I know this is a weird thing to say but we should profile their gender actual re-assignment dates and support policy that makes an athlete await a 2-year transition period. This is to prevent people from hopping the fence whilst stealing the headlines and money.
So each time they change genders the time table for competing resets? I actually think this could work.
Prepare for a number of semi-pro dudes to register as non-binary and throw on a little makeup on race day. That's some low hanging fruit for the weekend warrior crowd.
Prepare for a number of semi-pro dudes to register as non-binary and throw on a little makeup on race day. That's some low hanging fruit for the weekend warrior crowd.
Makeup isn't even necessary. Non-binary just means you don't pick a side. Not identifying with the constraints and fashion etiquette of either gender.
I see no harm in having a separate category for non-binary folks, but as with many things in life, it gets tricky when there's money involved.
At the Brooklyn Marathon, the winners of all 3 divisions took home $5,000. The men's winner had to beat roughly 1,890 other men, while the women's winner beat roughly 990 other women. The non-binary winner had to beat 13 other runners (with 2nd place coming in at 3:36). Should that be worth the same as beating 1,890 other runners?
Having a subjectively decided-upon lesser award for the non-binary winner doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps split the overall winners' purse according to a formula based on number of finishers? 65.3% of the finishers were men, 34.2% were women, and 0.5% were non-binary.
Any better ideas for how to split it up? Any good justifications for having all 3 be equal?
You could just stick to splitting the races by sex, and not imagined gender, given that sex is the only one of the two that impacts performance.
At the Brooklyn Marathon, the winners of all 3 divisions took home $5,000. The men's winner had to beat roughly 1,890 other men, while the women's winner beat roughly 990 other women. The non-binary winner had to beat 13 other runners (with 2nd place coming in at 3:36). Should that be worth the same as beating 1,890 other runners?
The Brooklyn Marathon winner was a 1:51 800m runner for Columbia Univ and the Half winner recently ran 2:33 for a marathon. Only about 20 US women have runner faster in 2022.
Got a link to show that this is indeed what happened? Folks advocating for non-binary divisions/prizes insist that this doesn't occur.
I don't have information about Minnesota, but all the winners in the new non-binary category covered in this NY Times piece are clearly guys who look like a zillion other guys.
One wears baby blue nail lacquer and has a lot of tattoos. Another has long hair. But they're all obviously men - young, fit white men whose appearance is so ordinary that no one where I live would bat an eye at them.
Yes, they are. The number one reader recommended comment on the article:
“Nonbinary runners have been here this whole time,” Harris said. “We’ve been forced to run in categories that don’t match our gender identities, and now we’re seeing a shift in sports to actually recognize us.” Yes, you've been here the whole time, but if you're a male-bodied non-binary person, you've got a physical advantage beating the female non-binary bodies, so not sure how proud you can feel racing against them. Non-binary is a state of mind, not a sex class. Males do not belong in women and girls' athletic competitions. We separate sports by sex class, not subjective identities about the self.
The number two reader recommended comment: I struggle with how the NYT is normalizing the language of the trans ideology. This language has been created to erase women. Non-binary, "cis", etc are the building blocks being used to wall off a conversation about a woman's right to exist without another man showing up to claim her place in the world. Men have their categories, so let women have ours. I don't feel like a woman, I am one, whether I like it or not. I have not agreed to have a man take my place just because of a feeling.
The rest of the comments follow suit, with very few defending the concept of a non-binary prize in a race and those that defend it receiving few “recommends”.
Note that in order to comment on a NYT article, you need to be a subscriber. So the population of commenters skews to the left. The comments and their distribution are actually not that dissimilar from what is posted on LetsRun (except on average a little more tactful than some that make it here). Someone even referenced Kenyans showing up to win all the prizes in the category.
The point is that if NYT readers are this much against it, then it really is a small group of people pushing this. Let this be a sign of encouragement for race directors of all stripes to come up with something better. The ideas are out there (eg, having an open division and a restricted division for biological females), they just need to be put into practice to drive out the bad ideas.
I don't have information about Minnesota, but all the winners in the new non-binary category covered in this NY Times piece are clearly guys who look like a zillion other guys.
One wears baby blue nail lacquer and has a lot of tattoos. Another has long hair. But they're all obviously men - young, fit white men whose appearance is so ordinary that no one where I live would bat an eye at them.
Yes, they are. The number one reader recommended comment on the article:
“Nonbinary runners have been here this whole time,” Harris said. “We’ve been forced to run in categories that don’t match our gender identities, and now we’re seeing a shift in sports to actually recognize us.” Yes, you've been here the whole time, but if you're a male-bodied non-binary person, you've got a physical advantage beating the female non-binary bodies, so not sure how proud you can feel racing against them. Non-binary is a state of mind, not a sex class. Males do not belong in women and girls' athletic competitions. We separate sports by sex class, not subjective identities about the self.
The number two reader recommended comment: I struggle with how the NYT is normalizing the language of the trans ideology. This language has been created to erase women. Non-binary, "cis", etc are the building blocks being used to wall off a conversation about a woman's right to exist without another man showing up to claim her place in the world. Men have their categories, so let women have ours. I don't feel like a woman, I am one, whether I like it or not. I have not agreed to have a man take my place just because of a feeling.
The rest of the comments follow suit, with very few defending the concept of a non-binary prize in a race and those that defend it receiving few “recommends”.
Note that in order to comment on a NYT article, you need to be a subscriber. So the population of commenters skews to the left. The comments and their distribution are actually not that dissimilar from what is posted on LetsRun (except on average a little more tactful than some that make it here). Someone even referenced Kenyans showing up to win all the prizes in the category.
The point is that if NYT readers are this much against it, then it really is a small group of people pushing this. Let this be a sign of encouragement for race directors of all stripes to come up with something better. The ideas are out there (eg, having an open division and a restricted division for biological females), they just need to be put into practice to drive out the bad ideas.
"Encourage them to come up with something better." No. Anyone who falls for the gender identity sham should be mocked relentlessly.
You could just stick to splitting the races by sex, and not imagined gender, given that sex is the only one of the two that impacts performance.
The whole point is that non-binary people feel slighted if they are forced to choose a gender. I agree that they can have their own category, but I don't see the evidence that they should get equal prizes. I think a lot of it is a reaction against our gender stereotypes, and I agree that stereotypes can be harmful in many ways. They should feel welcomed, but there are so few of them, it isn't a major category. It should be more akin to the 40-49 year olds category, a random category that gets recognition but not major prize money.
"We separate sports by sex class, not subjective identities about the self."
If only this were the case. We *used* to separate sports by sex class, but the reality is that now, outside the IAAF, we separate by identity. I am female, and came in 6th out of about 600 in a woman's 10K this spring. I am not that talented and was very proud of my finish, but one of the five people who beat me was visibly male. Hope it gave him a thrill.
I don't have information about Minnesota, but all the winners in the new non-binary category covered in this NY Times piece are clearly guys who look like a zillion other guys.
One wears baby blue nail lacquer and has a lot of tattoos. Another has long hair. But they're all obviously men - young, fit white men whose appearance is so ordinary that no one where I live would bat an eye at them.
Yes, they are. The number one reader recommended comment on the article:
“Nonbinary runners have been here this whole time,” Harris said. “We’ve been forced to run in categories that don’t match our gender identities, and now we’re seeing a shift in sports to actually recognize us.” Yes, you've been here the whole time, but if you're a male-bodied non-binary person, you've got a physical advantage beating the female non-binary bodies, so not sure how proud you can feel racing against them. Non-binary is a state of mind, not a sex class. Males do not belong in women and girls' athletic competitions. We separate sports by sex class, not subjective identities about the self.
The number two reader recommended comment: I struggle with how the NYT is normalizing the language of the trans ideology. This language has been created to erase women. Non-binary, "cis", etc are the building blocks being used to wall off a conversation about a woman's right to exist without another man showing up to claim her place in the world. Men have their categories, so let women have ours. I don't feel like a woman, I am one, whether I like it or not. I have not agreed to have a man take my place just because of a feeling.
The rest of the comments follow suit, with very few defending the concept of a non-binary prize in a race and those that defend it receiving few “recommends”.
Note that in order to comment on a NYT article, you need to be a subscriber. So the population of commenters skews to the left. The comments and their distribution are actually not that dissimilar from what is posted on LetsRun (except on average a little more tactful than some that make it here). Someone even referenced Kenyans showing up to win all the prizes in the category.
The point is that if NYT readers are this much against it, then it really is a small group of people pushing this. Let this be a sign of encouragement for race directors of all stripes to come up with something better. The ideas are out there (eg, having an open division and a restricted division for biological females), they just need to be put into practice to drive out the bad ideas.
Also, the NYT has been relentless about printing articles about various transgender "issues." The comments due tend to oppose whatever absurd transgender issue NYT is trying to push, usually by a wide margin. But NYT and the far left is persistent. I suspect they'll keep going until they get their way. It's only a matter of time.
You could just stick to splitting the races by sex, and not imagined gender, given that sex is the only one of the two that impacts performance.
The whole point is that non-binary people feel slighted if they are forced to choose a gender. I agree that they can have their own category, but I don't see the evidence that they should get equal prizes. I think a lot of it is a reaction against our gender stereotypes, and I agree that stereotypes can be harmful in many ways. They should feel welcomed, but there are so few of them, it isn't a major category. It should be more akin to the 40-49 year olds category, a random category that gets recognition but not major prize money.
The first thing should then be to not force them to choose a gender. Call one category open, which anyone can join, and restrict the other to biological females. No labeling, people forced to compete as another identity, hurt feelings, etc. If certain races want to recognize a non-binary winner, they can do that too, like some recognize the top veteran or firefighter or father-daughter team or whatever. But the key is not to conflate the non-binary division with the divisions based on biological sex differences.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.