1. TWO GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT VALUE SYSTEMS
There was a fundamental division between two distinct groups of respondents.
One group believed in the value of inclusion. It was evident that to them sport was a vehicle for societal imperatives and sport was subservient to these outcomes. Their focus was not necessarily on sport per se, but rather how it impacted on and shaped community perceptions. For those who were primarily of the opinion that ‘pro-inclusion’ was the most important factor, any unfairness was not necessarily denied, it was thought unimportant.
The other distinct group believed in the integrity of sport itself. To these respondents, fair and safe competition, and adherence to rules, gave sport validity and was the most basic requirement which underpins the position and role which sport occupies within society. And their notion of fair play transcended any other requirement to the wider community. Again,
for those who were of the opinion that ‘pro-fairness’ was fundamental, the requirement and need for inclusion was not denied but considered subservient to fairness.
The contention, and the estimation of unfairness related almost entirely to the category of female participation. It was in this category that competitive advantage was deemed either irrelevant or unproven, or alternatively of paramount importance and incontestable.
The groups seemed mutually exclusive, and this can be considered a values-based dichotomy. The requirement of these two groups cannot be reconciled within the existing structure of sport.
While the vast majority of people with a ‘lived experience in sport’ adhered to the philosophy of the integrity of sport, this was not universal. In particular, some, mostly female sports people believe overwhelmingly in inclusion and did not consider unfairness relevant or justifiable on current understanding. And, perhaps more surprisingly, some transgender people were the most vociferous about what they considered the unfairness of inclusion of transgender people in female sport.
