Article Text

Download PDFPDF
They call us fellows: the challenge of gender bias in the Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians
  1. Louise Tulloh
  1. North Sydney Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, Wollstonecraft, NSW 2065, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Louise Tulloh, North Sydney Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia; louisetulloh{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Last year, BJSM published the editorial ‘We need to talk about manels’1 as a foray into implicit gender discrimination within Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM). In this editorial, I seek to outline the situation for women within the Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP) and its challenges in overcoming gender imbalance.

The ACSEP has the proud reputation of developing one of the world’s first structured SEM specialist training programme and paving the way for doctors to choose SEM as a valid and recognised vocation. But it is largely a male organisation. Notably, I am the 16th president, and the first woman in that role, in a college that is 36 years old. Our 2019 gender dashboard reveals 23% of fellows, 30% of registrars and only 28% of training programme applicants are women (figure 1).

Figure 1

ACSEP Gender Dashboard 2019

The numbers of women applying to train with ACSEP are not at parity. Furthermore, these numbers have plateaued. As a result of such disappointing figures, we are taking deliberate action towards gender parity. If we are to serve our …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.