The Identity, Culture, and Languages category welcomes submissions that focus on exploring elements of identity, culture, or languages, through the written word. This category seeks writing that investigates the human experience, particularly through perspectives that are frequently marginalized or excluded, which may include members of the LGBT+ community, people with disabilities, non-citizens, and multilingual writers. Submissions are open to projects written in any course, at any level. There are no length limits for this category. Megan Basterrechea wrote the 1st place submission in the Identity, Cultures, and Languages category for the 2026 President’s Writing Awards.
About Megan
My name is Megan, and I am currently a nursing student at Boise State! I am double majoring in Health Studies and Nursing. While I am still exploring which area of nursing I want to pursue, I know I am especially interested in working closely with women’s health. I have also worked as a barista at Starbucks for the past four years. In my free time, I am an avid reader and enjoy a wide range of genres, with fantasy being my favorite. I have always had a passion for writing and once aspired to be an author; although I do not write as often now, it remains a hobby I enjoy when I have the time. I also love music, cats, and spending time with my friends.
Winning Manuscript – The Sexualization of Women in Sports
When Title IX was passed in 1972, it was considered a victory for gender equality in sports. Yet decades later, female athletes are still fighting for equal treatment, just not in the same way. They are battling for their respect and dignity. Participation in women’s sports is rising, but female athletes are not taken as seriously as their male counterparts; a major reason for this disparity is that they are often reduced to only their appearance, viewed through a lens of sexualization that overshadows their skills and ability. Is her body attractive? Is she skinny enough? Does she look young enough? These are often the questions asked instead of meaningful discussion regarding their game. Most men will only tolerate watching women’s sports if the eye candy is appealing enough. This sexualization and objectification is not accidental; it is a systemic issue embedded in the media, uniform policies, and public perception, all of which continue to devalue the athleticism of women in sports.
Media portrayal of female athletes is often geared towards their appearances and lives outside their sport. This contrasts with male athletes, whose representation is almost always skill-focused. Sports Management Review mentions how not only has sports media coverage for women declined in recent years despite an increase in participation, but the portrayal also “tends to differ in its tone, production, and focus, all of which result in a more negative depiction of female athletes and women’s sport” (Fink 2-3). Female athletes and sports are often “gender-marked,” with championship titles being “Women’s World Cup” or “Women’s NCAA Final Four” instead of just the World Cup or the NCAA Final Four like for the men, which coincidentally does not add “Men’s” to the forefront of the title (3-4). Sports commentators also refer to athletes by saying, “She is a great women’s basketball player” (4), and other things of the sort, while never mentioning gender when referring to a male athlete. Men are seen as the “norm” when it comes to sports, while women are seen as subordinate, further showcasing that gender equality is far from reality.
Commentators also often refer to female athletes as girls or young ladies, infantilizing them and perpetuating that women are not taken seriously; article titles include things like “Girls sweep their way to bronze,” and often only refer to female athletes by their first name (Fink 4). Contrarily, male athletes are rarely, if ever, referred to as “boys” and are usually denoted by their last names, giving them a level of respect that the women do not see. Women are often also only seen as marketable when focusing on something “other than their athleticism…their (hyper) sexuality and/or attractive, feminine qualities, or their roles outside of sport such as wives, mothers, girlfriends, and so on” (Fink 8). Their skills as athletes, how they perform during a game, their strength, agility, and mental toughness are all on the back burner and are seen as insignificant, although their careers are as athletes. The fact that anything else is ever deemed of higher importance is a testament to misogyny.
The uniform requirements and expectations of female athletes are another clear example of the double standards between genders in sports. The Augsburg Honors Review mentions how “male uniforms most often favor longer shorts and baggy t-shirts,” whereas the women are subject to “tight-fitting leotards, spandex, short dresses, or skirts” (Smoot 2). Men can wear clothing that is comfortable and practical for physical activity and sport, while women’s uniforms prioritize aesthetics. The “aesthetics” focus is on minimal coverage and tightness to the body, instilling that viewers being able to sexualize female athletes and find them visually appealing is prioritized over the athletes’ comfort. Female athletes must appear feminine and desirable to garner interest for themselves as athletes and for the sport. Men are not subject to these standards; what they look like and how attractive they are is irrelevant, as they are valued for their athletic ability. Smoot puts it perfectly: the media places “a larger emphasis on the skill and strength of male athletes while female athletes are valued more for their sex appeal rather than their physical abilities” (3). Women are there to work hard and play their sport, not to be degraded and sexualized.
Female athletes must suffer in a multitude of ways due to uniform regulations. A Le Monde article mentions how in 2021, a Norwegian beach handball team was fined for “wearing shorts instead of bikinis, when the rules required them to wear fitted, low-cut bikini bottoms, with a ‘short bra-style top’” (Deœux, Lafargue and Aubert). The fact that the words “low-cut,” “short,” and “bra” were used to detail required uniforms is already appalling, as it shows that women were required to be clothed as little as possible for the sport standard. Being fined on top of that for not showing skin is insulting and degrading. Paying money as a punishment for being more covered up is something male athletes have never and will never have to deal with. Adding to female athletes’ hardship, in gymnastics they often have to “use strong glue to hold their unitards in place in order to ‘try to pay less attention to their pubic area during competition’” (Deœux, Lafargue and Aubert). Yet these unitards are mandatory, with the justification being that “they must wear tight uniforms so that judges may accurately score their form” (Smoot 9). However, male gymnasts competing in the same or similar events can wear uniforms that are loose and long. There seems to be no issue with judging male gymnasts’ form, suggesting that the real reason women have these regulations is to emphasize the feminine form and ultimately sexualize them.
Even in sports with no tangible difference in uniform regulations between women and men, female athletes still often find themselves subject to expectations of how they should look and the clothes they should wear. The Le Monde article laments how tennis has no dress code or distinction between gendered clothing, but wearing skirts is still the norm for women and is what is expected of them. In 2018, Serena Williams wore a full-length bodysuit in a match, causing people to say she was disrespecting the sport and even getting the outfit banned from the tournament (Deœux, Lafargue and Aubert). For a sport that has no set rules regarding dress code, that is a massive reaction, albeit unwarranted. There aren’t any formal rules for sprinters either, but they are “commonly seen wearing a bra and briefs set…Media backlash or lack of sponsorship can quickly follow if they don’t conform to femininity norms” (Deœux, Lafargue and Aubert). Women are losing money if they are not appealing enough. They are still expected to look a certain way, even if it isn’t required, to remain favored by the public and to make money through brand deals, ads, social media, etc. Male athletes get these deals regardless of how they dress or act, purely based on their talent, all while receiving exponentially more money than their female counterparts. Like Smoot mentions, “Society has forced women to sell their bodies to gain the fame and recognition their skill deserves” (4).
Many female athletes also must hide their sexuality under the pressure to be accepted by fans and remain desirable. An article by Outsports mentions Sue Bird, a legend in the WNBA who entered the league in the 2000s. She was told not to come out, and that “the only way [she] was going to have success from a marketing standpoint is to really sell this straight girl next door” (Zeigler). Sue had it instilled into her that her success depended on selling this image, leading her to hide her true self for years. These pressures were not unique to Bird, either; especially in this decade, the WNBA would emphasize traditional femininity as part of its marketing strategy, dressing players up and putting makeup on them in photoshoots to sell the image it thought was necessary to bring in and keep viewers. The WNBA historically has had many LGBTQ players—today over a quarter of the league is publicly out—yet pressures to appear feminine and heteronormative forced many to conform to an image that wasn’t true to them (Zeigler). Careers being jeopardized due to sexuality is absurd; the most important aspect of an athlete is their skill as a player, not whether they can be marketable to audiences. The fact that their sexuality is a factor shows how many viewers prioritize the attractiveness and palatability of female athletes over their athleticism.
The manner in which female athletes are portrayed has a profound impact on the way audiences view them as well as women in general. Many write off women’s sports as less entertaining, and the lower attention paid to them causes women’s sports to be broadcast less due to lower demand. However, this lesser interest isn’t due to an inherent boringness of female sports, it is due to their portrayal and the warped media perception that has existed since women started participating in athletics. The differences between female and male sports that “trivialize, demean, and ignore female athletes’ accomplishments” end up rendering “women’s sport [as] less attractive to viewers. It fails to acknowledge that sport consumption is a mediated process: what is covered, how often it is covered, and the manner in which it is covered all impact audience perceptions of value and quality” (Fink 6). Audiences will not take female athletes and women’s sports as seriously when they aren’t portrayed the same way men are, given the same coverage as them, and treated equally as them. When rampant sexualization and the ignoring of genuine athletic ability are the norm when it comes to women’s sports, no significant change will be seen in the public’s view.
Women are also devalued in sports because they do not have the strength that men do or the qualities that are generally seen as “better” simply because they are masculine. Smoot articulates it well, saying, “Sports have a cultured sense of male superiority because a larger emphasis is put on strength over skill—men are viewed as powerful athletes while women are usually attributed as graceful” (5). Sports that require more physical strength, like male-dominated football and basketball, are valued over sports like gymnastics, which require grace and poise, and also happen to be female-dominated. Women who play more “masculine” sports like basketball are still often told either that they are too aggressive and manly, and they need to tone it down, or that they aren’t aggressive enough, and that’s why they aren’t taken seriously as athletes. It is a double-edged sword. A similar thing happens with their appearance; if women are too muscular or masculine-looking, they are mocked. If they are conventionally attractive and feminine, this is valued over their skills, and they aren’t considered serious athletes. Seemingly, women can never win.
Women’s objectification in sports doesn’t just affect the athletes, it affects young and impressionable viewers as well. Female athletes are consistently shown in small, tight outfits, and constantly talked about for their weights, bodies, and attractiveness. When time and time again it is shown that their athletic ability is not prioritized, it is bound to affect the way young audiences, especially girls, see themselves. The article by Smoot relays that “images which portray the sexual objectification of female athletes can cause female viewers to focus on their own self-image in terms of physical beauty over physicality” (6). Young girls who are watching these athletes should be inspired, look up to them as role models, and possibly hope to be like them someday in terms of athletic prowess and skill. They should not walk away with a “major psychological issue regarding body appearance” (6), or ideas that the portrayal of women is inherently sexual. This can cause female viewers/athletes to “self-objectify,” which consequently can make them move in a “restrictive and defensive manner” as they are playing their sport (6). This is not ideal for their performance or their mindset. The sexualization of women in sports not only takes away from their skills but can negatively affect the way viewers view themselves.
Despite slow progress, many female athletes are pushing back against this corrupt system and are leading towards progress. At the 2021 Olympics, the German gymnastics team wore long-sleeved unitards, an “outfit allowed by regulations but rarely seen” (Deœux, Lafargue and Aubert). The Le Monde article details how they did this as a form of protest, gymnast Elisabeth Seitz saying, “We wanted to show that every woman, everybody should decide what to wear.” Despite this action, gymnastics outfits have remained virtually the same. Still, they are tight and revealing, causing many gymnasts to remain uncomfortable. In 2012, beach volleyball changed regulations for women’s uniforms, showing some progress. “Pants, shorts, and sleeved tops” were added to the options, but these reforms are “still skintight and show off the female athlete’s body shape” (Smoot 12). The Augsburg Honors Review article also mentions how few athletes have since taken advantage of these more conservative uniforms, showing that pressures within the sport to look a certain way still remain.
Reforming the current system will require a major systemic shift. Sexualization, objectification, and misogyny all exist within sport because they exist in present-day society. Progress for female athletes should be celebrated, but it cannot reach the necessary level until progress for all women is seen. Women’s accomplishments in sports are not taken seriously, and they are held to stricter standards than their male counterparts in terms of looks and behavior. This is a reality for all women, not just athletes. Public perception of women, and therefore the patriarchy, must be dismantled for women to be seen in the same light as men. Steps in the right direction are certainly being taken; the 2024 Olympics were the first games in which women had equal participation as men (Deoeux, Lafargue and Aubert), uniform policies are shifting towards equality, and more and more women are fighting back for equal treatment. Before substantial change is seen, however, misogyny must be completely wiped out, which is a large undertaking if it is going to happen any time soon.
The persistent sexualization of women in sports is not only a reflection of outdated attitudes, but it is also a barrier to true gender equality in athletics and in general. Despite legal advancements like Title IX and the efforts from female athletes to assert their worth, women are still valued more for their appearance than their ability. The sexualization of women in sports, reinforced by uniform regulations and media portrayal, undermines their athleticism and contributes to the objectification of women, despite resistance from players and viewers. Media representation, uniform policies, marketing strategies, and public perception all reinforce a system that prioritizes femininity and marketability over skill and achievement. This undermines their careers as athletes as well as alters the self-image of the aspiring young girls who are watching. Genuine progress will require more than minor reforms that only scratch the surface; a cultural shift is necessary in the way women are viewed and valued. Until these biases are fully dismantled from society, female athletes will continue to fight for respect and recognition.
Works Cited
Deœux, Iris, Mathilde Lafargue and Raphaëlle Aubert. “Paris Olympics: The gender-specific rules that regulate athletes’ uniforms.” Le Monde (2024).
Fink, Janet S. “Female athletes, women’s sport, and the sport media commercial complex: Have we really ‘‘come a long way, baby?”.” Sport Management Review (2015).
Smoot, Rachel N. “Olympic Athletes or Beauty Queens? The Sexualization of Female Athletes.” Augsburg Honors Review (2017).
Zeigler, Cyd. “Sue Bird was told to not come out in the WNBA. Imagine what gay NBA players are being told.” Outsports (2024).