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

RunRagged wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

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?

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.

RunRagged wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

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"?

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:

Video:youtu.be/_yfnvxoDcJU?t=1041

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."

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

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.

1. Since we are talking about road races with prize money, most, if not all, of participants are 18 and older.

2. If an eighteen is old enough to make a decision on what do with unwated pregnancy, they should be old enough to decide which division they want to race in.

3. If nonbinary females outnumber nonbinary males in a race, then setting the rules by all participants in the division will give the power to nonbinary females.

4. Worst thing their decision could do is to hurt their own interests. Whatever they decide has no negative impact on cis women competing in the women's division.

Adults should be allowed to do things that only hurts their own interests as long as they don't negatively affect other people's interests. And there is no reason to believe that they will do something to hurt their own interests. At least they are in a better position than anyone else to know what is best for them.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

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:

Video:youtu.be/_yfnvxoDcJU?t=1041

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."

How can she possibly give a definition without knowing a specific case?

Any definition could potentially exclude someone who should be incudeded, or include someone who should be excluded. It does not matter how rare those cases are. As long as there is ONE anomaly, then the defition is flawed.

She gave a typical "lawyer's answer." If you don't understand that, then you are telling you have never studied law without saying you have never studied law.