Running USA "pauses" their trans and nonbinary inclusion template

Jay Holder, the new executive director of Running USA was eager to put distance between his organization and a trans and nonbinary inclusion template Running USA developed along with Chicago-based Equality Institute.

With “an entirely new staff and board as of last year,” Holder was quick to point out that the template was “from a project the organization embarked on in 2021 and 2022,” that “those involved in the creation of this template on both the Running USA and Equality Institute side are no longer with their respective organizations,” “we have not disseminated the template in quite some time and that pause will continue as our new team works to improve the work that has been done,” and “we are not a regulatory or governing body, and simply recommend best practices and educate our members on how to institute those practices.”

Bearing all those caveats in mind, I still am boggled that the largest running trade organization in the country could at any time have considered many of the recommendations on this template best practices, and actually disseminated it to its thousands of members. This is not ancient history—it was in use as recently as two years ago. Holder didn’t say they never sent it out, he said they’ve paused sending it out. And he says he still stands by “many of the recommendations in this document.” Considering that a number of these recommendations contravene science, World Athletics’ policy, and fairness for women, including women who identify as men and as nonbinary, this is concerning.

I encourage you to click on the link above—it’s only one page—but here are some highlights.

Throughout, the totalitarian language is eyebrow-singeing. Every sentence comes off as an order, rather than a recommendation.

Under Objective, we see a strong emphasis on inclusion of transgender and nonbinary participants, maintaining the rights and dignity of all participants, and the integrity of competition. That sounds fine until we come to how race organizers are to accomplish that.

Rule #1 is self-ID. You are who you say you are, with a big shouting underline. Up until the last seven years or so, this would never have had to have been said. Name, age, sex—it was all on the honor system, and it worked, for the most part. Because as a society, we respected reality. Race organizers would never have thought to give a free pass to every entrant to make up their own reality, and then demand that all others accept that self-declaration. As UN expert on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem recently wrote, self-ID violates the rights of women and girls. If a male-bodied person enters a race as a woman, how does that protect the rights of all the other women in the race to compete against female-bodied people? Is age also self-ID? Given the known physiological advantages of young men, how can race organizations recommend (more like demand) self-ID and still maintain the integrity of the competition, particularly for women?

“No basis for, or tolerance of, any challenge” to self-ID. In case you were thinking about it, stop. Be kind or we break your face. This is a heavy-handed warning that would never have appeared as a best practice for race organizations of even seven years ago. Were the creators of this template assuming there would be pushback to self-ID?

Under General Rules, Trans men will enter the Male category, Trans women will enter the Female category, Nonbinary participants will enter the nonbinary category, Anyone can enter the Male category regardless of gender. Will, not may. Very controlling, particularly of women. Given that some women who identify as men or nonbinary (who are not on testosterone; more on that below) prefer to stay in the women’s category, why wouldn’t it be best practice to allow that? But no, trans men will enter the male category. This template was obviously developed before World Athletics’ 2023 ban on trans women who have gone through any part of male puberty, but even in 2021 and 2022, the science was indisputable that regardless of hormone therapy, trans-identified men had physiological advantages over women. Recommending (strongly) that trans women enter the female category was in no way a best practice, even in 2021 and 2022.

There is an Optional Section on Gender Challenges that indicates challenges may only be made regarding a person who finishes top three overall or is up for an age group award in the female category only. Not male or nonbinary categories. So, those who crafted this template realized the only group who would be treated unfairly by this inclusion policy is women. The woman challenger had to do so in person or writing, and if the challenged individual could not provide documentation of medically supervised transition, the challenged person would have to give back the award. And the challenged (trans-identified man) person’s privacy and feelings were to be protected at all cost. Nevermind the feelings or privacy of the woman whose place and award was unfairly taken. Everything about this section, actually the whole document, prioritizes the rights of trans-identified men at the expense of women regardless of how they identify.

But the most startling section is one about which Holder said, “I cannot speak to their intent when including that paragraph” and “I do not believe is within our scope to enforce any such thing nor do we have the mechanisms by which to do so.” It’s the last recommendation about optional drug testing: 

"If a transgender runner is selected for drug testing at [RACE NAME] and tests positive for a banned substance, it will be considered a legitimate medical use under [RACE NAME]’s Drug Testing Policy and Protocols if the runner can demonstrate that the banned substance was being taken in connection with the person’s medically supervised hormone treatment for gender transition."

So, no involvement from USADA, no requirement for a TUE. And this was written well before Cal Calamia’s pioneering law-firm muscled TUE for testosterone. Considering the no-questions-asked edicts in the rest of this template, it's unlikely a race director would ask for any verification of sex, gender transition, medical supervision, anything. Was this ever best practice?

Holder reiterated, “I do not see Running USA as a regulatory or governing body and since the people involved with this template are no longer part of the organization in any way I cannot speak to their intent when including that [last] paragraph. Our stance is that drug testing is regulated by USADA and WADA and we encourage any member events with prize money and competitive fields to invest in a drug testing program.”

Holder said he still stands by many of the recommendations in the template. He added that Running USA does not currently have a relationship with Equality Institute, but did not answer my question about how they would uphold the rights of women and integrity of competition going forward. Inclusion, as this template demonstrates, has been code for “consult only an LGBTQ lobby group and adopt whatever they propose, wholesale.” It seems clear the only way to meet the objective Running USA put forward is to base best practices on science and the voices of all stakeholders, particularly those most impacted by inclusion—women.