Fair or Foul: Non binary runner Cal Calamia reported to USADA for testosterone use.

Thanks, Fairness! I know you've gotten a lot of downvotes for your conclusions, but I appreciate your willingness to listen, learn, and kindly debate. Even though we don't agree, this conversation has given me a new perspective and made me think more deeply about what I believe. So thank you! I know we've gotten quite off base from the original post about PED use by a trans athlete, but I'm going to keep rolling with it.

The commenters on this thread have brought up different ways to sort and match competitors. People (on this thread and beyond) have made a case arguing for and against each of these, and obviously there isn't consensus on any one method. These are some of the ideas that have been suggested, and I'm sure there are plenty more:

1. No division of biological sex, one category for everyone

2. Male/Female categories

3. Open/Female categories

4. Male/Female/Nonbinary categories

5. Male/Female/Trans MtF/Trans FtM (and possibly more sex hormone based categories)

6. Non-biological sex factors, such as height, weight, gender, skill

7. Additional sub-categories within the Male/Female categories, such as age group, physical impairment, or (in wrestling) weight class

This post isn't to argue for one specific method for creating classifications for sport competitions, but rather to recognize that there are a lot of possible ways to do this. There is not one way to make everyone happy and certainly everyone can't be a winner (see the Tracksmith BQ thread if you want to hear more about that).

For me, and I think many of you agree, it's important that everyone has a chance to participate. Emphasizing inclusive participation is especially important in running because the barrier to entry is lower than in many other sports. When it comes down to how to award prizes, who competes directly against whom, and which category an individual belongs in, there is a lot of disagreement about the best way to divide competitors into categories (or not!).

The option I've advocated for (Open/Female) still has plenty of flaws and might not even be the best option. I think the best we can do is continue to learn from each others experiences and what research/science says.

In other words, you disagree with World Athletics, World Aquatics, and all the other sports governing bodies. You also disagree with CAS, the US federal court, and other legal systems. Then maybe you should not have cited Semenya v. IAAF in your previous post.

In that decision, CAS clearly states Semenya is a woman. It also makes it clear that IAAF could exclude Semenya from the women's division without declaring Semenya is not a woman. In other words, the definition of a "woman" for the purpose of sports category does not have to align with the definition of a "woman" in other settings.

It also raises what you mean by "male participants." Is there any uniform definition of "male" that does not depend on the context?

Yeah, I can see your point too. It seems like you're arguing about a slippery slope - if we allow transgender people to have testosterone, then why stop there. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's ok to make an exception for specific situations without falling down that slope.

I can imagine allowing FtM trans athletes to participate while taking such a TUE but by doing so, forfeiting the opportunity to win a prize. Another way to say this is, no, you can't get a monetary reward for competing while taking a PED. And I'd like to imagine this wouldn't be abused if you took out the monetary incentive.

I don't know if this is the best option, but we seem to agree that being inclusionary is important and this is one possible way. I think you put it quite well when you said this: while participating in sports in a fundamental right, winning awards, especially monetary award, from sports is not anyone's "rights."

As mentioned many pages ago, the WADA and USADA rules allow females who have have adoped a transgender male identity to get TUEs for high-dose testosterone. WA's rules allow such athletes to compete - and win - in men's track & field too. I have no problem with this.

Unfortunately, I can't say what the USATF rules are because, as I mentioend a few days ago when this thread started, each time I tried to access the rules via the drop-down menu on the USATF website I got diverted to a scam site. If someone else could look at the USATF rules, it would be a great help to all of us.

But the issue the Cal Calamia case brings up is separate to the rules for "FtM trans athletes" at least as they traditionally have been defined. "FtM" used to stand for "female to male" and meant females who identify as males and want to be seen as men (or boys). But now "FtM" increasingly stands for "female to masculine."

Cal Calamia doesn't "identify as" a "trans man," but rather as "non-binary transmasculine." Moreover, Calamia isn't taking T whilst competing in the men's or open category where the rules already allow for females on T for gender identity reasons to compete so long as they have a TUE. Calamia has been taking T - and talking quite a lot about taking T in press interviews and social media posts - whilst competing in the new non-binary category that some US race orgs have recently established and started awarding prize money in.

Looking into this story a bit deeper, I gather that Calamia never applied for a TUE from USADA or for elibility to race with a TUE for T from USATF until officials at one or both orgs discovered Calamia is on T and has already won in the non-binary category whilst on T for which Calamia doesn't have a TUE. (It's not clear whether USADA and/or USATF found out Calamia is on T from testing Calamia or simply from reading all the stuff Calamia has said in interviews and online.) At any rate, USADA (and USATF?) appear to have gone to the extraordinary length of letting Calamia apply for a TUE and or race eligibility based on having a TUE after finding out that Calamia has already been racing and winning in road events in the new non-binary category whilst already on T. But as of a few days ago, it appears officials (at USADA or USATF or both, it's not clear) had not yet made a final determination on Calamia's "application" - and this has led to Calamia being distressed and peeved, and understandably so. Again, whether the application that officials are still deciding on is for a TUE from USADA or an application from USATF for TUE-based eligibility is not clear.

All in all, this is a situation where a new category of sports competition - non-binary in some USA marathons and half marathons - has been created before all the various governing bodies had a chance to weigh in and formulate and issue regulations. It also appears to be a situation where the athlete who's gotten into difficulty here either failed to check with USADA and USATF officials about the rules, or assumed the usual sorts of rules pertaining to testosterone did not and would not apply in this particular individual's case.

In any event, I hope it gets worked out before the weekend so that Calamia can race - or at least so Calamia can get relief from the stress this has caused.

Also, I find it ironic - sadly so - that this situation has only arisen for Calamia because of Calamia's sex. Getting a TUE for using Big Pharma T is a non-issue for the mostly male runners racing and winning in the new non-binary category because, unlike Calamia, they all have testicles that pump out massive male levels of T naturally.

What is the problem with permitting T for transitioners but placing a limit on the levels similar in spirit to the upper limits for the women’s category? Presumably an FtM’s levels without therapy would typically be well below the lower end of the normal male range.

I don’t see the logic in the hypothetical allowing anyone to get TUE for any substance, but it seems okay to allow supplementing T up to the lower end of the normal male range (or thereabouts) for the open category. Cis males with unusually low levels may (or may not) modestly benefit from such supplementation. The standard urine and blood tests even today, in the absence of specific suspicion, don’t try to distinguish between synthetic and natural T anyway, so not much practically changes.

To clarify, the above is implicitly assuming a single male/open category. A separate non-binary category could have a stricter limit compared to men’s.

If this runner went through the proper channels and requested and received a TUE for testosterone than I feel for them. If this runner did not go through the proper protocol and collected prize money while taking testosterone I do not fee as badly for them. Unfortunately, even if ignorant of the rules, ignorance is not a defense to a rules violation.

Dear Lord. 9 pages on this.

If you have a Y chromosome, you run in the men’s category.
If you don’t, you run on the woman’s category.

It really is that simple.

Only your side is confused by what "male" means. You also know full well that part of the activist strategy in the trans debate has been to soften the definitions of any sex- or gender-related terms, which is the only reason you're able to make this kind of "but what does male even MEAN, guys?!" argument. Semantics is all your side has. The side that knows who is male, who is female, and sure, recognizes a very tiny gray area around intersex people, does not have to stoop to the level you want us to stoop to, where we never get to the final fight on the merits because your side is continuously going, "but if it has a penis but smelled flowers once, is it REALLY a man?!" "If it has a vagina but has heard of the word 'lumberjack,' couldn't it be a man after all?!?!" The only confusion is on your side. You're trying to force everyone to join in the confusion for strategic purposes, and nobody should fall for that trick. In fact, I think my side of the debate should just ignore you when you pull the trick, and continue talking about the merits of the argument.

You may be thinking of some other sport. Running’s regulatory body has no such requirement, so maybe running isn’t for you.

RunRagged, that is an impressive summary of the issue at hand. Thank you.

Typically, I am pretty hard-nosed about wanting fairness (more for women, believe it or not (lol)), and I am a stickler for the PED rules. But, this is a very complicated situation, and this is the first time I've heard of Female-to-Masculine (and I am not sure I even know the distinction between that and the old FtM).

In watching Cal's video, on the one hand, I was very sad for Cal and felt like there has got to be some way to make this work. That said, another more cynical side, wondered how much Cal may be activist (which I, and most, would naturally have more distrust for as the perspective shared is likely to be quite slanted). It was convincing that whoever reported on Cal probably did so from a not-great place. Then, again, what do I know? It could have been Cal's Mom coming from where she believe's is a loving place. And, that's what makes these things tough. We want to have black-and-white policies and procedures, but there will always be situations in the grey area, esp for new issues like all of this.

Empathy?, have I gotten a lot of downvotes?! That's interesting because I honestly don't even see them. Every once in awhile (but not on this issue), I'll notice, and if they're all upvotes, I'll feel complimented. If I get tons of downvotes, again, I'll see that as a good thing, and if they are split pretty evenly, again, I'll figure that's pretty good (lol). But, mostly I don't see them and pretty much never vote on anyone else's.

Your synopsis of the categories was good and helped to make things clearer. In thinking further about the 1 category approach (actually, it would be more like no categories), while in theory (from a "fairness" perspective), I still like it. However, pragmatically and politically speaking (mostly bc of where we've gotten ourselves now with Mens and Womens divisions firmly entrenched), it would be a bit of stretch to pull off. Shocker and Bummer, right?! :). If that's the case, then I would go with the xy and xx chromosomes to determine who should be in either the male or female category. Some may feel that this mislabels them, and I don't know what would happen with Cal (a DQ?), but compared to the messy alternatives, I think it would be the best, most objective, based on science solution.

Hey man, we're definitively and finally figuring out the world's issues here! You can not rush this!

I’m not interested in what running’s regulatory body has to say on this matter. I’ve stated my opinion above. It is my opinion. I never claimed it was the position of any regulatory body for running or any other sport.
Running is for me, no matter if I agree or disagree with the regulator on it. I’m not sure why you think I need to agree with them on this for running to be for me.

1. my bad - USADA has the play fair system and is the tester

2. I have not see this happen in running. It may happen in amateur bike racing, but the runners reported to play clean were not randomly tested.

3. They may not announce to the world that they are testing at an event, but event organizers talk and word gets around so those who listen, can find out if an event they plan to run in will test.

4. Stop laughing and read "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton. Those who get caught by tests conducted at a race are just not very smart. Doping allows a higher level of training and recovery. Good pharmacists know exactly how get an athlete to not test positive.

Cal, age 27, is very much an activist and influencer whose proselytising about how great it is to inject testosterone and get a double mastectomy appears to be having a big impact on quite a few impressionable, unhappy teenage girls and college-age young women with body-image issues and distress about their sex, gender, sexual orientation and place in today's pornified society.

Cal is also a school teacher, published poet/author and sometimes model. Cal heads a nonprofit that sends out (medically harmful) breast binders to girls who want to hide and crush their breasts.

Cal is on the coffeehouse and college lecture and workshop circuit. Cal is not at all publicity or press shy. Cal has given many interviews to major media outlets like AP, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times in which Cal is very open about injecting T.

calcalamia.com

Cal Calamia

Cal Calamia

queer bilingual educator and poet - San Francisco

Link:calcalamia.com/

Even though Cal says a "transphobe" motivated by "hate" reported Cal to USADA, I wouldn't be so quick to believe this. Nor to believe that "whoever reported on Cal probably did so from a not-great place" either.

In fact, I suspect that maybe no one "reported" Cal to USADA at all. Rather I have a hunch that after one of the many interviews Cal has given to newspapers and broadcast media since Cal began winning and placing in marathons in the new non-binary category, USADA and USATF got predictable queries from the press and the public asking to see their policies regarding testosterone use by female "non-binary transmasculine" athletes.

Or it could also be that an official or two at USADA and USATF got curious after seeing/hearing some of the press coverage of Cal directly and decided to google Cal. In five minutes, they would have realized there's a problem.

In one of the many press interviews Cal has given, Cal revealed that in 2019 whilst on testosterone, Cal ran a major marathon registered in the female category. From Cal's comments, Cal seems to have clearly understood this was against the rules. But Cal did it anyways, the article says, because the qualifying times Cal submitted were in the female category.

I think chances are good that Cal's own words ratted out Cal to the USADA (and/or USATF) and landed Cal in hot water with officials. Cal seems to have been tripped up by Cal's own attention-seeking.

Has anyone asked/answered why Cal is an athlete subject to USADA/WADA's rules?

Thank you very much for this run down on Cal, RunRagged. I sometimes think you are a little aggressive (which perhaps may be a good thing), BUT you are also very thorough and no one could ever call you lazy. You do provide a lot of facts and truth to a lot of your posts. All of that is to your credit. I confess that when I wrote my earlier posts, I suspected that there may be more to Cal than I was aware, and I lazily figured that you would likely set things straight. Again, apologies and thank you.

I feel a bit suckered by Cal's plea of "just let me run", which of course is going to be effective in playing my heartstrings. Given Cal's history and actions, I don't believe Cal to be an innocent party and at least as far as this situation goes, it changes a lot for me. I could maybe get on board with allowing a TUE to compete in the Male category, but at this late stage, I won't be too heartbroken if it doesn't work out for Cal this time. I feel more for the race organizers that have to deal with this right now, even though I believe there should be a way for all to run in some satisfactory group, assuming they are in good faith (which I don't believe Cal is).

Unfortunately for all people going through whatever you would call this transitioning stuff, Cal (and people like Cal) will not help in the long run. In the short term and when people (like me) just look at it from a surface level, it may gain attention. But, in the longer term, when people see that the act is performative and not in good faith, they will likely ascribe that to all transitioners, and that could be unfortunate.

Rekrunner, I don't think Cal would normally have to be concerned with Anti-doping orgs, but if Cal wants to race at an event where they are present, then there could be issues then. I don't think the anti-doping orgs can easily turn a blind eye, and I agree with RunRagged now that it is highly likely that Cal outed Cal.

I don't see how this issue can ever be resolved given that identities are proliferating, and those who don't identify as men, women, or non-binary will inevitably want their own categories, etc. Additionally, there is no way to weigh the fairness of the non-binary category without accounting for sex. The reality of sex difference at the base of this argument is unacceptable to many of the people who gravitate towards novel gender identities. Their real squabble is with reality, and that is unchangeable, except in some horrific trans-human social experiment. Google "gender nullification surgery" (or maybe don't!).

I also don't believe that Cal is distressed due to this tangle with USADA. Cal's affect (which looks performative and changes abruptly) is consistent with that of people with personality disorders. I know people will say that I can't "diagnose" from afar. That's obviously true, but nearly everybody I know who has worked in mental health would note the affect and behavior in this video. The histrionic claims, "I just want to be allowed to exist as trans and run!" are also a red flag. Trans identity is attractive to people with unstable identities because it purports to solve all their problems. The minority distress hypothesis chalks up any mental health problems among trans-identified people to oppression. It doesn't entertain the possiblity that some people are laundering other types of problems through trans ideology, leaving the real drivers of distress unchanged. I think that's why we, increasingly, see this kind of behavior from people with trans identities. There's also the fact that restraints on behavior that we might, quite rightfully, expect for all other people wil be chalked up to transphobia. This ideas have created a special caste of people who are above criticism.

Issue resolved for Cal: