I deleted a post commenting on how one of the winners of the non binary division in some of these races looks. We don't need to get into individual cases in this thread. The poster was saying the person had a beard before they identified as non-binary. Who cares? Many non-binary people are people who might have identified as more traditional gay or lesbian 10 years ago. They are often not transgender.
But how someone looks or identifies doesn't influence how they perform in sport so we don't need a prize money category for it.
Does that mean I can't qualify as non-binary if I still have a beard? If they create a non-binary category, can they question someone's status based on their appearance? As a washed-up, has-been runner, I would appreciate a new division with prize money that is less competitive than the traditional men's division.
"The top five athletes in the new nonbinary category will earn a cash prize, with the top finisher receiving $5,000. The nonbinary category is for general runners only—there is currently not a professional nonbinary category.
There is currently no prize money for the top men and women who aren’t pros or aren’t in any other specific category, such as NYRR members or masters."
I don't have a "gender identity." I respect other people's right to claim a gender identity like other people's right to claim a religion, but I don't participate in the ideology.
I AM female.
This is like saying I don't have religion because I am an atheist. But atheism IS a religion, beause one has to BELIEVE that God does not exist. (The absence of God cannot be proved.)
Even agnosticism is a religion if one actively believes in agnosticism.
What? Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, FFS. They are beliefs or belief systems, as are religions. But just because atheism, agnosticism and religions are all beliefs, it doesn't mean they are all religions.
Religion, as Oxford defines it, is "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
I'm with NotSoFast6. Like her and most of the women and men I know, including my own children and most of their friends, I don't have a "gender identity." I just have a sex, which is female. I AM female. I don't "identify as" female, nor do I see my being female as something I have any choice over.
Entitled men like Eddie Izzard and Joe Biden's new bestie Dylan Mulvaney say they can shift back and forth between what Izzard calls "boy mode" and "girl mode" and they can experience "girlhood" by donning dresses, heels and lipstick and using ladies' loos. But most female people have never felt that identifying out of our sex has ever been an option available to us - and we find the performative antics of blokes like Izzard and Mulvaney to be deeply insulting and dehumanizing to women and girls.
Even if I did try to identify out of my sex by claiming a non-binary gender identity, it would still not change the material and social reality of my sex. I would still have to get checked for cervical cancer, but not for prostate cancer. My risks for various diseases and health conditions would still be the female risks, not the male risks. Whenever I travel to an Islamic country, I'd still have to cover my head/hair and dress modestly when I venture out.
Like NotSoFast6, I respect other people's right to claim a gender identity. But I take umbrage at being told by others - men especially - that just because some people in some countries and cultures today have, or claim to have, gender identities, it means that every human being on earth including me has to have a gender identity too.
Like NotSoFast6, I don't believe in and I refuse to participate in gender identity ideology, aka the belief system of the Church of Genderology. I find many elements of gender identity ideology regressive, sexist and misogynistic. I think a lot of gender identity ideology is just plain silly and risible too. Much like the tenets of the Church of Scientology.
Insisting that everyone in the world must conceptualize themselves the way those who believe in gender identity ideology do is authoritarianism on steroids.
The wokes have taken over NYRR. This is the IG of the group of employees who ousted their last CEO during Covid. He basically got canned because he is a white male. Read the numbered bullet points. Some hilarious stuff. It appears systematic racists are literally stopping brown, women and gays from running/jogging. Where do you even find a Native American runner in NYC to support?
NYC is following Boston in using qualifying standards for "non-binary" that are the same as the standards for women. Absolutely ridiculous that men can now qualify for races as women. If people don't take drastic measures to stop this insanity, we will have men running 2:37 and running in the Olympic Trials. People keep saying it is a slippery slope argument but it just keeps getting closer and closer. Women's sports will be devastated within the next 20 years or less.
I'm with NotSoFast6. Like her and most of the women and men I know, including my own children and most of their friends, I don't have a "gender identity." I just have a sex, which is female. I AM female. I don't "identify as" female, nor do I see my being female as something I have any choice over.
Entitled men like Eddie Izzard and Joe Biden's new bestie Dylan Mulvaney say they can shift back and forth between what Izzard calls "boy mode" and "girl mode" and they can experience "girlhood" by donning dresses, heels and lipstick and using ladies' loos. But most female people have never felt that identifying out of our sex has ever been an option available to us - and we find the performative antics of blokes like Izzard and Mulvaney to be deeply insulting and dehumanizing to women and girls.
Even if I did try to identify out of my sex by claiming a non-binary gender identity, it would still not change the material and social reality of my sex. I would still have to get checked for cervical cancer, but not for prostate cancer. My risks for various diseases and health conditions would still be the female risks, not the male risks. Whenever I travel to an Islamic country, I'd still have to cover my head/hair and dress modestly when I venture out.
Thank you for articulating what I've been struggling to articulate in some conversations with my husband and a few others. I am a woman, but I have almost zero affinity to wearing dresses, fake nails, fake boobs, high heels, etc. On the other hand, I do like to wear a little bit of makeup, like my natural body, loved pregnancy, love being a mom, etc. I've never wanted to be a man. I feel like many in the trans community are focused on the most extreme elements of what they think being a woman means. They are missing the daily experience of 98% of women and focusing on being like the 2% who act and dress like Barbie dolls.
"The top five athletes in the new nonbinary category will earn a cash prize, with the top finisher receiving $5,000. The nonbinary category is for general runners only—there is currently not a professional nonbinary category.
There is currently no prize money for the top men and women who aren’t pros or aren’t in any other specific category, such as NYRR members or masters."
So non pro runners can get money because they identify as non-binary? But non pro men and women don't? How is that fair exactly?
the reason why sports were separated by sex had NOTHING to do with "gender identity" but because of physical characteristics. Maybe the way we thought then is outdated now but the foundational points remain the same.
I truly don't want to be mean or discriminatory. I really want a space where everyone can partake in sports. I actually feel like we have that now. But I won't lie . Non-binary inclusion has frustrated me, not because they want to be included, but because it feels like each non binary athlete has different demands.
Nikki Hiltz doesn't mind running with women. In fact, they seem to prefer it every time. Should a non-binary category open up in a race they are running, will they join that category instead? That means they will have to race against (for lack of better way of writing it) biologically male athletes. Do you think they are game? I actually do not.
Some non binary athletes demand their own categories. Others want to run in the male/female category and Claim a separate non binary category is discriminatory all on its own.
Prize money is a joke. If you want to give any prize money in the non binary category then you HAVE to give prize money for men and women non pros too.
Thank you for articulating what I've been struggling to articulate in some conversations with my husband and a few others. I am a woman, but I have almost zero affinity to wearing dresses, fake nails, fake boobs, high heels, etc. On the other hand, I do like to wear a little bit of makeup, like my natural body, loved pregnancy, love being a mom, etc. I've never wanted to be a man. I feel like many in the trans community are focused on the most extreme elements of what they think being a woman means. They are missing the daily experience of 98% of women and focusing on being like the 2% who act and dress like Barbie dolls.
Gender ideology is completely detached from reality. Accordingly, it is perfectly valid for a female to embody the most extreme feminine stereotype (Barbie doll), while identifying 100% as a man. That isn't even the right way to put it because the concept of validity is rejected, since there is no provision for an evaluation of a truth claim.
What? Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, FFS. They are beliefs or belief systems, as are religions. But just because atheism, agnosticism and religions are all beliefs, it doesn't mean they are all religions.
Religion, as Oxford defines it, is "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
That definition excludes Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism among others. It fits Judaism, Christianity and Islam nicely, but it sounds too ethnocentric to me.
OED also gives this alternative definition. "a particular system of faith and worship."
By this definition, atheism is a religion.
A person who does not have gender identity is agender. And that is gender identity just like atheism is a religion.
Thank you for articulating what I've been struggling to articulate in some conversations with my husband and a few others. I am a woman, but I have almost zero affinity to wearing dresses, fake nails, fake boobs, high heels, etc. On the other hand, I do like to wear a little bit of makeup, like my natural body, loved pregnancy, love being a mom, etc. I've never wanted to be a man. I feel like many in the trans community are focused on the most extreme elements of what they think being a woman means. They are missing the daily experience of 98% of women and focusing on being like the 2% who act and dress like Barbie dolls.
Can you tell me how many of the people in this photo are dressing like Barbie dolls?
What? Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, FFS. They are beliefs or belief systems, as are religions. But just because atheism, agnosticism and religions are all beliefs, it doesn't mean they are all religions.
Religion, as Oxford defines it, is "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
That definition excludes Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism among others. It fits Judaism, Christianity and Islam nicely, but it sounds too ethnocentric to me.
OED also gives this alternative definition. "a particular system of faith and worship."
By this definition, atheism is a religion.
A person who does not have gender identity is agender. And that is gender identity just like atheism is a religion.
Yes, I agree that the regular Oxford dictionary definition I cited is too narrow. The OED one you cited is far better.
But I still don't believe that atheism or agnosticism are religions like you previously claimed. Believers in atheism and agnosticism are not required to participate in any form of worship; engage in any kinds of rituals; observe any kinds of holy days; abide by any behavior or dietary strictures; recite prayers and mantras like the shahada, Nicene creed, "om" and namaste; follow any commandments or rules set forth in texts or issued by religious authorities verbally. Whereas people who are believers in religions do have to do those sorts of things to varying degrees to prove their fealty to the faith.
What? Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, FFS. They are beliefs or belief systems, as are religions. But just because atheism, agnosticism and religions are all beliefs, it doesn't mean they are all religions.
Religion, as Oxford defines it, is "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
That definition excludes Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism among others. It fits Judaism, Christianity and Islam nicely, but it sounds too ethnocentric to me.
OED also gives this alternative definition. "a particular system of faith and worship."
By this definition, atheism is a religion.
A person who does not have gender identity is agender. And that is gender identity just like atheism is a religion.
As for your claim that "a person who does not have gender identity is agender. And that is [a] gender identity just like atheism is a religion" - no, mate, I adamantly disagree.
Calling me and others who reject gender identity ideology "agender" and insisting that we all have an agender gender identity (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) even when we say we don't, is just imposing more of your own authoritarian claptrap on us against our will. It's akin to religious people saying that all atheists are infidels and heretics, and we all must conceptualize ourselves and "identify" as such.
Actually, it's worse than that. You telling me that I and others who aren't followers of the Church of Genderology still all have agender gender identities anyway is akin to Muslims insisting that all non-Muslims see and define ourselves as "kaffir" and "non-ummah." Or to Buddhists, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Scientologists decreeing that everyone who doesn't follow their particular faith still must nonetheless pay fealty to their particular faith by calling ourselves non-Buddhists, non-Mormons, non-Roman Catholics, non-Presbyterians, non-Scientologists and making our lack of belief in Buddhism, Mormonism/LDS, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, or Scientology central to our self-images.
I have no issue with you and others being dyed-in-the-wool adherents of gender ideology even though I think gender identity ideology is a bunch of baloney that has a host of negative repercussions for many groups of people. But I still want no part of your belief system. And I resent your continued efforts to force labels on me and others that are meant to make it seem that we center our lives and build our self-concepts and social identities around your own genderist views.
I know and am friendly with many people who follow various kinds of religions, who are atheists and agnostics, and who are all over the map in terms of their political beliefs and personal philosophies. But none of them insist that I adopt a label describing myself which centers and pays homage to their own religions, beliefs and philosophies, or that I make my lack of belief in, or lack of agreement with, their particular religion, politics, philosophy or worldview a defining aspect of my inner sense of self or my social identity. Only genderists like you do this regarding your own personal beliefs and your own particular worldview. Please stop. I'm not gonna bow my head and genderflect for you or anyone else.
"The top five athletes in the new nonbinary category will earn a cash prize, with the top finisher receiving $5,000. The nonbinary category is for general runners only—there is currently not a professional nonbinary category.
There is currently no prize money for the top men and women who aren’t pros or aren’t in any other specific category, such as NYRR members or masters."
Thoughts on this? Seems like a ploy to show how woke the sport is.
I have no objection to this. I know some categories will feel left out but it cuts out men taking places in women's races. The prize is kind of irrelevant. I'm just happy to see it becoming fairer again.
I have no objection to this. I know some categories will feel left out but it cuts out men taking places in women's races. The prize is kind of irrelevant. I'm just happy to see it becoming fairer again.
How does this cut out men/males taking places in the women's category? Most - not all, but most - "transgender" males who claim to "identify as" women today are still dead-set on competing in the women's category.
Their oft-stated position is that males who "feminize" their outward appearance by donning new "girly" hairstyles, wearing women's clothes and using makeup; reduce their T levels somewhat; and take exogenous estrogen manufactured by Big Pharma, actually become female in the process. The majority of males who "identify as" women and their backers nowadays insist that such males be regarded as no different to actual females in sports and all other contexts.
“It all boils down to, do you actually think that trans women and intersex women are real women and are really female, or not? And if you do, it’s very simpl...
"The top five athletes in the new nonbinary category will earn a cash prize, with the top finisher receiving $5,000. The nonbinary category is for general runners only—there is currently not a professional nonbinary category.
There is currently no prize money for the top men and women who aren’t pros or aren’t in any other specific category, such as NYRR members or masters."
Thoughts on this? Seems like a ploy to show how woke the sport is.
If I was still racing screw it I would sign up and race in that division figure my 2:23 would win it. Take that $5,000 bucks and put it toward my holiday vacation in which I would enjoy as a Man with my Wife!
That definition excludes Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism among others. It fits Judaism, Christianity and Islam nicely, but it sounds too ethnocentric to me.
OED also gives this alternative definition. "a particular system of faith and worship."
By this definition, atheism is a religion.
A person who does not have gender identity is agender. And that is gender identity just like atheism is a religion.
Yes, I agree that the regular Oxford dictionary definition I cited is too narrow. The OED one you cited is far better.
But I still don't believe that atheism or agnosticism are religions like you previously claimed. Believers in atheism and agnosticism are not required to participate in any form of worship; engage in any kinds of rituals; observe any kinds of holy days; abide by any behavior or dietary strictures; recite prayers and mantras like the shahada, Nicene creed, "om" and namaste; follow any commandments or rules set forth in texts or issued by religious authorities verbally. Whereas people who are believers in religions do have to do those sorts of things to varying degrees to prove their fealty to the faith.
Atheists share faith that God does not exist (which has been unproven and cannot possibly be proved). Many of them also engage in rituals of telling their faith to other people. Believing in the absence of God is a strong source of their identity, and they bond with one another through this tribal identity.
Agnostics can be both active and passive. For the former, the impossibility of proving the presence or absence of God is an important part of their identity. For those people, agnosticism is their religion. If you are passively agonistic, meaning you don't place much important on your agnosticism, then it's not your religion.
Actually, it's worse than that. You telling me that I and others who aren't followers of the Church of Genderology still all have agender gender identities anyway is akin to Muslims insisting that all non-Muslims see and define ourselves as "kaffir" and "non-ummah." Or to Buddhists, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Scientologists decreeing that everyone who doesn't follow their particular faith still must nonetheless pay fealty to their particular faith by calling ourselves non-Buddhists, non-Mormons, non-Roman Catholics, non-Presbyterians, non-Scientologists and making our lack of belief in Buddhism, Mormonism/LDS, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, or Scientology central to our self-images.
No. That would be like transgender people saying that anyone who is not transgender should be identified as "non-transgender" people. That would indeed be absurd. But saying agender people have gender identity as being agender is like saying being atheists and agnostics is religious identity.
Do you think asexual people have sexual orientation? Probably not from their perspective. They probably don't define themselves by the lack of sexual attraction to others. They are defined by others who are sexually attracted by someone.
Do they get offended by the fact they have been defined by other people? Do they call other people followers of "Church of Sexology"? I haven't heard anyone saying that.
Why do you have to be offended if you are called agender, and it's a form of gender identity? Do you feel you are "othered"? Do you feel your sense of normalcy has been violated? Do you need to believe that other people who have gender identity are cult followers?
