“Sport Belongs to Everyone… But Not During Pregnancy” : Views of Finnish Sport Stakeholders on Pregnancy in Sport

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