I've had deep and meaningful discussions with colleagues and runners about this very topic the past few years. Nearly every argument made in opposition to this proposed change are shaky at best and misogynistic at worst. I have heard ONE single argument that I can at least nod my head and acknowledge as valid. I will get to that at the end.
Here are my true thoughts on the matter. I have done my best to cut through the noise and not lose the forest for the trees. Many of these points have been brought up in this thread, but here is a summary of the reasons I support the change to make cross country distance a uniform 8k for both men and women:
1. If we were creating the sport today from a blank slate, we would clearly and obviously have the men and women run the same distance. This being the case, then any argument meant to uphold the current way is rooted in some level of wither bias or resistance to change.
2. Men and women run the same distances on the track, both indoors and outdoors. Cross country is the lone defector. This is where the physiology argument ends.
3. Right now, men and women are not treated equally in the sport of collegiate distance running. To illustrate: A long-distance male is generally expected to be a big factor in the fall (cross country) and outdoor track (5k/10k), but no so much in the winter w/ 5k being the longest event. A mid-distance male is generally expected to be a big factor in the winter (800/Mile/DMR) and outdoor (800/1500), but not so much in the fall for XC. Two seasons where true peak performance is expected. Conversely, a woman is generally expected to be able to be truly competitive all three seasons, regardless of whether or not she is a long-distance or mid-distance runner. So from an equality perspective, we are not there yet given the current model.
4. Most of the arguments are centered around increasing the women's distance. Regarding the shortening of the men's distance, we are currently the only sport that has one set of rules for the regular season with a significant change at the biggest stage. A football game doesn't get longer in the postseason. A baseball game doesn't suddenly go to 12 innings in the World Series. Keeping the men's distance 8k throughout the year makes far more sense. Again, if we were inventing the sport today from a blank state, would we really shift to 10k at Regionals and Nationals?
(Okay, there is one sport that does this: Men's tennis plays Best-of-Three all season, but the four majors are all Best-of-Five.)
5. Course set-up / signage becomes a cinch with uniform distances. Makes the sport much simpler to host, promote, and understand.
Okay, here is the one argument I have heard that I can listen to with open ears. This came from an email conversation I had with the female student-athletes on my team. This was while I was at Convention (a mostly male population) and I wanted to be able to get their perspective on the issue in case it differed from the coaches in the room. While many of these women support this proposal from an equality standpoint, here is an interesting take that I'd like to share from one of our women:
"We always say that "the clock doesn't matter" in cross country. My fear is that if everyone ran 8k, the clock WOULD start to matter. Suddenly, we would have those time differences from the men's race and the women's race on paper in front of us, at every XC meet. I would prefer to stick with a 6k--not because of the physical challenges of increasing the race distance, but because I think that the ownership and that women feel over the 6k does so much more for this sport than running a couple extra kilometers ever will. I feel a weight off my shoulders when I run a 6k that is still on my shoulders when I run a sub-17 5k at Azusa right after a bunch of guys go sub-15."
I'll leave that here for further discussion. In the end, despite the potential challenges that would await us with this change, I support uniform 8k distance for men's and women's cross country.