This is how running gets featured in the NY Times

RunRagged wrote:

But how do you tell a bona fide nonbinary from a fake nonbinary? Pray tell, what exactly is the definition of nonbinary? Even groups and persons in the gender vendor business can't agree.

Whichever of the myriad definitions of nonbinary you go with, why should a special category in sports be created for those who who claim to have a certain "gender identity" - or any kind of chosen "identity"?

People participate and compete in sports with our bodies, not our gender identities - and most people don't have a gender identity, besides. But even if everyone on earth did have a gender identity, why should sports categories be created based on our self-concepts? The physical realties of our bodies such as our sex and age are not changed by the ideas, feelings and fantasies that we hold in our heads about ourselves.

The runners who've cleaned up in the nonbinary category featured and shown in the NY Times piece are all young white men who look like tens of millions of other young white men. One has a fair amount of tattoos - is that what makes him nonbinary? Another has a curly hair that's about shoulder length and is pulled back in ponytail - is that what makes him nonbinary?

The whole thing is grift. A grift that is insulting to women and girls. The gender identity industry and the NY Times are trying to make it seem like the white blokes in this story have faced the same sorts of discrimination in sports and life for claiming to be nonbinary that women and girls have faced for millennia because of our sex.

These blokes and the NY Times overlook the fact that men who claim to be nonbinary were never officially barred from road races in the US by the AAU like women were until finally sports officials agreed to change the rules in the 1970s. They don't seem to be aware that there was never a time in history when nonbinary blokes were denied the chance to participate and compete in school sports the way girls and women in the US were until the late 70s, early 80s after the implementation period for Title IX was over.

The nonbinary category in running events is just a new con and swindle, like the attempt of males to use gender identity claims to horn in on female sports is.

Moreover, the nonbinary category is a con and swindle that cynically exploits the kinds of sex discrimination that females traditionally have faced in sports in order to create a new division and set of prizes which unfairly privilege and benefit athletes who are male.

To cap it off, the article says that these entitled men whom race officials have bent over backwards to cater to, and the NY Times has chosen to lionize with loads of fawning attention, "have said they felt a lack of recognition for their accomplishments and a lack of attention to their safety and comfort on race day."

blugh wrote:

liverpoolrunner00 wrote:

Link:www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/sports/nonb...

In the midst of the oldest track meet in the United States, the paper of record's coverage of running is about... a man who won $10,000 in a marathon with a time just barely faster than the winner of the women's race. Leaving aside the issue of whether non-binary is a legitimate category (it's not). How does it make any sense that gender identity factors into athletic performance. Can anyone explain to me why there should be a separate category for slower men who identify as they/thems to compete in? With transwomen I understand that it's a more complex issue because there are hormonal treatments (read: castration) that lend credence to the argument that they should compete with the women (they shouldn't). But in this case I don't see any science based argument for why this category is necessary other than for providing clout chasing men with an opportunity to leverage their newfound status as a protected class to win money that should otherwise be going to the actual winners of the men/women's races.

What are you complaining about? Isn’t a separate category what you always maintained was fairer because it didn’t interfere with and take prize money away from your “purebred” women? Well, now you have it. Men, women, and non-binary. What’s your point? Should the non-binary not compete at all?

RunRagged wrote:

The people you are defending are intolerant, homophobic sexists whose entire aim in life is making sure that confused, often autistic, quirky children with mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and OCD get messed up further by being subjected to cruel, inhumane punishments for not meeting their parents' rigid, unreasonable expectations for what little boys and girls are supposed to be like. These poor kids are being told their bodies are wrong, which is a sick thing to tell kids in the first place. Worse, to fix their "wrong" bodies, these kids are being "treated" with experimental, radical medical interventions that will stunt the kids' development in a wide variety of ways, leave them sterile and deny them their basic human right to mature sexually so that they in adolescence and adulthood they can experience normal libido, sexual attraction, sexual arousal, sexual pleasure, and climax/orgasm - all just because as little kids they liked toys and clothes their sexist parents found inappropriate for their sex, they also liked to play make-believe where they pretended to be the opposite sex like lots of children do and always have done.