Non-Binary Time Qualification Standards - Is this the future of Boston?

Probably yes wrote:

I would love to see the Venn diagram of biological males who identify as females who can also run sub-3:30 marathons. I bet it's not many.

Agree

Probably yes wrote:

Then I'd like to see the Venn diagram of males who have enough gall to sign up as a non-binary just for the sake of getting into Boston... I bet it's even less (and the one's who do it might be the same keyboard warriors posting about this topic right now, just to prove their non-existent point).

Disagree. Check out the annual thread of people freaking out about what the cut off time will be, or the number of people who outright cheat to get in. Also, the first person who goes non-binary for a day simply to qualify will be an outlier, probably ridiculed on these boards and possibly in real life. The second person who does it won't get much attention. After 100 people do it it won't even be a big deal. and will act as a "men who couldn't make the men's time" category.

I was reading a Facebook debate thread and someone said "educate yourself" and posted an article about the difference between sex and gender. Sex is defined as "sex at birth" and gender is defined as "as societal construct" so people choose their gender. Given these definitions, wouldn't it make the most sense to have two categories (male and female) with the label of "sex at birth"? That would just clear everything up.

Is anything being taken away from XX women? Are they missing out on any opportunities or prize money because of this?

No?

Then i don’t see how this is a problem for anyone if they’re just expanding the entrants.

Runner1018 wrote:

I was reading a Facebook debate thread and someone said "educate yourself" and posted an article about the difference between sex and gender. Sex is defined as "sex at birth" and gender is defined as "as societal construct" so people choose their gender. Given these definitions, wouldn't it make the most sense to have two categories (male and female) with the label of "sex at birth"? That would just clear everything up.

Adding onto this. If gender is a societal construct, then it has nothing to do with physical ability. And isn't physical ability the reason why we have male/female categories to begin with?

Runner1018 wrote:

I was reading a Facebook debate thread and someone said "educate yourself" and posted an article about the difference between sex and gender. Sex is defined as "sex at birth" and gender is defined as "as societal construct" so people choose their gender. Given these definitions, wouldn't it make the most sense to have two categories (male and female) with the label of "sex at birth"? That would just clear everything up.

Right? There's literally no other characteristic that you're allowed to define yourself - age, nationality, race*.

*there have of course been cases like Rachel Dolezal who tried to define their own race; but when found out, those are met with scorn, not a booming cry to let people define themselves however they see fit.

With regards to the "societal construct" definition, wouldn't race also be a societal construct. . . if black people can be white supremacists? There have been several prominent black politicians (like Larry Elder) who are "the face of white supremacy" according to the MSNBC and other progressives.

gsteinem wrote:

actually women are being harmed because there are now two divisions "men" can dominate, so twice as much prize money for the dudes.

I’m calling BS. Sounds like sophistry to me. Anyone who is supporting the women’s soccer team’s fight for rights wouldn’t be upset about a transgender division receiving pay. Kinda don’t think you believe it either and are just using it as an argument technique.

Make the non-binary the same as the men. Otherwise people will game this in a new york minute. It's so obvious.

middle ground wrote:

I don't get why we continue to ignore the obvious answer here of dropping the men's divisions in these types of things. 2 divisions: Women's and Open. There done.

Post of the day.

Dwightarm wrote:

Is anything being taken away from XX women? Are they missing out on any opportunities or prize money because of this?

No?

Then i don’t see how this is a problem for anyone if they’re just expanding the entrants.

If this were an actual race, it could mean that the prize money is split three ways equally instead of two (so the fastest men and women lose out on prize money) while the winners of the nonbinary division have a very low bar to clear to win the top prize (best out of 20 instead of best out of 1500, for example).

If this were an actual race, it might even mean that biological men with all the advantages of male hormones and male puberty could register for the men's, nonbinary, and women's division (as trans women, which is distinct from nonbinary). If you've looked at how distance running talent is distributed, you'll know that it only takes a few medium-talent biological males to potentially have a dramatic impact on the top places in the women's division in most races. So in that case, biological women would go home devastated in all three divisions.

But if this is just the citizen's division in a race with a separate elite division, there's probably nothing more than age group bragging rights and gift certificates at stake. The creation of a 3rd nonbinary division in that case has little effect beyond the expense of a few extra age group medals and gift certificates. It makes about as much sense to me as a Clydesdale division or a color run, but race directors can figure out what works best in their market.

not impressed wrote:

johnny walker blue wrote:

While I don't disagree in principle (not offended if Shalane ran against males), you're not appreciating that a world where there are restrictions on transgender women but not transgender men is just not going to happen. Finding a way to do that without violating dozens of gender discrimination laws is impossible. It's fantasyland. You might as well advocate for the resurrection of Prefontaine himself, because that's just as likely to happen.

You have to propose a practical solution, otherwise you're as delusional as how you perceive non-binary people to be. I don't mean that offensively, but it's the truth. In no world do I want a biological male running in women's races. Totally with you. But you have to propose a solution that is viable,

You do it by sex, not gender.

solved.

Not really, because then we are right back to where we started. Transgender men, biological women, would be competing in the women's division if we do it by sex.

johnny walker blue wrote:

not impressed wrote:

You do it by sex, not gender.

solved.

Not really, because then we are right back to where we started. Transgender men, biological women, would be competing in the women's division if we do it by sex.

This is only a problem if you're trying to solve a gender issue. If you don't delineate by gender, there's no gender issue.

Nonbinary, to the extent it exists at all, is a gender thing - you are male, female, or non-binary.

Sports are separated by sex: men’s sports, women’s sports.

This is a misapplication of terms and ideas. I know they don’t use the terms this way, but I will because it’s realistic: A non-binary man has an unfair advantage over a non-binary woman in a competition of people who all think they are non-binary.

Glad that I’m invested in pearls! High demand with all this clutching.

not impressed wrote:

johnny walker blue wrote:

Not really, because then we are right back to where we started. Transgender men, biological women, would be competing in the women's division if we do it by sex.

This is only a problem if you're trying to solve a gender issue. If you don't delineate by gender, there's no gender issue.

How is it not an issue? Fact 1: Regardless of what you think about it, people are going to transition. Countries are not going to make it illegal to transition, and these people will receive their respective alterations and medications.

Fact 2: Some of the people who transition will be F2M and be involved in sports. Under your definition of the category that person chooses, it will be in the women's division. You're OK with this?

Fact 3: Caster Semenya, et. al are biological women. Their sex is "female." You're OK with them being in the women's division?

johnny walker blue wrote:

How is it not an issue? Fact 1: Regardless of what you think about it, people are going to transition. Countries are not going to make it illegal to transition, and these people will receive their respective alterations and medications.

Fact 2: Some of the people who transition will be F2M and be involved in sports. Under your definition of the category that person chooses, it will be in the women's division. You're OK with this?

Fact 3: Caster Semenya, et. al are biological women. Their sex is "female." You're OK with them being in the women's division?

1: In most cases, what you call "transitioning" is purely gender-based. So it's not an issue. In cases where it's significant enough to alter reproductive functions, it will also impact their athletic prowess, so if they're willing to go that far, it becomes a non-issue.

2: Nikki Hiltz.

3: Yup.

Nikki Hiltz is non-binary.

JW Blue pointed out correctly that people who hold firmly to the “sex assigned at birth” division are effectively arguing for transmen to compete against women.

That is going to look ridiculous. You could have a man with a full beard and other body hair racing women.

When you allow trans athletes to compete in the gender in which they live every other aspect of their lives, it is just women running and against women and men running against men. That’s the way it should be.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

not impressed wrote:

1: In most cases, what you call "transitioning" is purely gender-based. So it's not an issue. In cases where it's significant enough to alter reproductive functions, it will also impact their athletic prowess, so if they're willing to go that far, it becomes a non-issue.

2: Nikki Hiltz.

3: Yup.

Nikki Hiltz is non-binary.

JW Blue pointed out correctly that people who hold firmly to the “sex assigned at birth” division are effectively arguing for transmen to compete against women.

That is going to look ridiculous. You could have a man with a full beard and other body hair racing women.

When you allow trans athletes to compete in the gender in which they live every other aspect of their lives, it is just women running and against women and men running against men. That’s the way it should be.

This is all backwards. When you allow trans athletes to compete in the gender in which they "live every other aspect of their lives", it is just women running and against biological men and men running against biological women.

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit with the concept of gender fluidity, but phyisiology and gender are not the same thing. Sport is divided by physiology, because the sexes have diferent advantages with regards to physiology, mainly in favor of biological men. It doesn't matter how you identify yourself emotionally; it's a physical division.

I think calling a transwoman a “biological male” is both petty and incorrect. You’re basing your stance on this on a faulty premise.