s udying how hey a e posi ioned ela i e o one ano he
in o ms he heo e ical app oach aken in his s udy. Acco d-
ing o RDT, discou ses a e sys ems o meaning o wo ld-
iews con eyed in he use o language, and he pu pose
o analysis is o s udy language in use wi h a heo e ical
unde pinning (Bax e , 2011, p. 13). A speake ’s u e ance
is always pa o an in e ex ual u e ance chain and a la ge
dialogue ep esen ing he cul u e’s alues. The heo y pos-
i s ha di e en discou ses unc ion on an unequal playing
ield, some being dominan , and o he s being ma ginalized.
S udies on he iews o coaches, spo leade s, and phy-
sicians on p egnan a hle es’ pa icipa ion in eli e and com-
pe i i e spo s a e sca ce. Da enpo e al. (2023) epo ed
an in e iew s udy wi h coaches and heal hca e p o ide s
on hei p ac ices o ad ising p egnan a hle es and no ed
ha hese p o essionals we e awa e o he need o eliable
in o ma ion on he sa e y o aining du ing p egnancy. They
exp essed us a ion wi h he gene al guidelines, which hey
pe cei ed as a oo conse a i e o p o essional a hle es.
Mo eo e , he pa icipan s s essed ha ins ead o using a
gene al imeline o all a hle es on spo du ing p egnancy
and e u ning o spo pos pa um, a be e app oach would
be indi idualiza ion, wi h speci ic benchma ks and a hle es’
subjec i e le els o discom o as indica o s. Howe e , mos
o he spo s akeholde s in hei s udy iden i ied as women
and had di ec expe ience o wo king wi h p egnan and
pos pa um a hle es, and hence hei indings a e unlikely o
ep esen he iews o he en i e spo ing communi y.
P egnan a hle es a e o en po ayed as i esponsible
in he adi ional and social media. Wea ing (2020) a gues
ha he d i ing o ce behind s igma izing p egnan a hle es
is sexism, speci ically sexual objec i ica ion and unjus
disc imina ion. She names he phenomenon as “p ena al
pa anoia” and no es ha i is deeply oo ed in na a i es o
women’s biology as unsui able o spo and ea o dam-
aging hei ep oduc i e capaci ies. Acco ding o Wea ing,
he sexis aming o p egnan women as i esponsible and
hos ile owa d he e us is used o c i icize hem o pa -
icipa ing in p egnancy. Howe e , she lis s nume ous a h-
le es who ha e success ully pa icipa ed in he Olympics in
a ious ypes o spo , some o which a e o en claimed o
be dange ous o p egnan women, while being om a ew
weeks o eigh mon hs p egnan . Fu he mo e, she no es ha
p egnan a hle es a e po ayed in he media in a sexualized
ashion, o e looking hei capaci ies as a hle es and educ-
ing hem o an objec o male sexual desi e. Ano he media
s udy (Kulka ni e al., 2024, p. 1266) a gued ha media
ep esen a ions o a hle e p egnancy e eal ha heal hca e
p o essionals a e p esen ed as “en i led o impose,” hus
e ec i ely dismissing a hle es’ sel -knowledge as no ue
o impo an . In e es ingly, o he s udies ha e epo ed
ha when engaging in adi ionally masculine ac i i ies,
p egnan women gene ally ace hos ili y, whe eas in adi-
ionally eminine ac i i ies, hey a e ea ed wi h bene o-
lence (such as being physically ouched and ea ed wi h
excessi e iendliness) (Hebl e al., 2007). The concep o
ep oduc i e objec i ica ion, which Dye e al. (2023) ha e
ound o be used as a ool o opp ession in an i-abo ion
he o ic, may also heo e ically explain hese indings. Such
objec i ica ion unc ions h ough seemingly posi i e e alu-
a ions o people seeking abo ions, po aying hem as p e-
cious objec s who need o be p o ec ed om making bad
1 3

Sex Roles
ou side he esea ch g oup we e in i ed o es he su ey
and p o ide eedback on i s s uc u e and con en . All we e
amilia wi h he Finnish spo ing sys em and had di e se
in e sec ional s andpoin s (gende , sexuali y, cul u al back-
g ound). The eedback ecei ed was used in inalizing he
su ey.
Da a Collec ion
The su ey was launched in Sep embe 2023 and was a ail-
able o 10 weeks. I was ad e ised h ough se e al chan-
nels. Membe s o he esea ch g oup eached ou o a ious
o icial spo s channels, including he Olympic and Pa a-
lympic Commi ees in Finland, eques ing hem o ad e ise
he su ey h ough hei e-mail lis s and social media chan-
nels. All he Finnish spo s associa ions included in a Wiki-
pedia lis we e app oached and almos all o hem ag eed
o ad e ise he su ey h ough hei e-mail lis s and social
media channels o o include an ad e isemen o he s udy
in hei mon hly newsle e . Regional spo s associa ions
we e app oached wi h a simila eques , as also we e spo
high schools. An Excel lis was kep o all hese eques s and
all o ganiza ions which did no espond we e app oached a
second ime. Towa ds he end o he da a collec ion, all he
pa icipa ing o ganiza ions we e asked o ad e ise he su -
ey once again, i possible. Resea ch g oup membe s also
p in ed and sp ead lye s abou he su ey (e.g., in uni e si y
buildings, spo s e en s). Fu he mo e, we al eady had a lis
o p e ious esea ch pa icipan s, whom we ex -messaged
abou hei willingness o pa icipa e in he cu en s udy. A
eminde was sen a couple o weeks a e he ini ial mes-
sage. Resea ch g oup membe s also u ilized hei pe sonal
con ac s o ad e ise he su ey.
Sample and Da a
O he 1286 pa icipan s who esponded o he su ey in i-
a ion, 519 answe ed all he ques ions. The o al sample
comp ised 654 (79.1%) ac i e spo s pa icipan s and 173
(20.9%) who had pa icipa ed in he Finnish spo s sys em
in he pas , o whom 46.9% had wi hd awn om spo du -
ing he Co id-19 pandemic. The mos common spo was
a hle ics (17%), ollowed by loo ball (14%), ice hockey
and olleyball (7% each), and o ien ee ing and dance (5%
each).
To ind ou how many esponden s ega ded p egnancy
and spo as incompa ible, hey we e asked he ollow-
ing mul iple-choice ques ion: “Please choose one o mo e
op ions o comple e he ollowing sen ence, “I belie e ha
high pe o mance spo pa icipa ion and pa en hood a e in
eali y…” Fo his s udy, only esponses o he op ion con-
ce ning p egnancy (“incompa ible o p egnan a hle es”)
Mos o human communica ion is ine- uned in a way ha
discou ses can be bo h adop ed and esis ed (Su e & No -
wood, 2017). The ad an age o he me hod is i s abili y o
iden i y he powe ela ions be ween di e en cul u al dis-
cou ses and he means o suppo o challenge hem.
Me hod
The p esen s udy is pa o a b oade esea ch p ojec “Who
is Excluded om Gende Equali y in Eli e Spo ? A T ans-
disciplina y S udy o Gene a ional Cul u e Shi s in Spo -
ing Ambi ion, Pa en ing, and Iden i y (Spo EX)” (Ryba
e al., 2023a; Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, 2024). The speci ic
objec i e o he esea ch p ojec is o examine he s a e o
equi y, di e si y, and inclusion (EDI) in Finnish spo , wi h
he o e a ching aim o acili a ing discussions on gende
jus ice ac oss di e en s akeholde s, leading o meaning ul
ou comes o access, pa icipa ion, well-being, and pe o -
mance o all gende s in spo (Ryba e al., 2023b). As pa
o he p ojec , a su ey was conduc ed in he all o 2023 o
explo e he iews o di e en spo s akeholde s. The su ey
was add essed o all spo s akeholde s (a hle es, coaches,
expe s, and spo leade s) cu en ly o p e iously wo king
a di e en le els in he Finnish spo sys em. The collec-
ion o he o iginal da a was e iewed o compliance wi h
he s anda ds o he e hical ea men o human pa icipan s
and app o ed by he E hics Commi ee o he Uni e si y o
Jy äskylä, decision numbe 656/13.00.04.00/2023.
Ins umen
To ensu e he e ec i eness o he su ey in cap u ing el-
e an da a on EDI in spo o ganiza ions, i s collabo a i e
de elopmen by he esea ch g oup, Winning in he Long
Run, was based on a sys ema ic and me iculous p ocess
which included he applica ion o an in e sec ional lens.
The PI (second au ho ) began he p ocess o designing he
su ey, based on he p ojec ’s esea ch ques ions and objec-
i es, a ound he key hemes o gende , pa en ing and spo -
ing aspi a ions, inco po a ing open-ended ques ions and
ele an psychological scales om p e ious longi udinal
s udies wi h s uden -a hle es and hei pa en s/gua dians.
Following his ini ial phase, he su ey unde wen se e al
ounds o e inemen h ough g oup discussions wi hin he
esea ch eam. These discussions led o modi ica ions and
enhancemen s o ensu e he cla i y o he su ey and i s
alignmen wi h he esea ch ocus. The su ey was d a ed
in English and hen, ansla ed in o Finnish, encompassing
i e a ions and e inemen s in he ansla ion p ocess, and
he inal e sion pos ed online on Web opol. To inc ease
i s obus ness and ele ance, indi iduals o di e en ages
1 3
Sex Roles
a e epo ed. Based on his ques ion, 97 (18%) o he espon-
den s indica ed ha p egnancy and spo a e incompa ible
o p egnan a hle es.
This esea ch is based on he subsample o 540 pa ici-
pan s who answe ed he ques ion “How would you eel
abou ha ing p egnan a hle es on you eam?” The sub-
sample comp ised indi iduals o di e en gende s: 328
(60.7%) iden i ied as women; 201 (37.2%) as men; wo
(0.4%) as gende quee ; eigh (1.5%) nonbina y; six (1.1%)
ansgende ; one (0.2%) in e sex; wo (0.4%) agende ; i e
(0.9%) ano he gende iden i y; and h ee (0.6%) p e e ed
no o answe . Mos o he esponden s (n = 224, 40.7%)
we e cu en ly in ol ed in women’s spo s, less han one
ou h (n = 124, 22.5%) in men’s spo s, 14.5% (n = 80) in
mixed spo s, and 122 (22.5%) did no answe his ques ion.
O his subsample, 127 (23.6%) we e pa en s o gua dians.
Table 1 shows de ails o he sample on which he analysis
was based. The leng h o he open-ended esponses anged
om 1 o 101 wo ds, wi h ypical answe s consis ing o a
ew sen ences. Twel e pa icipan s le he ques ion unan-
swe ed, and one answe , which consis ed o abuse di ec ed
a he esea che s was unclassi iable.
Taxonomy o Associa ed Risk in Di e en Spo s
Pa icipan s’ a i udes abou he compa ibili y o compe i-
i e spo s and p egnancy a e likely o be shaped by hei
espec i e spo s. To acili a e he analysis, we de eloped
a axonomy o ca ego ize he spo ypes pe o med by he
pa icipan s based on known simila ea u es and quali ies
o he spo s. Al hough endu ance spo s (e.g., long-dis ance
unning and c oss-coun y skiing) and spo s wi h igo ous
physical con ac (e.g., ice hockey and comba spo s) a e
pe cei ed as “masculine,” hey a e conside ed o di e in
he possible isks o inju y hey p esen o he de eloping
e us. In addi ion, while many aes he ic o exp essi e spo s
a e adi ionally conside ed “ eminine” (e.g., gymnas ics,
igu e ska ing, and chee leading), hey ely on he execu ion
o highly skilled maneu e s ha equi e a complex combi-
na ion o physical s eng h, explosi e powe , coo dina ion,
lexibili y, and endu ance. Pa icipan s in hese spo s a e
also a inc eased isk o alls and musculoskele al inju ies.
Howe e , i is ai o say ha all high-pe o mance spo s
equi e endu ance, physical condi ioning, coo dina ion, and
men al oughness.
Fo he pu poses o his s udy, in addi ion o he adi-
ional indi idual s. eam classi ica ion o spo s, we clas-
si ied he pa icipan s’ spo s based on he pe cei ed isk o
inju y hey p esen o a p egnan a hle e and he a endan
dange hey p esen o he de eloping e us (see P e e e
al., 2023; Zeigle , 2024). Spo s conside ed o be low- isk
included dis ance unning, loo ball, ennis, compe i i e
n%
Role in Spo aA hle e 301 54.7
Coach 170 30.9
Adminis a ion 77 14
Leade ship/managemen 74 13.5
Expe se ices 18 3.3
Ano he ole 49 8.9
To al 689
Main Compe i ion Le elbIn e na ional 97 17.6
Na ional 282 51.3
Regional 182 33.1
Local 138 25.1
To al 699
Team Women’s 224 40.7
Men’s 124 22.5
Mixed 80 14.5
Missing answe 122 22.2
Ci izen o Finland
Yes 531 98.3
No 8 1.5
P e e no o answe 1 0.2
Sex assigned a bi h
Female 339 62.8
Male 201 37.2
Cu en gende
iden i ica ion
Woman 328 60.7
Man 201 37.2
Gende quee 2 0.4
Nonbina y 8 1.5
T ansgende 6 1.1
In e sex 1 0.2
Agende 2 0.4
Ano he gende iden i y 5 0.9
P e e no o answe 3 0.6
Sexual o ien a ion
He e osexual 474 87.8
Gay o lesbian 11 2
Quee 11 2
Bisexual 27 5
Pansexual 6 1.1
Asexual 10 1.9
Ques ioning o unsu e 20 3.7
Ano he sexual
iden i ica ion
5 0.7
P e e no o answe 6 1.1
Numbe o child en/mino s
0411 76.4
1 50 9.3
2 44 8.2
3 19 3.5
4 2 0.4
Table 1 Sociodemog aphic cha ac e is ics o pa icipan s (N = 540)
1 3
Sex Roles
Acco ding o RDT, u e ances (in his case, ex ual segmen s
ecei ed as answe s o he open-ended ques ion in he su -
ey) can be classi ied in o h ee di e en ypes: monologue
(displaying only one discou se), diach onic sepa a ion
(displaying di e en discou ses a di e en ime poin s),
and synch onic in e play ( wo o mo e discou ses in e -
pene a ing one ano he ) (Bax e , 2011). Segmen s o da a
ha ep esen ed each discou se we e colo -coded, and hei
seman ic ela ionships we e s udied in de ail. Special a en-
ion was paid o how he s udy pa icipan s aligned wi h
some discou se(s) and disaligned om o he (s). Discu si e
p ac ices we e also iden i ied as con ac i e o expansi e.
Con ac i e p ac ices a e used o silence al e na i e dis-
cou ses. They may include, o example, disquali ica ion
( he pe sons o g oups aligning wi h a ce ain discou ses a e
claimed o lack expe ise o he igh o exp ession), na u al-
iza ion (one discou se is p esen ed as a gi en), neu aliza ion
( alue-laden discu si e posi ions a e ea ed as alue- ee o
objec i e), opical a oidance (some hing is cons uc ed as
o limi s o a aboo), subjec i ica ion (a guing ha a gi en
posi ion is an indi idual opinion o expe ience), paci ica-
ion (posi ioning di e ences as i ial o hei esolu ion
u ile), and playing he ogue (pa ody) o he ool (enac ing
igno ance o pu poses o unmasking implici assump ions)
o he clown (maliciously dis o ing a discu si e posi ion
o pu poses o laughing a i s absu di y) (Bax e , 2011, pp.
170–172).
Expansi e discu si e p ac ices a e exp essions ha
allow wo o mo e discou ses o eme ge side by side. Bax-
e (2011) poin s ou ha p e iously desc ibed con ac i e
p ac ices can also unc ion in discu si ely expansi e ways i
hey a e a ge ed a challenging dominan discou ses. Simi-
la ly, al hough expansi e p ac ices a e linguis ically mo e
di e se, hey can also be mobilized o suppo dominan dis-
cou ses. These p ac ices include nega ing (a gi en discou se
is in oked only o he pu pose o e u ing i ), coun e ing
(some discu si e posi ion eplaces o supplan s an al e -
na i e discu si e posi ion ha would no mally ha e been
expec ed in i s place; o en ealized h ough lexical ma ke s
such as al hough, howe e , bu , ye , none heless, e en, only,
e c.), and en e aining ( o indica e ha a gi en discu si e
posi ion is p esen ed as one possibili y among al e na i e
discu si e posi ions).
In i s idealized o m, discu si e in e play some imes
o ms discu si e hyb ids o aes he ic momen s. Acco ding
o Bax e (2011), hyb ids a e momen s when wo o mo e
compe ing discou ses a e mixed in a way esembling a salad
d essing, whe e oil and inega a e mixed, i.e., he o iginal
componen s can s ill be iden i ied, bu he hyb id cons uc s
a new meaning, a discu si e salad d essing. An aes he ic
momen is a mix u e whe e he o iginal componen s a e no
dance, and o ien ee ing; medium- isk spo s included ol-
leyball, baske ball, ice hockey, and judo; and high- isk
spo s included gymnas ics, chee leading, powe li ing, and
kickboxing. The le el o compe i ion and in ensi y ypically
inc ease he isk.
Da a Analysis
The answe s o he open-ended ques ion we e analyzed
wi h con apun al analysis (Bax e , 2011), a me hod com-
pa ible wi h he Rela ional Dialec ics Theo y, using A las.
i so wa e ( e sion 24) and Mic oso Wo d. The analy-
sis consis ed o iden i ying discou ses, and assessing hei
in e play. In he i s phase, he da a we e ead in hei
en i e y o gain a sense o hei con en . A hema ic analysis
was hen conduc ed o de e mine wha was being said abou
p egnancy and spo . The ex ual segmen s used in coding
we e de e mined by iden i ying he poin whe e a new idea
began and hen o mula ing a new code o each idea. In
his s age, he coding was seman ic a he han in e p e i e.
The ini ial hemes we e g ouped in o hie a chical ca ego-
ies, wi h he lowe -o de hemes de i ed di ec ly om he
da a and he highe -o de hemes gene a ed o ep esen di -
e en app oaches aken owa d he opic as in e p e ed by
he esea che s (B aun & Cla ke, 2022). In his phase, all
he da a we e di ided in o wo pa s, he i s pa being used
o gene a e codes. The exis ing hemes we e hen es ed
agains he la e hal o he da a, e iewed, and po en ial
new hemes iden i ied. This p ocess esul ed in ou new
hemes, all o which we e lowe -o de hemes compa ible
wi h he hie a chical hema ic sys em. When he hema ical
s uc u e had been es ablished, an o e a ching heme was
iden i ied. Compa ison o he hemes and de e mining di -
e ences in esponden s’ pe cep ions o he compa ibili y o
p egnancy and spo yielded h ee discou ses. The con en s
o he discou ses we e de ined by in e p e ing hem h ough
he highe o de hemes. Finally, da a ex ac s we e loca ed
o exempli y he essence o each discou se as in e p e ed by
he i s analys .
Ha ing iden i ied di e en discou ses in he da a, hei
in e play was explo ed. In p ac ice, his mean examining
i one o mul iple discou ses we e p esen in each answe
and by wha means hey we e posi ioned as compe ing.
n%
mo e han 4 1 0.2
I am a pa en o gua dian o
a child o child en ha do
no li e wi h me
11 2
No e. a = esponden s we e ins uc ed o indica e all oles ha applied
o hem; he e o e, some pa icipan s indica ed mo e han one ole. b
= se e al esponden s indica ed mul iple compe i ion le els
Table 1 (con inued)
1 3
Sex Roles
o he i s au ho (MR) has ocused on ep oduc ion and
mo he hood and especially eminis esea ch on hese op-
ics, and in he p esen analysis, she subsc ibes o he belie
ha e e y indi idual has he igh o sel -de e mina ion. She
has no engaged in compe i i e spo and is hus an ou side
s udying he spo ing wo ld. The esea ch in e es s o he
second au ho (TR) lie a he in e sec ion o spo , c i ical
psychology, and cul u al p axis. He wo k ocuses on he
complexi ies o gende ed ca ee pa hs in spo , wi h he aim
o p omo ing mo e equi able and inclusi e p ac ices. As a
o me compe i i e a hle e, she b ings an inside ’s unde -
s anding o physical cul u e o his collabo a i e e o . Bo h
au ho s bene i ed om hei di e en a eas o specializa ion
in ep oduc i e issues and spo cul u e and jux aposed
hese in ui ul discussions on he indings. Impo an ly,
while p egnancy and spo bo h ep esen a eas in socie y
which a e o en po ayed as pu ely biological, hey a e o a
g ea ex en socially cons uc ed.
Resul s
Based on he mul iple-choice ques ion (n = 550) on he
compa ibili y o pa en hood and high-pe o mance spo , 97
(18%) o he esponden s indica ed ha hese a e incompa -
ible o p egnan a hle es. The indings o he con apun al
analysis ga e a nuanced pic u e on wha kind o discu si e
s a egies a e used o jus i y di e ing iews on (in)compa -
ibili y. The indings a e p esen ed he e in an in e p e i e
way, connec ing hem o he li e a u e. This is ollowed by a
gene al e lec i e discussion, along wi h conclusions based
on all he indings.
The Th ee Discou ses and Thei Thema ic
Composi ion
To answe he i s esea ch ques ion on he compa ibili y
o p egnancy and spo , h ee discou ses we e iden i ied: an
equali y discou se, a esponsibili y discou se, and an incom-
pa ibili y discou se. The discou ses we e di e en ia ed om
one ano he by he meanings gi en o he hemes iden i ied
in he ea ly phases o he analysis (see Table 2): a ec i e
e alua ion (emo ional eac ions owa d p egnan a hle es o
hei pa icipa ion in spo s), mo al e alua ion (exp essions
indica ing mo al o e hical conside a ions ela ed o p eg-
nan a hle es’ pa icipa ion, i.e. “w ong,” “I would accep
i ”, e c.), access o spo (whe he spo was a gued o belong
o e e yone o whe he p egnan a hle es could be le ou
by de aul o unde ce ain ci cums ances, such as in ce ain
ypes o spo o owa ds he end o p egnancy), na u al-
ness and amilia i y wi h p egnancy (exp essions depic ing
p egnancy ei he as a na u al s a e o a disease and ei he as
longe iden i iable, as in a chemical eac ion whe e he o ig-
inal ing edien s mix and c ea e a new subs ance.
Da a T us wo hiness
The esea che s paid speci ic a en ion o ensu ing c edibil-
i y, ans e abili y, dependabili y, and con i mabili y o he
s udy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). C edibili y o he indings
was ensu ed by analyzing a la ge numbe o answe s and
engaging in se e al con i ma o y echniques in he esea ch
p ocess. The esea che s combined ex ensi e knowledge
om di e en a eas o expe ise ele an o he s udy, hus
ensu ing p olonged engagemen . Se e al ounds o analy-
sis we e pe o med aimed a di e en ia ing he mos el-
e an con en o da a (pe sis en obse a ion). The da a was
also analyzed in wo pa s, i s c ea ing hemes om he
i s hal and hen checking he applicabili y o he hemes
agains he second hal o he da a. We ha e ied o ensu e
ans e abili y by c ea ing su icien ly b oad desc ip ions o
he esea ch p ocess and he indings, including desc ip ions
o he hema ic s uc u e. These desc ip ions will be help-
ul in ensu ing he ele ance o indings in o he s udies,
as hey help o he esea che s unde s and wha was done
in he p esen s udy and compa e hei indings. Finally, o
ensu e con i mabili y, an audi ail was kep h oughou he
esea ch p ocess, and he esea che s engaged in se e al
e lexi e discussions abou analysis and indings h oughou
he p ocess. Collabo a i e e lexi i y was essen ial o ensu e
a c i ical epis emological s ance in da a analysis. The i s
analys also kep a dia y wi h no es on analy ical decisions,
e lexi e hough s, and he own eac ions du ing he analy-
sis and w i ing phases. Aligned wi h ou eminis posi ion-
ing, we ecognize he impac o ou embodied si ua edness
on ou discussions and he de elopmen o he indings.
Posi ionali y o he Resea che s
Con apun al analysis is a me hod wi h a heo e ical unde -
pinning and is c i ical in na u e: i is pu pose ully used o
b ing o h silenced discou ses and gi e oice o opp essed
g oups o people (Bax e , 2011). Th ough e lexi i y, he
esea che dis inguishes he me hod om mo e p ocedu al
app oaches (see B aun & Cla ke, 2022). I is he e o e
impo an o e lec on he esea che ’s posi ionali y and
heo e ical app oach. As esea che s in he p esen s udy, we
sha ed common g ound in eminis alues, he belie ha
he cu en pa ia chal wo ld o de is es ic i e and damag-
ing o all people, and he gene al belie ha equi y, di e -
si y, and inclusion (EDI) should be p omo ed in all a eas o
socie y. Bo h o us a e Whi e cis-women wi h expe ience
o p egnancy and mo he hood, bu wi h somewha di e en
academic backg ounds and in e es s. The academic wo k
1 3
Sex Roles
explo e he ole o sexis belie s as obs acles o p egnan
a hle es’ pa icipa ion.
We ec ui ed a la ge and di e se sample o esponden s
o he su ey, which is a s eng h o he s udy. Ne e he-
less, as discussed ea lie , he possibili y o sel -selec ion
bias needs o be conside ed when in e p e ing he esul s. A
u he s eng h o his s udy was i s abili y o map he powe
ela ions be ween he di e en discou ses, he eby enhanc-
ing unde s anding o he possible ba ie s o he pa icipa-
ion o p egnan a hle es. While b ie answe s in su eys a e
ui ul as a way o mapping esponden s’ ini ial gu eelings
abou a opic, a ious o he me hods, such as longe ex s,
in e iews, o ocus g oup in e iews a e equi ed o cap u e
a mo e nuanced unde s anding on cul u al ambi alence and
di e ences be ween spo ing en i onmen s. Thus, u u e
s udies on a i udes owa d p egnan a hle e’s pa icipa ion
in compe i i e spo s should use a di e si y o me hods. I
would also be essen ial o lea n wha ac o s con ibu e o
possible di e ences in a i udes in di e en spo ing en i-
onmen s. Fu he mo e, o ganiza ional p ac ices con ibu -
ing o p egnan a hle es’ pa icipa ion o exclusion need o
be be e unde s ood o p omo e equi y, di e si y, and he
inclusion o all indi iduals. Resea ch in di e en cul u al
con ex s is needed o asce ain he p esen indings a e el-
e an ou side o Finland. Finally, ansgende a hle es’ p eg-
nancy expe iences would be an impo an opic o u u e
esea ch.
P ac ice Implica ions
To ensu e equi y, di e si y, and inclusion (EDI) o p egnan
people in all aspec s o socie y, i is essen ial o unde s and
and challenge es ic i e a i udes o p egnancy. Ou ind-
ings indica e ha sexis belie s on he agili y o emale
bodies, along wi h gende ed pa en ing ole belie s, need o
be challenged. We ecommend c i ically e iewing spo
and physical ac i i y ecommenda ions o a oid eplica -
ing ha m ul and sexis s e eo ypes and ensu ing ha hey
a e based on up- o-da e knowledge. All ecommenda ions
should a oid a pa onizing one and espec he a hle e’s
igh o choose. We also ecommend ha all physicians and
coaches educa e hemsel es speci ically on spo in p eg-
nancy, and egula ly upda e hei knowledge, as ou da ed
pe cep ions a e likely o lead o o e ly cau ious ad ice.
Mo eo e , all ele an in o ma ion should be clea ly com-
munica ed o a hle es hemsel es. We also sugges including
educa ion on gende in he manda o y con en o school and
highe educa ion, as his is an e ec i e way o each whole
age coho s and in luence b oade socie al change.
discou ses. These indings a e in line wi h p e ious s udies
on p egnan a hle e’s expe iences: o example, Da enpo
and colleagues (2022) ound ha p egnan a hle es o en
pos poned e ealing hei p egnancy ou o ea o nega i e
eac ions om hei coaches and spo leade s (see also Pul-
len e al., 2023).
Ou indings clea ly e lec he con adic ions be ween
he a i udes ound in spo ing en i onmen s and he li ed
eali y o p egnan a hle es and he expe s wo king wi h
hem. Da enpo e al. (2023) ound ha expe s wo k-
ing wi h p egnan a hle es we e o en us a ed a es ic-
i e a i udes and a gued ha p egnan a hle es can sa ely
ain a a highe in ensi y han mos expe ad ice implies.
Howe e , i is unlikely ha p egnan a hle es hemsel es o
people wo king wi h hem ha e enough au ho i y o in lu-
ence socie al cons uc ions on he sui abili y o spo in
p egnancy. I is he e o e e iden ha i medical expe s and
hose in posi ions o au ho i y in he spo ing communi y a e
no suppo i e, i is likely ha p egnan a hle es will con-
inue o be ma ginalized.
Limi a ions and Fu u e Resea ch Di ec ions
Mos o he pa icipan s in his su ey sel -iden i ied as
women. I is likely ha women a ibu e mo e impo ance
han men o he opic o he s udy (equi y, di e si y, and
inclusion) due o hei unequal posi ion in spo . The gende
dis ibu ion p obably explains he di e si y o iews ound
in his s udy, as women we e mo e suppo i e o p egnan
a hle es’ pa icipa ion han men. Subcul u es in di e -
en spo s may also explain some con lic ing indings: o
example, se e al pa icipan s s a ed ha eques ian spo s
a e sui able ac i i ies in p egnancy, which is a li le su p is-
ing gi en ha hese spo s a e o en conside ed high- isk. In
a emale-domina ed spo ing en i onmen , he pa icipan s
seemed o be eady o accep his le el o isk, unlike in
male-domina ed spo s such as oo ball and eam con ac
spo s in gene al, which we e mos ly epo ed as unsui able.
The o e ep esen a ion o women pa icipan s in ou s udy
sugges s ha spo ing en i onmen s may be e en less sup-
po i e o p egnan a hle es han he p esen pa icipan s.
This is a cause o conce n. Fu he esea ch is needed o
gain a deepe unde s anding o he iews o male s akehold-
e s, especially as men o en occupy he mos in luen ial posi-
ions and a e likely o be key igu es in de ining he gene al
a i udes and suppo (o lack he eo ) owa d p egnan a h-
le es. Fu u e s udies should explo e wha kinds o a i udes
spo leade s hold owa d p egnan a hle es’ pa icipa ion,
whe he he e a e gende di e ences in hei a i udes and
how a i udes can be s ee ed in a mo e encou aging di ec-
ion. To map possibili ies o ad ancing ep oduc i e jus ice
(Mo ison, 2023) in spo ing en i onmen s, s udies should
1 3

Sex Roles
Re e ences
ACOG Commi ee on Obs e ic P ac ice. (2020). Physical ac i -
i y and exe cise du ing p egnancy and he pos pa um pe iod:
ACOG Commi ee opinion, numbe 804. Obs e ics and
Gynecology, 135(4), e178–e188. h ps://doi.o g/10.1097/
AOG.0000000000003772
Bax e , L. A. (2011). Voicing ela ionships. Sage.
Bax e , L. A., Scha p, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2021). Rela ional dia-
lec ics heo y. Jou nal o Family Theo y & Re iew, 13(1), 7–20.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j .12405
Blaze , A. (2023). Gende policing in gi ls’ and women’s spo s. Reli-
gions, 14(8), 1054. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ el14081054
Bø, K., A al, R., Ba aka , R., B own, W., Da ies, G. A. L., Dooley,
M., & Khan, K. M. (2016). Exe cise and p egnancy in ec e-
a ional and eli e a hle es: 2016 e idence summa y om he IOC
expe g oup mee ing, Lausanne. Pa 1—exe cise in women
planning p egnancy and hose who a e p egnan . B i ish Jou nal
o Spo s Medicine, 50(10), 571–589. h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/
bjspo s-2016-096218
Bø, K., A al, R., Ba aka , R., B own, W., Da ies, G. A., Dooley, M.,
E enson, K. R., Haaks ad, L. A., Hen iksson-La sen, K., Kayse ,
B., Kinnunen, T. I., Mo ola, M. F., Nygaa d, I., an Poppel, M.,
S uge, B., & Khan, K. M. (2017). Exe cise and p egnancy in ec-
ea ional and eli e a hle es: 2016/17 e idence summa y om he
IOC Expe G oup Mee ing, Lausanne. Pa 3—exe cise in he
pos pa um pe iod. B i ish Jou nal o Spo s Medicine, 51(21),
1516–1525.
B aun, V., & Cla ke, V. (2022). Concep ual and design hinking o
hema ic analysis. Quali a i e Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/qup0000196
B own, W. J., Hayman, M., Haaks ad, L. A. H., Lame on, T., Mena,
G. P., G een, A., Kea ing, S. E., Gomes, G. A. O., Coombes, J.
S., & Mielke, G. I. (2022). Aus alian guidelines o physical
ac i i y in p egnancy and pos pa um. Jou nal o Science and
Medicine in Spo , 25(6), 511–519. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
jsams.2022.03.008
Chambe s, D. (2001). Rep esen ing he amily. Sage.
Cosg o e, L., & Vaswani, A. (2020). Fe al igh s, he policing o p eg-
nancy, and meanings o he ma e nal in an age o neolibe alism.
Jou nal o Theo e ical and Philosophical Psychology, 40(1),
43–53. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/ eo0000139
Da enpo , M. H., Ka hol, A. J., Mo ola, M. F., Skow, R. J., Meah,
V. L., Poi as, V. J., Ga cia, A. J., G ay, C. E., Ba owman, N.,
Riske, L., Sobie ajski, F., James, M., Nagpal, T., Ma chand, A.
A., Sla e , L. G., Adamo, K. B., Da ies, G. A., Ba aka , R., &
Rucha , S. M. (2019). P ena al exe cise is no associa ed wi h
e al mo ali y: A sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis. B i ish
Jou nal o Spo s Medicine, 53, 108–115. h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/
bjspo s-2018-099773
Da enpo , M. H., Nesdoly, A., Ray, L., Tho n on, J. S., Khu ana,
R., & McHugh, T. L. F. (2022). Pushing o change: A quali a-
i e s udy o he expe iences o eli e a hle es du ing p egnancy.
B i ish Jou nal o Spo s Medicine, 56(8), 452–457. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1136/bjspo s-2021-104755
Da enpo , M. H., Ray, L., Nesdoly, A., Tho n on, J. S., Khu ana, R.,
& McHugh, T. L. F. (2023). Filling he e idence oid: Explo a-
ion o coach and heal hca e p o ide expe iences wo king wi h
p egnan and pos pa um eli e a hle es – a quali a i e s udy. B i -
ish Jou nal o Spo s Medicine, 57(24), 1559–1565. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1136/bjspo s-2023-107100
Douglas, K., & Ca less, D. (2006). Pe o mance, disco e y, and ela-
ional na a i es among women p o essional ou namen gol -
e s. Women in Spo & Physical Ac i i y Jou nal, 15(2), 14–27.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1123/wspaj.15.2.14
Conclusion
Discou ses on p egnancy in spo e eal and unde line he
ongoing nego ia ions o e women’s oles in socie y, espe-
cially in ela ion o he meaning o p egnancy. The esul s o
he p esen s udy sugges ha i is because hey dis up he
masculini y o spo ha p egnan bodies e oke he con a-
dic o y eac ions ound in his s udy. Ou esul s hus sug-
ges ha p egnancy discou ses e lec ensions in socie y
ega ding women’s oles and esponsibili ies, and ha hese
ensions a e likely o be exace ba ed in masculine en i on-
men s such as spo . This s udy has impo an implica ions
o he deba e on ep oduc i e jus ice, as pa ia chal con-
s uc ions o emale bodies a e likely o cons ain women’s
au onomy and social space.
Acknowledgemen s This s udy is pa o he ongoing esea ch p ojec
“Who is excluded om gende equali y in eli e spo ?” (2023–2026)
and is unded by he Finnish Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e, g an
no. OKM/72/626/2023 o Ta iana Ryba. The au ho s would like o
hank Milla Saa inen and Michael McDougall o hei subs an ial ole
in ob aining he unding. We a e g a e ul o Kaisa Aunola and Elina
Jo onen o hei con ibu ion o he p epa a ion o he p oposal. We
also hank Aku Nikande o da a managemen and all he membe s o
he Winning in he Long Run esea ch g oup o hei essen ial con i-
bu ion o he da a collec ion on which his a icle is based and o hei
collegial suppo .
CRediT Au ho ship Con ibu ion S a emen Mi jam Raudasoja:
Concep ualiza ion, Me hodology, In es iga ion, Fo mal analysis, In-
e p e a ion o esul s, W i ing - O iginal d a p epa a ion, W i ing -
Re iew & Edi ing. Ta iana Ryba: Concep ualiza ion, Me hodology,
In es iga ion, In e p e a ion o esul s, W i ing - O iginal d a p epa-
a ion, W i ing - Re iew & Edi ing, Supe ision, Funding acquisi ion,
P ojec adminis a ion.
Funding This wo k was suppo ed by a und om he Finnish
Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e o Ta iana Ryba, g an numbe
OKM/72/626/2023.
Open Access unding p o ided by Uni e si y o Jy äskylä (JYU).
Decla a ions
Compe ing In e es s We ha e no known con lic o in e es o dis-
close.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which pe mi s use, sha ing,
adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma ,
as long as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he
sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e
i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless
indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no
included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended
use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed
use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh
holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.
o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
1 3
Sex Roles
Jesudason, S., & Wei z, T. (2015). Eggs and abo ion: Women-p o ec-
i e language used by opponen s in legisla i e deba es o e ep o-
duc i e heal h. The Jou nal o Law Medicine & E hics, 43(2),
259–269. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jlme.12241
Je e, S. (2011). Exe cising cau ion: The p oduc ion o medical knowl-
edge abou physical exe ion du ing p egnancy. Canadian Bul-
le in o Medical His o y, 28(2), 293–313. h ps://doi.o g/10.3138/
cbmh.28.2.293
Ka z Ro hman, B. (2021). The biomedical empi e. Lessons lea ned
om he Co id-19 pandemic. S an o d Uni e si y P ess
Kulka ni, S., McGannon, K. R., & Pego a o, A. (2024). Expanding
unde s anding o eli e a hle e pa en hood in socio-cul u al con-
ex : A me a-syn hesis o quali a i e media esea ch indings
on mo he hood and spo . Spo in Socie y, 27(8), 1254–1273.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17430437.2023.2270427
L’He ede , A., Chan, M., Mi a, A., Kasa en, L., Saso, S., P io , T., &
Jones, B. P. (2022). Spo s obs e ics: Implica ions o p egnancy
in eli e spo swomen, a na a i e e iew. Jou nal o Clinical Med-
icine, 11(17), 4977. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/jcm11174977
Lau endeau, J. (2008). Jumping like a gi l: Women’s ski-jumping, isk
discou ses and discu si e silence. In R. K. Ba ney, M. K. Heine,
K. B. Wamsley, & G. H. MacDonald (Eds.), Pa hways: C i iques
and discou se in Olympic esea ch (pp. 382–390). In e na ional
Cen e o Olympic S udies, Wes e n Uni e si y
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Na u alis ic Inqui y. Sage.
Longhu s , R. (1999). P egnan bodies, public sc u iny: ‘gi ing’ ad ice
o p egnan women. In E. K. Tea he (Ed.), Embodied geog a-
phies: Spaces, bodies and i es o passage (pp. 78–90). Sage
Longhu s , R. (2005). (Ad)d essing p egnan bodies in New Zealand:
Clo hing, ashion, subjec i i ies and spa iali ies. Gende , Place
and Cul u e, 12, 433–446
Lup on, D. (2012). ‘P ecious ca go’: Foe al subjec s, isk and ep o-
duc i e ci izenship. C i ical Public Heal h, 22(3), 329–340
Magnusson, E. (2005). Gende ing o equali y in he li es o no dic
he e osexual couples wi h child en: No well-pa ed a enues ye .
NORA: No dic Jou nal o Women’s S udies, 13(3), 153–163.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/08038740600587661
Ma in, B. A., & Ma in, J. H. (1995). Compa ing pe cei ed sex ole
o ien a ions o he ideal male and emale a hle e o he ideal male
and emale pe son. Jou nal o Spo Beha io , 18(4), 286–301
Ma ínez-Pascual, B., Al a ez-Ha is, S., Fe nández-de-Las-Peñas, C.,
& Palacios-Ceña, D. (2017). P egnancy in Spanish eli e spo s-
women: A quali a i e s udy. Women & Heal h, 57(6), 741–755.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/03630242.2016.1202883
Massey, K. L., & Whi ehead, A. E. (2022). P egnancy and mo he -
hood in eli e spo : The longi udinal expe iences o wo eli e a h-
le es. Psychology o Spo and Exe cise, 60, 102139. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j.psychspo .2022.102139
McGannon, K. R., Bundon, A., Pego a o, A., & Kulka ni, S.
(2024). Tangled and bumpy oads o gende equi y: Socio-cul-
u al insigh s om media s o ies abou Olympic a hle es and
mo he hood. The Ame ican Beha io al Scien is . h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/00027642241261260
McGannon, K. R., G ape , S., & McMahon, J. (2022). Ska ing
h ough p egnancy and mo he hood: A na a i e analysis o digi-
al s o ies o eli e igu e ska ing expec an mo he s. Psychology
o Spo and Exe cise, 59, 102126. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
psychspo .2021.102126
McG ego , B., McG a h, R., Young, J., & No le, C. (2024). A scop-
ing e iew o he expe iences o eli e emale a hle es conce ning
p egnancy and mo he hood. Spo in Socie y, 27(8), 1221–1253.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17430437.2023.2270438
Melamed, A. (2023). A pos -s uc u alis eminis analysis o elec-
onic e al moni o ing in labou . B i ish Jou nal o Midwi e y,
31(3), 165–171. h ps://doi.o g/10.12968/bjom.2023.31.3.165
Douglas, K., & Ca less, D. (2009). Abandoning he pe o mance na -
a i e: Two women’s s o ies o ansi ion om p o essional spo .
Jou nal o Applied Spo Psychology, 21, 213–230. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/10413200902795109
Dye , R. L., Checkalski, O. R., & Ge ais, S. J. (2023). Abo ion deci-
sions as humanizing ac s: The applica ion o ambi alen sexism
and objec i ica ion o women-cen e ed an i-abo ion he o ic.
Psychology o Women Qua e ly, 47(4), 528–546. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/03616843231173673
Findley, A., Smi h, D. M., Heske h, K., & Keywo h, C. (2020).
Explo ing womens’ expe iences and decision making abou
physical ac i i y du ing p egnancy and ollowing bi h: A quali a-
i e s udy. BMC P egnancy and Childbi h, 20(1), 54. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1186/s12884-019-2707-7
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions o gende : How ou minds, socie y, and
neu osexism c ea e di e ence. No on.
Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sigh : The embedded na u e o sex-
ism in spo . Jou nal o Spo Managemen , 30(1), 1–7. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1123/jsm.2015-0278
Fox, R., He e nan, K., & Nicolson, P. (2009). I don’ hink i was such
an issue back hen’: Changing expe iences o p egnancy ac oss
wo gene a ions o women in sou h-eas England. Gende Place
and Cul u e: A Jou nal o Feminis Geog aphy, 16(5), 553–568.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09663690903148424
Ga ell, C. (2011). Pu ing p egnancy in i s place: Concei ing p eg-
nancy as ca ewo k in he wo kplace. Heal h and Place, 17,
395–402.
Ga aghan, C. (2009). ‘You can’ handle he u h’’: Medical pa e -
nalism and p ena al alcohol use. Jou nal o Medical E hics, 35,
300–303. h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/jme.2008.028662
Gill, R. (2017). The a ec i e, cul u al and psychic li e o pos -
eminism: A pos eminis sensibili y 10 yea s on. Eu opean
Jou nal o Cul u al S udies, 20(6), 606–626. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/1367549417733003
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambi alen sexism in en o y:
Di e en ia ing hos ile and bene olen sexism. Jou nal o Pe -
sonali y and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Goldman, A., & Ge is, M. (2021). Women a e cance , you shouldn’
be wo king in spo : Spo psychologis s’ li ed expe iences o
sexism in spo . The Spo Psychologis , 35(2), 85–96. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1123/ sp.2020-0029
Gu mann, A. (1991). Women’s spo s: A his o y. Columbia Uni e si y.
Hays, S. (1996). The cul u al con adic ions o mo he hood. Yale Uni-
e si y P ess.
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Single a y, S. L., & Kazama,
S. (2007). Hos ile and bene olen eac ions owa d p egnan
women: Complemen a y in e pe sonal punishmen s and ewa ds
ha main ain adi ional oles. Jou nal o Applied Psychology,
92(6), 1499–1511. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1499
He e nan, K., Nicolson, P., & Fox, R. (2011). The nex gene a ion o
p egnan women: Mo e eedom in he public sphe e o jus an
illusion? Jou nal o Gende S udies, 20(4), 321–332. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/09589236.2011.617602
Hen icks, J. (2015). Wha o expec when you’ e expec ing: Fe al p o-
ec ion laws ha s ip away he cons i u ional igh s o p egnan
women. Bos on College Jou nal o Law and Social Jus ice, 35,
117–152.
Hindman, L. C., & Walke , N. A. (2020). Sexism in p o essional
spo s: How women manage s expe ience and su i e spo o ga-
niza ional cul u e. Jou nal o Spo Managemen , 34(1), 64–76.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1123/jsm.2018-0331
Hyde, J. S., Bigle , R. S., Joel, D., Ta e, C. C., & an Ande s, S. M.
(2019). The u u e o sex and gende in psychology: Fi e chal-
lenges o he gende bina y. Ame ican Psychologis , 74, 171–193.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/amp0000307
1 3
Sex Roles
Kähä i, O., Raunio, M., Tu janmaa, E., & Vanhanen, S. (Chai s).
Towa ds an equal wo k li e: Fos e ing us in he labo ma ke .
Wo kshop conduc ed a he 20 h Socie y o he S udy o E h-
nic Rela ions and In e na ional Mig a ion (ETMU) Con e ence,
No embe 29 - Decembe 1, Jy äskylä, Finland.
Ryba, T. V., Jo onen, E., & Leh onen, K. (2023b). Sukupuol en asa-
a o ei ulo u kaikkialle u heilupoli iikassa. Liikun a Ja Tiede,
60(4), 68–69.
Salmen, A., & Dhon , K. (2021). Hos ile and bene olen sexism: The
di e en ial oles o human sup emacy belie s, women’s connec-
ion o na u e, and he dehumaniza ion o women. G oup P o-
cesses & In e g oup Rela ions, 24(7), 1053–1076. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/1368430220920713
Seg a e, J. O., & McDowell, K. (1998). Language, Gende , and Spo .
Con e ence abs ac .
Sundgo -Bo gen, J., Sundgo -Bo gen, C., Myklebus , G., Søl be g,
N., & To s ei , M. K. (2019). Eli e a hle es ge p egnan , ha e
heal hy babies and e u n o spo ea ly pos pa um. BMJ Open
Spo and Exe cise Medicine, 5, e000652.
Su e , E. A., & No wood, K. M. (2017). C i ical heo izing in am-
ily communica ion s udies: ( e) eading Rela ional Dialec ics
Theo y 2.0. Communica ion Theo y, 27(3), 290–308. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/com .12117
Su on, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M. (2011). Bene olen
sexism, pe cei ed heal h isks, and he inclina ion o es ic p eg-
nan women’s eedoms. Sex Roles, 65(7–8), 596–605. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0
Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. (2024). Who is excluded om ende equali y
in eli e spo ? A ansdisciplina y s udy o gene a ional cul u e
shi s in spo ing ambi ion, pa en ing, and iden i y (Spo EX).
h ps://www.jyu. i/en/p ojec s/who-is-excluded- om-gende -
equali y-in-eli e-spo -a- ansdisciplina y-s udy-o -gene a ional
Usshe , J. M. (2006). Managing he mons ous eminine: Regula ing
he ep oduc i e body. Rou ledge.
Ve insky, P. (1994). The social cons uc ion o he gende ed
body: Exe cise and he exe cise o powe . In e na ional
Jou nal o he His o y o Spo , 11(2), 147–171. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/09523369408713854
Wall, G. (2013). Pu ing amily i s ’: Shi ing discou ses o mo he -
hood and childhood in ep esen a ions o mo he s’ employmen
and child ca e. Women’s S udies In e na ional Fo um, 40, 162–
171. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wsi .2013.07.006
Wea ing, C. (2020). P ena al a anoia: An analysis o he bumpy land-
scape o he p egnan a hle e. Spo E hics and Philosophy,
14(2), 176–191. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17511321.2019.1593233
Wo ld Economic Fo um. (2023). Global Gende Gap Repo
2023.h ps://www.we o um.o g/publica ions/global-gende -gap-
epo -2023/in- ull/benchma king-gende -gaps-2023/#in- ocus-
coun y-pe o mances- op-10-and-15-mos -populous
Wowdzia, J. B., McHugh, T. L., Tho n on, J. A., Mo ola, M. F., &
Da enpo , M. H. (2021). Eli e a hle es and p egnancy ou comes:
A sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis. Medicine and Science
in Spo s and Exe cise, 53(3), 534–542. h ps://doi.o g/10.1249/
MSS.0000000000002510
Zeigle , T. (2024). P egnancy and spo pa icipa ion.
Spo smd. h ps://www.spo smd.com/womens-heal h/
p egnancy-spo -pa icipa ion/#:~: ex =A%20
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju is-
dic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
Mo ello-F osch, R., & Shenassa, E. D. (2006). The en i onmen al isk-
scape and social inequali y: Implica ions o explaining ma e nal
and child heal h dispa i ies. En i onmen al Heal h Pe spec i es,
114, 1150–1153.
Mo gan, D. (1996). Family connec ions: An in oduc ion o amily
s udies. Poli y.
Mo ison, T. (2023). Using ep oduc i e jus ice as a heo e ical lens in
quali a i e esea ch in psychology. Quali a i e Resea ch in Psy-
chology, 20(1), 172–192. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/14780887.2022
.2121236
Mu phy, A. O., Su on, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M.
(2011). Ambi alen sexism and he dos and don’ s o p egnancy:
Examining a i udes owa d p osc ip ions and he women who
lou hem. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences, 51(7), 812–
816. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.031
Nei e man, E. (2012). Doing p egnancy: P egnan embodimen as
pe o mance. Women’s S udies In e na ional Fo um, 35(5), 372–
383. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wsi .2012.07.004
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objec i ica ion. Philosophy & Public A ai s,
24(4), 249–291. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.
b00032.x
Nygå d, M., & Du ande , A. (2021). Social inclusion o gende equal-
i y? Poli ical discou ses on pa en al lea e in Finland and Swe-
den. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 300–312. h ps://doi.o g/10.17645/
si. 9i2.3844
Ohlendo , J. M., Anklam, A. L., & Ga dne , L. (2019). I am a unne :
A quali a i e analysis o women- unne s’ p egnancy expe iences.
Women and Bi h: Jou nal o he Aus alian College o Midwi es,
32(3), e307–e314. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.07.021
Penney, S. (2024). P egnan ence and a che send message o
s eng h o women. Reu e s. h ps://www. eu e s.com/spo s/
olympics/p egnan - ence -a che -send-message-s eng h-
women-2024-08-09/
Pe älä-Li unen, S. (2007). Gende equali y o p imacy o he
mo he ? Ambi alen desc ip ions o good pa en s. Jou -
nal o Ma iage and Family, 69(2), 341–351. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00369.x
Pe e son, A., & Su on, R. M. (2018). Sexis ideology and endo se-
men o men’s con ol o e women’s decisions in ep oduc i e
heal h. Psychology o Women Qua e ly, 42(2), 235–247. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1177/0361684317744531
P en ice, D., & Mille , D. (2006). Essen ializing di e ences be ween
women and men. Psychological Science, 17(2), 129–135. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01675.x
P e e , C., Kimbe , M. L., Fo ne , L., de Vi o, M., & Da enpo , M.
H. (2023). Impac o hea y esis ance aining on p egnancy and
pos pa um heal h ou comes. In e na ional U ogynecology Jou -
nal, 34(2), 405–411. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00192-022-05393-1
Pullen, E., Mille , B., Wil shi e, G., & Pla eau, C. (2023). A eminis
ma e ialis inspi ed analysis o he meaning and managemen
o p egnancy and ep oduc i e heal h in Olympic and pa a-
lympic emale a hle es. Quali a i e Resea ch in Spo Exe cise
and Heal h, 15(3), 332–344. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/21596
76X.2022.2146162
Raudasoja, M., So kkila, M., Lai ila, A., & Aunola, K. (2022). I eel
many con adic o y emo ions: Finnish mo he s’ discu si e s ug-
gles wi h mo he hood. Jou nal o Ma iage and Family, 84(3),
752–772. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jom .12828
Ryba, T. V., Isosomppi, S., Raudasoja, M., Jo onen, E., De Palo, J.,
Nikande , A., & Leh onen, K. (2023a). Who is excluded om
equali y in spo ing li e? Insigh s om Finland’s spo policy. In
1 3