Crickets

At the risk of repeating myself regarding the issue of transgender women competing in women's sports categories, I'm going to go ahead and address the topic again because I see a trend in the running community, one that's telling. With both older studies and new research emerging that show transgender athletes maintain a physical advantage even after hormone therapy, those who were previously the loudest when bringing up the subject and also the most hypocritical of others are suddenly awfully quiet. Unlike simple surveys or polls, one consisting of only of eight individuals, that were passed as research previously, the studies put out by several scientists including Dr. Emma Hilton that have addressed this matter more recently are much more formal. 

From Erin Strout who insisted the research on fairness is still developing without offering any actual research to David Roche who tweeted but later deleted "Trans women are women" to Alison Wade who cheers whenever a DSD or trans athlete displaces a female athlete to Lindsay Crouse who lied about poll numbers related to what the general population would like to see happen, all have gone radio silent.

From Dr. Emma Hilton: graph showing changes in muscle strength in transgender women pre- and post-testosterone suppression vs. women 

In 2021, when Amby Burfoot wrote, "All clear-thinking individuals believe that transgender women and men should receive the same social, cultural, educational, financial, etc, rights as others. Not all agree about athletic rights," he hit the nail on the head. It's estimated that 73% of Americans believe transgender individuals should be protected from discrimination. Wanting protection for transgender people and wanting fairness in sports can both be true. Regarding women's competition, Burfoot was also correct when he mentioned that there's "plenty of science, event history, and barroom understanding that men are significantly stronger and faster than women." People who have suggested there wasn't enough evidence for ruling bodies to make decisions about excluding transgender women from competing in the women's field had no problem allowing those same agencies to make rules for inclusion, and anyone who disagreed with or even questioned this decision was immediately labeled transphobic, a TERF, or worse. The fact that these insults are so freely tossed around is incredibly upsetting.

The other day, I worked with some repeat clients who live out of state. Their son lives here in Boulder, but the parents and their trans daughter live elsewhere. After assisting them and saying our goodbyes, complete with affectionate hugs and well wishes all around, my co-worker and I talked about how much we enjoy working with them. Sometimes assisting people can be an absolute pleasure, and the warm feelings linger long after the patrons have left. I don't have the same connection to every family, even though I aim to give everyone the best service I possibly can. Some people just make a positive impression. They are the kind of great company that leave a lasting memory. In short, these particular clients mean a lot to me and are more like friends, family even, than customers. 

Typically, I prefer to leave my personal life out of these kinds of posts, but after being thrown into the "transphobe" pile because of my desire to see fairness in sport, I want those name-callers to know exactly how insulting their comments are. 

I have another close friend who transitioned a long time ago. She was able to marry her girlfriend after laws in her state changed back in 2013. She has been successful in more areas of life than most people can even imagine, from athletics to music to law. When I think of her, I see an incredible human being who's smart, witty, fearless, and incredibly generous, as is her partner. She's someone to be admired for a variety of reasons. We have sent each other care packages, and I consider both of them true friends, much more than social media acquaintances. Obviously, I want the best for them and would fight to make sure they have the same rights as everyone else. The only caveat, and I believe they agree, is that one group's rights should never infringe on anyone else's. 

Unfairness is what's happening when women are no longer allowed to have a voice and aren't allowed to retain women's only spaces. Most of us don't have a problem being in gender-neutral spaces or being around transgender individuals, but it's not transphobic for a woman to choose who offers her healthcare or who is allowed or is not allowed to be in intimate settings with her. Transphobia has a specific definition that does not include merely disagreeing, wanting fairness for women in sports, or wanting to retain some women's only spaces. Again, if one group is discriminated against in the process of trying to appease another, a more workable outcome needs to be presented, but simply asking for fairness, safety, comfort, and respect is not transphobic, not at all. 

So far, having three categories or three distinct areas for men, women, and transgender individuals seems to be the best solution, including in sports. Men's only spaces and groups that don't place women at a disadvantage have existed for a long time and still do. Those that discriminate versus exclude are generally called out, and appropriate legal action usually follows. This should also be true of women's spaces. We should have the right to create women's only spaces that exclude biological men without specifically discriminating against them.

The basic problem with transgender rights in today's world is extremism. A few aggressive and hostile individuals tend to speak on behalf of or represent everyone in their community. This hostility comes out when anyone suggests caution before permanently surgically altering a young child's body, for example. Suggesting parents slow down before allowing their kids to go under the knife is not the same as denying the child healthcare, but the same people who yell the loudest say that parents don't need a second opinion for major, life-altering surgery. They insist any concern is denying the child. 

Basically, if you don't agree 100 percent, you're a bigot. Anyone who thinks, "maybe a second opinion wouldn't be such a bad idea," is again labeled transphobic and lumped together with extremists on the right. Those who suggest gender reassignment surgeries are no different than a teen getting a nose job need to explain why a parent wouldn't want a second opinion in that case, too, just to be safe and sure. A second opinion is standard, but suddenly radicals on the left think it's unnecessary for children who are considering a major, irreversible operation. 

All I'm saying is that gender dysphoria is a complex issue, and nobody, especially children, should be rushing into surgery that permanently alters an individual's body before exploring alternative treatments. If that makes me some kind of extremist, so be it. I think transgender minors need more consideration, acceptance, and emotional support before jumping into radical surgery. If surgery is what they prefer after weighing both the pros and cons, then that's a right they should have, but I don't think anyone should ever rush into surgery, especially youngsters.    

On this same issue, I wasn't surprised to see Erin Strout publicly claim that Jon Stewart gave a great interview when he confronted Leslie Rutledge, the 56th AG of Arkansas, on gender-affirming care for minors. No matter what you think of the woman's politics or views (I disagree with most of her politics and don't fully agree with her ideas on gender-affirming care or the lack thereof for minors), she should at least be given a chance to speak. Instead, Stewart talks over her and shuts her down before she can finish pretty much any of her sentences. It comes off as misogynistic and bullying. Notice the contrast in the way he allows a man to speak without interruption in this clip. The former is NOT an example of a great interview. In fact, it's a pretty shitty interview overall, a complete disappointment.

 

I can disagree with most of what Rutledge promotes and can agree with her adversaries when they say that she wasn't well prepared for the interview, but I don't condone the way Stewart addressed her with all his eye-rolling and interruptions. Imagine if someone on the right didn't allow a trans advocate to speak and kept making faces every time she tried to say anything. As much as I dislike some of the things Sam Harris has said recently about censorship, he has always been respectful of the people he interviews, even when he very strongly disagrees with them. That's how a good interview is conducted, not by bullying the opponent, but it shows how the left is as bad as the right when it comes to liking that kind of shit. They don't want a quiet, civil debate; they want to see someone they agree with ganging up on someone else.

Getting back to the topic of sports, there has been a great deal of virtue signaling in running publications in recent years, with unwavering opinions presented as facts followed by silence when new information emerges to counter the journalists' beliefs. As one conservative reporter put it regarding transgender women competing in women's categories, "This isn’t bigotry; it’s science," and he's right. But people like Strout are more concerned with what pronouns we use than with the women and girls who are forced to compete against transgender athletes. With friends like these, eh? 

All these so-called supporters of women's running are suddenly silent after suggesting those of us who want fairness for women in sports are on the wrong side of history. Why is that? Most likely because they can no longer hide behind vague statements about "evolving data" or can no longer claim that there "currently isn’t data to support exclusion" after people like Dr. Emma Hilton and Ross Tucker have spoken up and exposed any myths surrounding the debate around natural advantages of transgender women in sports. These professionals specifically address why it's important to demand separate categories for males and females. The silence is unfortunate because journalists who are incapable of admitting to being wrong in the face of scientific evidence on the topic end up doing a huge disservice to readers of publications like Women's Running and Trail Runner Magazine.

Unless you are intentionally ignoring what scientists are presenting, the data are overwhelmingly there when it comes to pointing out the fact that transgender women retain an unfair advantage even after hormone replacement therapy. Even Joanna Harper can't deny what Ross Tucker says with regard to transgender athletes retaining an advantage. 

She states, “Trans women who don’t go on to medical treatment before puberty will go through male-typical testosterone levels, a male puberty and all of that that entails greater height, greater musculature, higher hemoglobin levels … more muscle, all of the quote-unquote advantages that men have when it comes to sports,” Her approach thus far has been to point to minor differences such as arm length or a differing dominant side that occur within sex categories and suggest that "meaningful competition" is what she decides is fair, not necessarily what is actually fair. But people have been referencing her for years as if these advantages, which other scientists see as significant, are just fine and, oh, it's also cool that biological women have no say in the matter.

Harper and others may suggest that hormone therapy in transgender women significantly reduces their athletic advantages, but, as Hilton points out, despite a reduced advantage for transgender women in competition, the data still show that transgender women are and remain bigger and stronger than their female competitors, even after three years of hormone therapy. Additionally, many in the science community feel that Harper's initial small collection of anecdotes from 2015 that people reference as a study because it somewhat supports what they want it to is heavily flawed, but, whether she likes it or not, it still shows that there are obvious and significant differences between transgender women and women and also women and men. It's more that Harper deemed these differences between transgender women and women not significant enough. Why can't women just buck up and smile, take it on the chin? So what if competition is unfair and science proves it. Oh hey, that's basically the same stance as Alison Wade of Fast Women.

 

Image from Kevin Beck

In the end, I truly believe that the majority of people in the world would like to see a workable and fair solution for everyone. We want transgender individuals to be treated fairly and to be protected from any discrimination, but we also don't want to see women get the short end of the stick like they have so often throughout history. 

Going Deep

There has been a valuable and eye-opening movement occurring recently in the running community. It involves professional athletes coming forward and sharing their stories and struggles with eating disorders, body dysmorphia, OCD, and mental illness. Finally, the media and company sponsors are allowing individuals to dive deeper into the causes and factors that contribute to these types of illnesses instead of republishing the same boring "help" manual that's never insightful or actually helpful. 

Unlike the many sources that have attempted and failed to offer any kind of deep insight into recovery, the videos and article below are among the first to really hit the nail on the head when it comes to offering a glimpse into the struggle of these kinds of disorders. Too often, the focus is on the tie between athletics and weight when, in fact, eating disorders a far more complex than an individual simply wanting to stay lean in order to perform well. Sometimes the two are completely unrelated, in fact. In one of the most honest and informative interviews on the topic, Tim Tollefson gets to the heart of many of these disorders when he says, " I've spent a lifetime hating myself for what I'm not instead of being thankful for what I am." 

The problem with authors, podcasters, and self-proclaimed professionals who address the topic is that they typically discount the deeper issues in favor of offering superficial advice, and this advice is nearly always focused on the symptoms of the illnesses rather than the core issues. 

I was so angry to see articles in Trail Runner that suggest "Just eat enough!" or "Eat a fucking Dorito!" as if solving a life-threatening illness or disordered eating patterns comes down to forcing yourself to eat. It's such a childish, unhelpful approach, a slap in the face of those of us who struggle. That's why the messages that people like Tim, Molly, Kaci, and Allie are sharing are so incredibly important. In a sea of published information that barely scratches the surface, these athletes and select journalists and producers are willing to dive deep into a place of vulnerability in order to give others a better understanding of what an eating disorder or struggling with mental health is all about. 

And exploring disorders and recovery can land a person in a very dark place. Still, hearing someone open up in a relatable way is far more helpful than anyone suggesting I just eat enough. Listening to what Tim went through and his willingness to address his mental health moved me in a way I haven't been in a long, long time. God, how I can relate to the self-hatred and fear of being seen. Some days, it's incredibly difficult to get out the door, and I don't mean for a run, though that can be equally difficult in certain states of mind. I'm sure I'm not alone. In my own life, these fears have only gotten worse despite my semi-firm commitment to stay at least somewhat healthy. 

I'm keeping this short because the videos and article below speak for themselves. There's not much to add except to reiterate that our struggles shouldn't cause us shame. Everyone has issues of one kind or another. It's how we address them and how we explore the reasons why we turn to unhealthy behaviors that matter. Without understanding the root causes, our own triggers, and the steps we can take to ease the unease we experience in recovery, we will tend to stay stuck or relapse. Recovery isn't about running well when your life is on the line, and healing doesn't come in a pretty, black-and-white package. Most of us live in the gray with occasional dips back into the black hole of despair, but that doesn’t mean all is lost. There is hope.  

Trigger warning for those who are sensitive to eating disorder content and images. 

Molly https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a41534525/molly-seidel-struggles-with-mental-health/

Allie https://www.milesplit.com/articles/321497/allie-ostrander-under-pressure-gaining-your-life-back

Kaci https://runningmagazine.ca/trail-running/watch-kaci-lickteig-and-others-open-up-about-disordered-eating/

Tim https://runningmagazine.ca/trail-running/ultrarunner-tim-tollefson-shares-mental-health-challenges-in-new-film/ 

A Step Behind

I've mentioned before that this hasn't been the easiest year for me, both physically and emotionally. Due to a cascade of injuries that stemmed mostly from my foot and ended with a big mess in my left hip, I had to take a lot of time away from running, probably the longest amount of time away from "my" sport than I have since I started running, way back when I was just barely a teen. Throughout the extended break, I didn't give up exercising entirely, even when I could hardly walk, though part of me wanted to. I switched to the stationary bike as much as possible, as boring as it can be, and continued doing some Pilates or yoga-type movements. However, I lost inspiration, and my brain ended up in a depression fog. The days and weeks and eventually months of going through the motions bled into each other so much that I lost track of time. Suddenly, almost a year had passed.

For the most part, I didn't feel like doing much, so I watched Netflix, slept, and ate comfort food. More concerning, I lost a bit of weight from what those around me were telling me (I don't own a scale), and a big part of me wanted to check out completely. In the end, I'm not sure if it was simple compulsion that drove me to carry on or if it was the idea that I'd probably feel worse if I did nothing all that was the incentive, but, either way, I kept going, as ugly as it looked and felt at times. Having obligations such as work and an older parent to tend to prevented me from doing anything drastic, that and a fear of death. Experiencing tremendous pain and such extremely limited mobility for so long made me question what it would take for someone like me to overcome my fear and end things. I guess "damn" or "hooray!" for this occasional hope in me that won't be completely squashed; I can't decide which. 

As soon as the tears, pulls, and nerve damage started to heal -- one bone fragment is just going to have to stay lodged near the ischial tuberosity from where it was apparently dislodged because there's no sense in digging around in there and disrupting things with surgery when it probably wouldn't solve much -- I started to jog a little. I can't say it feels good -- my body is all lopsided now and hurts -- but in a way, it has been nice to move outdoors again. It's embarrassing and terrible that jogging anything under an 11-minute mile feels challenging and awkward. 

I have no idea how I ever managed to run 7 to 7:30 a mile just a few years ago in a race, let alone 5:40 pace in races at one time in my life. From my shuffling perspective, those faster paces seem impossible. I try not to get too down on myself, but holy shit it's difficult because an average harder pace of between 9:40 -10:22 when it feels like a sprint, even if it's on a hilly course, is, in reality, fucking SLOW. At this point, though, I can't seem to trust my body. I don't want to break it, so I'm dragging myself around slowly, even on the downhills. It's all very weird. I must look like Frankenstein shuffling around on the streets, only with quicker arm movements. Oh, and because of the nerve issues, I can't seem to run trails unless they're basically gravel roads, nothing technical at all. I'd just trip and probably fall.

In all of life lately, I feel like I'm a step behind. Before I can fully gather my thoughts on a topic to blog about, the world has already moved on. Part of my reasons for delaying a more timely response is the way people react. On social media and elsewhere, it appears as though individuals are incapable of reading opinions without immediately jumping to conclusions, drawing lines in the sand, and lecturing from high horses and soap boxes alike. Either you're on one side, or you're on the other. There's nothing in between. This is the case with everything from the Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp trial to climate change. It's intimidating to jump into any conversations. 

When I initially read about the terrible and tragic case of Eliza Fletcher, a teacher who was abducted and murdered while she was out for a run one early morning in Memphis, I found most people to be sensitive as they offered condolences to her family and friends. Very quickly, though, two groups formed, one that blamed the teacher for running early in the morning, and the other that insisted women's safety shouldn't be discussed because the problem is the criminal. Considering there were about 1.3 million violent crimes and 24,576 homicides in the United States in 2020, I'm pretty sure criminals aren't going to suddenly be rehabilitated to the point where nobody has to worry. I understand the sentiment; it wasn't her fault, but scolding people who offer ideas on safety isn't going to solve anything. Problem-solving is never the goal of loud complainers, though.  

The Crime Junkie podcast has a huge following, and nobody ever claims that their message, Be Weird, Be Rude, Stay Alive, is victim blaming. It's simply advice in a world with a lot of unhinged people living in it. While there were a few people who accuse Eliza and others like her of wrongdoing for running alone in the early morning, something she did regularly, most were doing no such thing. I believe there's a way to discuss how to be safe when running without criticizing anyone's running habits. Though it's not quite the same thing, people offer advice about being careful when it comes to driving, being out in nature where there are wild animals, or any number of other situations where there are risks. It's not meant to be a slam on what anyone does. These cautions come from concern and a desire to be of help, especially after such a terrible incident. 

From what I understand, Eliza took precautions by running familiar routes. Her cell phone and water bottle were found in the area where she was abducted, so it's not like she was completely reckless. I've gone on far more dangerous adventures and simply got lucky. Throughout high school and college, I would dive up to the higher mountains and run solo for a couple of hours, no water, no phone (back then, we didn't have portable ones), only a spare long-sleeved t-shirt wrapped around my waist, and I wouldn't tell anyone exactly where I was headed. Occasionally, I would jokingly tell my roommates or my mom that I was going running in the mountains and to call the authorities if I wasn't back by 3 p.m. Looking back, I realize how foolish this was and how lucky I am that nothing happened. So much of what happens in life comes down to chance.

On an unrelated note, I'm surprised how often publications like Trail Runner publish nutrition advice written by coaches or authors who are completely unqualified to guide anyone on diet. The only people who should be handing out actual dietary advice, especially to athletes who are more prone to developing eating disorders, are physicians (and not random ones, your own physician) and registered dietitians. Articles like this one that suggest athletes just wing it and eat whatever they want discount the dangers of not getting enough of the right nutrients for training. While the article cautions against going to extremes, it's all very vague, and the overall message is "just eat enough," similar to the "Just eat a fucking Dorito" concept in a previous article about eating disorders. For those who struggle, it is not that simple, and I'm sick of anyone suggesting it is. 

What's worse is seeing people who claim to have struggled constantly talking about all the junk food they eat. I addressed a similar issue recently when I commented on people who show images of themselves pretending to eat pasta or other foods that, for whatever reason, are often classified as fear, cheat, or junk foods. If it's true that you scarf down loads of foods that are not rich in nutrients, fine, nobody should judge you for it, but also, nobody needs to see or hear about it. You do you. Enjoy your food and stop inflicting your neuroses or habits on others. 

Mostly, stop being a fraud. I always come back to the idea that it's great to see healthy or recovering individuals share fun food moments, an accomplishment around food, a creative recipe, or a pretty meal at a restaurant. What I don't give a shit about is someone claiming to eat tons of whatever food and isn't that cute! presented as a fucking article. It’s not, and it’s not informative or interesting. 

While I fully agree that food should be enjoyed and that there are no real "bad" or "good" foods, failing to get enough protein or nutrient-dense foods in your diet can lead to undernourishment. I know because this happened to me when I was attempting to recover and eating a diet far too heavy in sweets. I suffered for it and felt awful. By the way, I intentionally linked to a Trail Runner article written by Maria Dalzot, M.S., R.D., C.D.N., someone more than qualified to address the nutritional needs of athletes. 

The saying, "Eat enough, always. Eat too much, sometimes. Eat too little, never." is flawed on many levels. Define "too much" or even "not enough." Too much, according to whom? Given how difficult it is for many of us who struggle or have struggled with eating issues to judge quantity, fullness, and serving sizes, these kinds of cutesy sayings are meaningless. In the throes of my own illness, I remember always thinking I ate "too much" after every meal. Also, there are times when eating too little is required, before surgery, for example. My friend couldn't eat before presentations because she was so nervous that she might throw up. In that case, it was healthier for her to eat too little and then make sure she got enough nutrients sometime after the presentation. It's so important to not get caught up in anyone else's rules around diet. Your diet should be individualized. 

The following is about as vague a statement as one can write.  

My take: people should eat foods that they enjoy to fuel the work they are doing in order to find their personal definition of “strong,” whatever that means for them. 

This is about as helpful as saying, "Eat whatever and be the way you want, whatever that means to you." No shit. But then don't say that and then pretend like this wasn't a previous caution by the same author, “Eating enough won’t prevent every case of training-overload/OTS."

Social media and, apparently, running magazines are terrible places to look for guidance on diet and training. I mentioned this in my last post. Many of the ones trying to appear ever so fun-loving while doling out advice are often just publicizing an underlying and unhealthy fixation on food and body. It is not helpful at all. It's contradictory that Trail Runner links to a more sensible article on diet within this failed attempt at professionalism. It makes me angry. Why publish something so off the mark when there are clearly better writers for the job? It's potentially dangerous, too. People who struggle with eating and body image issues can be very sensitive and influenced by what others suggest, as can nearly anyone on the Internet. As a blog post, it's a different story, but presenting articles as if they are written by people who know what they are talking about when they clearly don't is careless. 

It gets worse, too. In the passage below, there's no clear explanation about why cholesterol can be higher in those who have or have had eating disorders. And this incorrectly implies that it's fine for everyone to have a shitty diet as long as you eat enough. This is flat-out dangerous. How many is "many" when it comes to athletes who eat what they love, and do they record their dietary intake for the author, their coach? How does one know they eat what they love and don't also eat what they know they should for optimal performance? I'm assuming the author's observations don't count as an actual study, so why bring anything up as if it's fact anyway? 

For a variety of reasons including genetics, hormone levels, exercise patterns, and the way the body absorbs fats and nutrients while in a state of starvation or the binge-purge cycle, people with either anorexia or bulimia can, indeed, have high cholesterol. So can anybody else. And diet can be a very important factor when it comes to cholesterol levels whether or not you run a lot. It's not accurate to suggest that runners and athletes can eat anything they want and have low cholesterol.

My co-coach Megan and I have seen thousands of pages of blood work for athletes over the years. Whenever a high cholesterol reading comes back, we ask for the athlete to talk to the doctor. And the most common time we see that flag for athletes has nothing to do with cheeseburgers–in fact, many of the athletes eating whatever they love have the most optimal blood work of all. Instead, those high readings are often for athletes with a history of eating disorders

Lastly, a few friends pointed out this gem from the same Trail Runner article: Every physical accomplishment starts as a dream. But the biggest, longest-term dream can only become a reality because of a satisfied stomach.

No. Dreams don't become reality because of a satisfied stomach. That's like saying I won Pikes (my big dream) because I drank enough fluid. Absolutely, one needs adequate nutrition in order to achieve one's goals, but fueling the body isn't the reason a dream becomes reality. Who the fuck edits these pieces?