Running USA supports self-ID. And women's rights?

Hi Jay--

I spoke with you in January of this year about a template Running USA had produced along with Equality Institute outlining "best practices" for including transgender runners. You mentioned at the time that Running USA had paused use of this template as you worked on updating that document. I'm checking back with you to see if that template has been updated. I couldn't find anything except the 2022 version online. 

This is the start of an email exchange between me and Jay Holder, executive director of Running USA, an organization dedicated to serving the running industry—race directors, retailers, running clubs. I spoke with Holder back in January of this year about a strongly worded template for race directors re: inclusion of trans and nonbinary runners based on self-ID: “Gender of entrant recognized at face value – You are who you say you are. No basis for, or tolerance of, any challenge to a participant’s self-declared gender.” Holder told me at that time, Running USA had “paused” use of that template while they worked to “improve the work that has been done.” He emphasized, then and now, that Running USA is not a regulatory agency but simply “recommends best practices and educates their members on how to institute those practices.” He seems eager to relinquish responsibility for Running USA’s policy stances.

What prompted me to get back in touch with Holder was a story in Reduxx about trans-identified male Patti Flynn who had threatened legal action against a mountain bike race organizer for denying him entry into the female category in their event. Flynn is a senior consultant with Chicago-based Equality Institute that worked with Running USA to create that trans and nonbinary inclusion template.

Follows is the rest of the exchange between Holder and me. I don’t normally publish email exchanges, but Holder knows I am a journalist and that, as executive director, his words could be used for the record. I will own right now that I have “no basis for or tolerance of” drivelly lies about inclusion of males in the female category. Anyone who has been around sports as long as Holder knows this is objectively unfair and discriminatory toward women. To bang on as if we both don’t know that is deeply insulting. But what really cemented my decision to publish this exchange was Holder’s shocking admission that fairness for women in non-elite events is irrelevant. It’s an astoundingly dismissive attitude toward women, one that I think the millions of women who enter races should be aware of. My first email continues…

Additionally, I wonder if Running USA is still partnering with Equality Institute. Patti Flynn, a trans-identified male and senior consultant at Equality Institute, is threatening legal action against CAMBr, a mountain bike race organizer, for not allowing him to race in the female category per International Cycling rules. World Athletics and USATF also have restricted the female category to a sex-based category, at least at top level events.  These major running organizations have set an important precedent. Categories—sex, age, ability—are inclusion policies that allow inclusion and celebration of the achievements of a diverse population of runners.  But to be meaningful, those categories must be defined and defended. If males can self identify into the female category, the female category ceases to exist—it is a mixed sex category. So-called inclusion discriminates against women, robbing them of fairness, opportunity, and their own category, something that was enshrined in Title IX. Transgender runners are free to compete in their sex class, as almost all trans-identified women already do.

I hope you will be mindful of who Running USA partners with, and ensure that Running USA's policies around the female category prioritize women rather than men who identify as women. If you've already updated the transgender template, please send it my way.

Below is Holder’s response. I’ll use italics to differentiate his contributions to the discourse from mine.

Thank you for coming back to this. That PDF is uploaded to Google and impossible for us to remove from the internet. However, you will not find it anywhere on our site as we do not link to it. We have not updated the document nor do we intend to issue such a document going forward. As I mentioned in our prior exchange, Running USA's staff and board does not see ourselves as a regulatory agency. We believe that races should welcome all individuals and allow for registration opportunities that align with people's identities. We know this is not a one-size-fits-all approach and we see our role as facilitating the conversation within the community on solutions that suit a wide range of scenarios involving inclusion. That said, Running USA is not involved in scoring or drug testing and we defer to World Athletics, USA Track.& Field and USADA to create and enforce all rules of competition. 

I mentioned in our last correspondence that Running USA does not have a relationship with the Equality Institute. We did not during our last exchange and that has not changed, 

As Holder mentions, the website does not link to the template, but they have a significant section of their site devoted to inclusion, along with business, marketing, event, medical, and operations. The inclusion tab features stories about inclusion of deaf, blind, and runners of color, and a 54-minute video on inclusion of LGBTQ runners which is only watchable by members. Holder mentions that, though Running USA does not use the 2022 template, they still recommend self-ID as a best practice, which is odd since it’s in direct conflict with World Athletics’ policy.

Thanks for getting back!  It's unfortunate but true—things live on the Internet forever. And I understand Running USA does not consider itself a regulatory agency, but as the largest organization dedicated to best practices for the running industry, your influence on race directors is considerable. Since your stance of prioritizing gender identity over sex in race registration is in direct conflict with both World Athletics and USATF, how can this be a best practice? Sex categories—male and female—include every person on this planet. Everyone has a sex, everyone is included. Gender identity is not one-size-fits-all, it's an ideology that  is untethered from reality. It fits no one. By believing that everyone should be able to register according to his identity, you are choosing to discriminate against women. If you believe in having a men's and a women's category, then you know the reason for those two categories, but somehow believe women don't deserve fair competition. The women's category was designed to exclude male advantage. As you can easily see from the tragic example at the Paralympics, including a male in the female category excludes women from the team, from the track, from the podium. Registration according to gender identity has been instituted without women's permission. There was no conversation. Women are silenced, shamed, and called bigots for standing up for their right to a female category. Women are expected to accept unfairness and the erasure of women's sports. You'll be called a bigot too, if you stand up for male and female  sex-based categories. And you might lose your job. No, there's no conversations going on my friend. You're being strong-armed by a very powerful and dangerous ideology, and you're afraid to speak obvious basic truths. Others have found the courage to do the right thing. I hope you do too.

I admit, I’ve gone full on activist at this point. I will not suffer BS from someone like Holder who knows he is harming women, is in a position to change that, but is too cowardly to do it. I don’t scorch high school boys who win girls’ state championships with my tongues of fire; I reserve that for adults in positions of influence. Like Holder.

I am sorry you are choosing to misconstrue my words. Running USA's member events are mass participation road races. More than 90% of participants do not consider themselves competitive runners and take part in road races for exercise, self-improvement and social interaction. I firmly believe races should be inviting and welcoming to all of those people. When prize money and competition get involved, there are other factors that play into entering athletes beyond the registration form that the thousands of other participants fill out. And I will say for the third time, that the rules of competition are governed by World Athletics and USATF. So, I think comparing a weekend 5K to the Paralympics which is exclusively for athletes competing for prizes is a stretch to say the least. We will continue to disagree on a number of fundamentals here and I am not sure continuing to exchange emails will sway either of our viewpoints, but I hope my distinction between participation and competition is clear. 

My jaw dropped. Girls just wanna have fun, right?

I get your distinction. I understand you perfectly. You're saying fairness for women at the participation level does not matter. And I think if you said 90% of men are taking part in road races for exercise and social interaction you would be not only wrong but castigated by those men. All of the women I know, while not elite, are competitive within the women's category. And they expect that category to be women, not men who identify as women. 

If a man who identifies as a woman is put off by having to accept the reality of his sex (which most do) and enter in the male category, then that's his problem. You have made it women's problem. Yes, I care about women's rights and you don't—that is a fundamental disagreement.

And Holder’s final salvo…

That 90% statistic is for all participants. Men included. If you are only talking to competitive athletes, you are talking to a very small percentage of road race participants and those who seek sanctioned competition should be able to do so within the rules of governing bodies. I believe in women’s rights. This is clearly not a journalistic endeavor on your part and thus I will not be continuing this conversation. 

Holder is saying 90% of runners don’t care about fairness or competition, so it’s fine that self-ID is inherently unfair to women (which he never refutes because we both know it’s true). So, yes, self-ID is unfair but women don’t care about it. Or maybe they don’t know that the person who won their age group is actually male. Maybe if Running USA was more honest and suggested a disclaimer on entry forms that because of their self-ID policy, some of the runners in the female category would be male. Maybe more women would care about that. Agreement by deception is not a ringing endorsement of a “best practice.” And for the 10% who do care about fair competition? “Should be able to do so within the rules of governing bodies.” Huh? Apparently, if a woman is concerned about competitive fairness, she needs to ring up USATF and make sure that’s a thing. If I know anything about black holes and USATF, and I think I do, this is not going to be a satisfying experience.

Perhaps sensing that his preceding emails, in which he stated myriad different ways that Running USA prioritized the feelings of a small number of men over fairness and opportunity for women, could be construed as anti-woman, Holder tossed in “I believe in women’s rights.” Hollower words were never emailed. Running USA has actually acted, decisively, on the incoherent mantra, a trans woman is a woman. They’ve recommended self-ID as a best practice to their members. This is objectively anti-woman, dismissive of women and women’s rights, and Holder knows it. The only action he’s taken to support women’s rights is to type five words that Holder assumed no one else would ever read.

Cover photo credit: Dave Atkinson via Flickr, under CC BY-SA 2.0.