Fair or Foul: Non binary runner Cal Calamia reported to USADA for testosterone use.

It's personally going to be difficult to handle, but you cannot take testosterone as an athlete.

Then call it something other than "nonbinary." I think it is better to have a separate category for trans people and people with DSD so that they won't try to compete in the women's division.

Would you make the same argument if a 3rd place finisher in the men's division got prize money with a finishing time slower than the 3rd place finisher in the women's division?

How about a 3rd place finisher in 40-49 vs. 3rd place finisher in 50-59? Should a 40 yr old receive prize money for running a slower time than a runner in his 50s who finished in the same position in their respective age groups?

If my position is "indefensible" then make the prize money proportional to the number of participants. If there are more runners in the nonbinary category then the level of competition will probably go up.

Can't they switch to competing with men and use Testosterone? I think they can in swimming. I believe that is was Ishak Herzog did.

The problem for transmasc is that they might never qualify or be competitive in the male category even with testosterone... biological male advantage is too big.

My answer to your hypotheticals is an easy “why not” because I truly don’t see any connection between the different categories, and you haven’t articulated any underlying moral or ethical principle to justify your position.

As I see it, sports is first an entertainment business in which prize money for categories is determined by the organizers and sponsors whose decisions are in turn determined in some part by perception of return on investment by way of viewership, and probably in lesser part by the number of anticipated participants, but also in significant part by an unquantifiable subjective principle of fairness across different kinds of humans that is a value judgment driven in good part by sociopolitical optics, e.g., this article details how it currently works in soccer for the men’s and women’s World Cup prizes and the trending pressures on the organizers.

espn.com

Equal pay explainer: How much money USWNT can win at Women's World Cup

The USWNT's equal pay fight has been at the forefront of previous World Cups. Where do things stand and how much can the team earn if they win again?

Link:www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/3812907...

There are also people like me who'd contend that if there were trans divisions, sex would still matter.

In a single division where trans-identified people of both sexes compete against one another, the males in the category still would have a leg up over the females - particularly if the males "medically transitioned" after going through part or all of male puberty of adolescence.

So in my view, the only fair way to add new categories for trans-identified people would be to create two new separate trans divisions based on biological sex: one for TM, one for TW.

But in sports like running and swimming where it wouldn't be unsafe for female athletes to compete against males, I'd say that if trans athletes want a single new trans category where all trans athletes compete together regardless of their sex, then have at it. If female athletes who identify as trans are willing to race against male athletes who identify as trans, I sure wouldn't try to stop them. In fact, I'd be very interested to see how that ends up playing out.

My answer goes back the reason that separate categories were created. Women's division, masters, grand masters, senior masters, etc. were created because it was generally accepted that they had inherent disadvantage against men under 40. So they deserve prizes (and prize money) for times that would not win prizes in the open men's division.

So that raises the question of why we need a "nonbinary" category? Is it to have a division for people who would have unfair advantage in the women's division, but would have disadvantage in the men's division? Or is it to make people with nonbinary identity feel comfortable with the category they are competing in? For me, the former is the only rationale.

As for sports being entertainment, that would be a perfect reason to eliminate any prize money for the nonbinary division. The only people who are interested in the outcome of nonbinary division are those who are fixated on gender politics one way or the other. The general running fans have no interest in their results.

Ok, I think I see how you are thinking, but it doesn’t resonate with me because I suspect the divisions exist in part because of competitive advantage concerns but also in part because of the way they identify, neither as a man nor as a woman.

Even with just the former, you are conflating the existence of a category based on population performance statistics with placing constraints on the minimum expected performance in every single instance of the event, which just doesn’t make sense to me.

Good question. Maybe Travis Tygart and USADA would provide a good explanation. They aren’t hard to find.

USADA phone # (719) 785-2000

It goes back to where we started. But tell that to the alphabet people and they will go bonkers.

Let them have their etc. category. Dump all the whatever they/it there. But do make it that anyone wants prize money, they have to at least better the time of male prized money runners and they will be drug tested.

Are you able to run with the assistance of dogs in this category? I would assume the dogs would have to be neutered.

The average gaps in performance between different groups aren't the basis for the categories. They are the predictable effect of that basis. People get slower in middle to late middle-age, so masters categories were created. In this case, age is the basis of the category. It's even more clear-cut with sex because the vast, vast majority of people (including the majority of people with DSDs) fit into either one of two dichotomous categories. It's not a continuous variable like age. Average differences in performance across sexes are an effect of the basis of the category. To this end, nobody is imposing restrictions on performances in each category. They are observing the effect of whatever variable is the basis of that category--though obviously people confuse these things when they argue about this topic.

This is why it doesn't matter that women sometimes beat transwomen. In every case, she will have done it without an advantage that her competitor retains by virtue of sex, and that is determined at conception. If the 10th place finsiher in a major marathon tests positive for PEDs, it doesn't matter that 9 people beat him. He had an unfair advantage regardless.

The clear problem with the non-binary category is that it's nonsensical vis-a-vis sex (and gender, actually). My guess is that race organizers thought it was a solution to gender politics, but there is no endpoint to these conflicts when identities are based on a theory arguing that all norms are inherently oppressive. Once something becomes institutionalized, it will have to be obliterated. The non-binary category will have to go, and the race directors will be deemed toxic for ever having implemented it.

lol, exactly. Cal has been one of the MOST outspoken activists campaigning for 'nonbinary' prize money to be EQUAL to the actual winners of the race, and yet here Cal's argument is "there is hardly any prize money so it should be fine for me to take testosterone".

Interesting how your opinion trumps Cal's on how they should be described.

No. They should have to run faster than the MEN to get prize money. The category is no way going to exclude ANYONE, that's against the ideology of the stupid category. So they need to compete against men (many of them are men). There can be a women's category, and a 'men and nonbinary' category. If a 'nonbinary' wins in that category, then they get their prize money.

The non-binary category makes sense just fine for anyone whose gender identity is neither a man or woman, so what you really mean is just that you think gender identity separate from sex is “nonsensical”.

One would think the gender deniers would be happy the natal male nonbinaries are not polluting the pristine hallowed women’s category, but maybe now it’s turned into a catfight about prize money. Prize money just isn’t a strict zero sum game though.

No, non-binary is nonsensical as a gender category because it creates a binary in the process of disrupting a binary. It also forces other people (those who don't identify as non-binary) into a gender identity that they did not choose for themselves.

the nonbinary category, particularly in relation to sports, does not "make sense just fine". It makes zero sense, because IDENTITY of ANY kind is not relevant to athletic performance. One's feelings on religion do not matter. One's feelings on politics do not matter. Likewise, one's feelings on 'gender' do not matter. Only PHYSICAL realities matter. Age, sex, able-bodied vs handicapped. Those are athletic categories that justify themselves and make sense. 'nonbinary' does not.