Here’s something to think about… are we saying random track officials can just walk up to anyone and decide they don’t look female-enough and then yank their entry from the meet? What about a DSD athlete? I don’t support the lawsuit but I do think the process (or lack thereof) is sloppy.
Definitely sloppy.
I'll take a government ID over some twerp in a white polo shirt declaring who they think "looks too old" or they "assume is transgender."
This meet is an "all-comers" meet that allows athletes not eligible in NCAA to compete.
In the context of this event, she's just a rando turning up to run. There are no stakes here other than winning a heat, which is fun but ultimately doesn't matter at all.
These guys get it. 👆
WHO CARES is someone runs a literal time-trial outside of their age group or sex?
I have been to dozens of meets where sections are combined to fill all of the lanes and avoid heats with just 3-5 runners.
Nobody ever has a panic attack because someone in a younger/older age group is in the section.
“Today (February 6th 2025) the NCAA announced the Board of Governors voted to update the Association's participation policy for transgender student-athletes following the Trump administration's executive order. The new policy limits competition in women's sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only. The policy permits student-athletes assigned male at birth to practice with women's teams and receive benefits such as medical care while practicing. This policy is effective immediately and applies to all student-athletes regardless of previous eligibility reviews under the NCAA's prior transgender participation policy.”
It’s against NCAA transgender athletes policy for her to compete. Maybe she can sue Trump?
She is ineligible under the NCAA policy, but not under the USATF policy. She was not trying to enter this meet as an NCAA athlete. She was trying to enter the meet as an unattached athlete.
This meet is an "all-comers" meet that allows athletes not eligible in NCAA to compete. For example, you see English Gardner as an entrant in 100m. She has already exhausted all her NCAA eligibility. There are other people who are either unattached or listing the names of their track clubs in their entry form. Many of those people are probably NCAA ineligible.
And the race organizers did not let Schreiner know she was ineligible when she submitted her entry.
Here’s something to think about… are we saying random track officials can just walk up to anyone and decide they don’t look female-enough and then yank their entry from the meet? What about a DSD athlete? I don’t support the lawsuit but I do think the process (or lack thereof) is sloppy.
Definitely sloppy.
I'll take a government ID over some twerp in a white polo shirt declaring who they think "looks too old" or they "assume is transgender."
I suspect meet officials were made aware of who this person was (perhaps from entry times, multi-time DIII All American, recruited by DI schools, etc). At the time this meet happened, the Trump administration had been cutting funding to a number of universities for a variety of reasons. The administration had been in a very public fight with Harvard.
This is total speculation, but I think Princeton, not wanting to run afoul of the "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports" executive order, choose to not allow this athlete to compete in the women's division. It would have been super low hanging fruit for the administration to cut federal funding to Princeton over violating that executive order.
Even if the USATF policy has changed, Schreiner might have not known that and those she was eligible. I don't think she intentionally submitted her entry in order to be disqualified, as another poster suggested above.
IIRC, Schreiner made public posts on social media decrying USATF’s change of policy back in March. He also went on some podcasts and news shows and complained about how unfair and "transphobic" it is for sports governing bodies to be enacting measures to exclude blokes like him from women's competition.
So I'd bet good money that Schreiner knew full well he wasn't eligible under current USATF rules before he decided to register for the Ellis Invitational at Princeton in late April.
For the record: it appears USATF quietly scrapped its longstanding previous “transgender inclusion” policy - which was same as the ridiculously unfair policy adopted by the IOC in 2015 - and replaced it with the much, much stricter 2023 World Athletics policy some time in mid-March.
The USATF's change of policy probably was a long time coming. But USATF seems to have been moved to scrap the old policy -finally! - in part because of Schreiner's own stubborn insistence that he's going to continue competing in women's races even though he knows full well that no one reasonable supports what he's doing.
Similar to the male athletes Schreiner has named as his heroes and role models - CeCe Telfer and Lia Thomas - Schreiner has long been very vocal on social media and mainstream news media about his conviction that he and other attention-seeking grifting men who say they are trans have every right to invade women's sports and use women's competitive events as the stage on which to show the world how great, gender special and laydeelike they are by engaging in blatant male dominance displays in full public view.
In particular, Schreiner generated a lot of negative headlines in the conservative press - and public outcry from many quarters on social media - for entering and winning two women’s events at the USATF New York Masters Indoor Track and Field Championships on March 1st.
Transgender athlete Sadie Schreiner took first place in the USATF Open Masters Championship in the women's 400-meter dash when the other competitors did not participate.
Trans athlete Sadie Schreiner alleges to have been banned from Team USA track events while in Maine, amid a quiet rule change to the organization's policy.
Here’s something to think about… are we saying random track officials can just walk up to anyone and decide they don’t look female-enough and then yank their entry from the meet? What about a DSD athlete? I don’t support the lawsuit but I do think the process (or lack thereof) is sloppy.
Definitely sloppy.
I'll take a government ID over some twerp in a white polo shirt declaring who they think "looks too old" or they "assume is transgender."
In this case the twerp was correct. So I don't really know what you want to do. Most likely had the heads up
Letsrun.com and Rojo seem to be obsessed with this issue which is interesting for a community so tiny. It seems to be almost at the level of pathological. I think Gilbert Arenas made the best observation of so-called straight people obsessed with the LGBT community. He talked about gay people in the NBA and the most vocal and angry players Gilbert and the group surmised may be hiding their own downlow secret. I'll have to find that discussion. Funny thing, Letsrun really glorify a certain pres, but now they seem silent about his latest scandal!
Here’s something to think about… are we saying random track officials can just walk up to anyone and decide they don’t look female-enough and then yank their entry from the meet? What about a DSD athlete? I don’t support the lawsuit but I do think the process (or lack thereof) is sloppy.
This is a legit issue and could put meet officials in a difficult position. If they ask for ID and the person presents a drivers license (the most common form of ID) that says "F" under sex (or gender depending on the state) then what is the official to do?
(About half the states allow a DL to reflect one's gender---and yes gender and sex are different even if the Bostock ruling muddied the waters on that).
I would argue that if the entry form said "gender" then the race should abide by what the person put. If you mean sex, put "sex".
PS. Can we sue the politicians who let people change their birth certificate.? Sex should be on govt documents. Gender, like religion, should never be asked about anyone in an official capacity. None of your damn business.
Why is this an issue:
“Today (February 6th 2025) the NCAA announced the Board of Governors voted to update the Association's participation policy for transgender student-athletes following the Trump administration's executive order. The new policy limits competition in women's sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only. The policy permits student-athletes assigned male at birth to practice with women's teams and receive benefits such as medical care while practicing. This policy is effective immediately and applies to all student-athletes regardless of previous eligibility reviews under the NCAA's prior transgender participation policy.”
It’s against NCAA transgender athletes policy for her to compete. Maybe she can sue Trump?
Letsrun.com and Rojo seem to be obsessed with this issue which is interesting for a community so tiny. It seems to be almost at the level of pathological. I think Gilbert Arenas made the best observation of so-called straight people obsessed with the LGBT community. He talked about gay people in the NBA and the most vocal and angry players Gilbert and the group surmised may be hiding their own downlow secret. I'll have to find that discussion. Funny thing, Letsrun really glorify a certain pres, but now they seem silent about his latest scandal!
With a few exceptions, this message board is the only place I read about trans in sports issues. The Brojos must have an internet scroller going 24/7 to see issues such as this pretty minor issue.
My head just exploded trying to figure out how all of this may play out in the courts.
Among other things, there's a) NJ’s law against discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(a)), b) Trump's February 2025 executive order barring trans athletes (males at birth) from competing against women, c) the NCAA policy complying Trump's executive order, d) federal and constitutional law (notably Title IX and Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment), and e) the Supremacy Clause (federal directives/law would override NJ Law).
SCOTUS should shed some light on this stuff when it decides West Virginia v. B.P.J., and how Title IX should be applied (whether Title IX protects or rejects trans participation in female sports).
Based on its current composition, I'm inclined to think SCOTUS will narrowly tailor its decision to favor West Virginia's argument in the context of sports (that Title IX allows sex-based separation in sports to preserve fairness and opportunity for cisgender girls).
It's a legal minefield for some track official to navigate on the spot.
While Title VII and Title IX are very different (employment v education) the Bostock decision still looms and the court made a pretty sweeping pronouncement that (oversimplifying) sex includes gender orientation although when Title VII was passed I doubt any member of Congress thought one second about gender identification (was gender even in the mainstream as a word?).
As you note Title IX does allow for segregation based on a sex if the "...purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact."
Specific sports are listed as examples. So is that list exclusive? The wording is "...contact sports include..." If so track was not included as it is not what most rational people would consider a "contact sport".
Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
Letsrun.com and Rojo seem to be obsessed with this issue which is interesting for a community so tiny. It seems to be almost at the level of pathological. I think Gilbert Arenas made the best observation of so-called straight people obsessed with the LGBT community. He talked about gay people in the NBA and the most vocal and angry players Gilbert and the group surmised may be hiding their own downlow secret. I'll have to find that discussion. Funny thing, Letsrun really glorify a certain pres, but now they seem silent about his latest scandal!
Only a tiny part of the overall running community chooses to do performance enhancing drugs
Should we just ignore them also because it's such a small part?
The meet was following NCAA, World Athletics, USATF rules and presidential executive orders regarding transgender athletes. If the meet organizers failed to follow these rules, they would be liable to lawsuits from female athletes expecting to compete against only females.
PS. Can we sue the politicians who let people change their birth certificate.? Sex should be on govt documents. Gender, like religion, should never be asked about anyone in an official capacity. None of your damn business.
The meet was following NCAA, World Athletics, USATF rules and presidential executive orders regarding transgender athletes. If the meet organizers failed to follow these rules, they would be liable to lawsuits from female athletes expecting to compete against only females.
Yep yet trans activists only care about having the dude compete because it fits their own worldview doesn't matter the legal impacts, impact on others etc
Trans runner Sadie Schreiner filed a lawsuit against Princeton University for allegedly excluding the athlete from a women's race at the Larry Ellis Invitaitonal.
It's a legal minefield for some track official to navigate on the spot.
While Title VII and Title IX are very different (employment v education) the Bostock decision still looms and the court made a pretty sweeping pronouncement that (oversimplifying) sex includes gender orientation although when Title VII was passed I doubt any member of Congress thought one second about gender identification (was gender even in the mainstream as a word?).
As you note Title IX does allow for segregation based on a sex if the "...purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact."
Specific sports are listed as examples. So is that list exclusive? The wording is "...contact sports include..." If so track was not included as it is not what most rational people would consider a "contact sport".
Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
But you've unfortunately given a misleading impression of Title IX by overlooking an important part of the regulations you've quoted and focusing solely on the parts that mention contact sports.
The section of the Title IX regulations you've quoted was written in the 1970s and has been in place ever since then. It says that educational insitutions which are recipients of federal funds
"may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex
where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill
or
the activity involved is a contact sport."
Moreover, the part of the Title IX regulations that gives examples of contact sports isn't about the issue of whether the federal statute allows for covered schools in the US to offer and operate separate sports teams for the two sexes in the first place. Rather, it's expressly dealing with the issue of whether and when Title IX allows students of one sex to try out for a school sports team of the opposite sex.
The regulations stipulate that where a school or other educational program which is a recipient of federal funds
operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport.
For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
The section about students of one sex trying out for teams of the opposite sex in this section of the Title IX regulations written in the 1970s is really about female students trying out for boys' and men's school sports teams. Because historically, athletic opportunities in publicly-funded US education were limited only for members of the female sex.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
