Some nonbinary runners are irate that Chicago Marathon's new nonbinary division isn't paying out prize money

2.5 million likes.... the overwhelming majority of people are not insane. Stop being silent when people talk nonsense about this trash. The 20-25% of people that believe this are not the majority, they've just been crying about it louder than people that actually live in reality have been resisting. Not buying into 'woke' culture is not being any sort of -phobia, you're just living in reality.

Don't give these lunatics an inch.

Yes, that would seem to be the fair thing to do - but only if you believe that there's legitimate reason to create new categories in sport based on gender identity in the first place.

I personally don't believe that there is legitimate reason to do this. The way some people conceptualize of themselves and "identify" in terms of gender (sexist sex stereotypes) has no bearing on their sex or sports performance. Nor does the way people express and display gender (sexist sex stereotypes) through clothing, hairstyles, use of cosmetics, manicures, affect, behavior, interests, hobbies and so on.

Similarly, the sexual orientation of persons of both sexes has no bearing whatsoever on sports performance and ability. For example, the fact that longtime tennis rivals and good friends Martina Navratilova Chris Evert have different sexual orientations made and makes no difference on the tennis court and in the locker room. They're both persons whose sex is female - and in sports and some other areas of life such as health care and "safe spaces," sex is what matters.

So whenever injustice occurs, it's solely up to the people directly and personally affected by the injustice to sort it out - and anyone not directly impacted should just turn a blind eye and shut up?

No one should have a say in any policies, laws or practices governing sports (and other areas of life) unless they are or will be personally affected by them?

The exclusively personally self-interested stance you advocate calls to mind the British phrase "I'm all right Jack" as well as Winston's cry "do it to Julia" in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

Would the female nonbinary category be open to transgender female nonbinary runners?

A person lacking an SRY gene. That's nature's definition

I can't tell if the gender theorist types are being disingenuous or just plain ignorant when they claim to not know how to define sex categories.

Its possible most non-binary are happy. But a journalist must find that one runner who is unhappy to make the story. It is a classic case of sensational journalism

Yeah woke logic is “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman”…does the same logic apply to transracial?

No. I didn't write that. You are a master of putting words into other people's keyboards.

I wrote, "If they want allies, I'd be more than happy to support them." Since I don't know what's best for them (female non-binaries), I will let THEM decide what's best for them, and support whatever THEY decide.

Unlike you, I am not better or smarter than those female nonbinary people. And I definitely don't know what's best for them.

Throughout history, there have been countless men who thought they were better and smarter than women, and believed they could decide what was best for women. How did you feel about them?

So are people with ovotesticular syndrome men or women? Swyer syndrome? CAIS?

You should know why they did that.

New York and Boston seem to be in that 'bunch' with their creep toward total woke. What was once Premier Athletic Events drifted into Social Athletic Events and now in the nosedive to Woke Athletic Events.

I'm on tap to do my 4th Boston in 6 months, but I'd much more prefer to go to Boston to participate in the 'Let's Bring it Back to an Athletic Event' boycott.

Yikes, I hope it's nowhere near 20-25% that actually believe. If so, we're in big trouble.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

Ovotesticular syndrome and Swyer syndrome are due to mutations or translocations of the SRY gene, or mutations of other genes related to sexual development, and these people are almost always infertile so these mutations are not adaptive or normal. In healthy humans, an embryo starts out as female and in the presence of and subsequent transcription of the SRY gene initiates male sexual development (i.e. ovaries develop into testes). To answer your question, I would categorize these people as male if male sexual development has occurred - which is true for ovotesticular syndrome and CAIS - and female if not. None of this disproves the existence of male/female sex.

If I must refine my definition of a woman further, it would be: a person without an abnormally located and/or mutated SRY gene and has not experienced male sexual development.

Looks like Cal Calamba had pretty solid race, 2:58:50. Way to get after it Cal!

Do you think a jurist is qualified to judge whether someone's SRY gene is abnormally located or mutated? How about judging "male sexual development"? Or is that a task of a "biologist"?

Oh c'mon. According to organizations that track these matters like the Williams Institute and Trevor Project, nearly everyone who "identifies as" non-binary is under 30. The largest proportion of people who "identify as" non-binary are females who are pre-teens, teenagers or very young adults.

(This doesn't mean most older people "identify as" "cisgender." The majority of adults do not have gender identities, ascribe to gender identity theory or use the phrasing "I identify as." Most adults simply know we are male or female and just say so plainly when the issue comes up. Most adults also do not use the phrase "assigned male/female at birth" to describe ourselves, our children or others. Because most adults know that human sex is a physical reality determined by genetics/nature very early on during development in utero, not an identity label signifying gender that parents and HCPs "assign" to babies at birth.)

I personally know a number young female people who "identify as" non-binary (and other newfangled "identities" such as vapogender and demisexual). Most of them are deeply unhappy, quite wet behind the ears and struggling with a host of psychological and social problems. Problems that stem from their own often troubled and traumatic personal and family histories, and from the misogyny of the larger culture, society and specific communities in which they have grown up. My heart goes out to them.

I don't believe that I am better than these youngsters. Nor do I believe that I am necessarily smarter. But I am far better informed than they are about the areas that are at issue here - sports policy and governance; sex discrimination; the physical differences between human males and females and their implications; the history of women's and girls' sports; the barriers that female people face and have faced historically because of our sex.

I also have a lot more - and a lot more varied - life experience in the "real world" than they do, and I am more savvy than they are when it comes to the law of unintended consequences.

Throughout history women with a lot of life experience, knowledge, wisdom and street smarts acquired in the school of hard knocks have been routinely vilified and dismissed, and our words of caution have been ignored. Unfortunately, sports governing organizations that are either run predominantly or solely by men (the male kind) have tended to make policy decisions about women's sports and female athletes without consulting many women (the female kind) with experience in sports and expertise in pertinent related areas. Indeed, many sports governing bodies have made a host of important policy decisions affecting female athletes without consulting any female people at all! This had led to some very poor policies that have proven to be very unfair to female athletes, and which have led to a lot of costly and time-consuming litigation. Yet here you are in 2022 advocating for more of the same and pretending that's what's best.

That’s interesting

You mentioned vapogender

i had never heard of it

If you are vapogender, can you enter the non binary division?

But the jurist in this case - Ketanji Brown Jackson - wasn't asked to determine or opine on the sex of an individual with an extremely rare disorder of sex development. She was asked specifically, "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?" And she responded by saying that no, she can't provide a definition - any definition - because she's not a biologist. At 17:20 in this vid:

Moreover, Brown Jackson was asked to provide a definition - any definition - for the word woman after she refused to give straightforward answers to several questions about sex as defined in law and in landmark legal cases. Citing a previous SCOTUS decision regarding sex discrimination, Senator Marsha Blackburn said, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, stated, 'Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.' Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?"

Brown Jackson responded by saying that without knowing all the details of the specific case, "it's hard for me to comment."