Nikki Hiltz Is Only Fast On The Track

**Trigger warning for mentioning suicide**

In my last post, I said that Nikki Hiltz, an American 1500-meter runner, is a mean girl. This is because she publicly belittled a woman for having the temerity to speak up about fairness for women in the Boston marathon, an event Hiltz doesn’t run. I’m not saying a middle-distance runner shouldn’t comment on longer events, but the way she went about it was cruel. She really comes off as arrogant in her approach.

Though Hiltz demands others use they/them pronouns when referring to her, I won’t because she is biologically female and races in the women’s division. Cutting off her breasts or other body parts doesn't change her sex, so she is allowed to continue racing in the women’s division. And I’m allowed to call her “she” regardless. 

After she claimed she was a transgender individual and then changed that to nonbinary, probably to avoid addressing any backlash for not wanting to compete in the men's division if she felt so strongly about being a man, it's hard to believe much of what she says, though she could just be confused and suffering from body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria. At one point, she claimed she was both, which isn’t possible unless you live in make-believe land. 

In addition to being a standout on the track in middle-distance events, Hiltz is outspoken about transgender and non-binary rights. In other words, she promotes biological men racing against women, even though she has the luxury of competing and profiting by running in a protected category for her event. She’s OK if other women don’t have that right, is how that translates.

Regarding biological men in the women’s division, Hiltz claims that nonbinary and trans athletes aren’t winning and seems to suggest they’re not even competing at the elite level at all, but, contrary to her claims, it does happen, more than she thinks it does. Here’s an ongoing list of events that, according to Hiltz, don't happen: The Lists - search by category. Apparently, she forgot about what happened in the Olympics in Rio in 2016, too. There, three biological men took top honors in the 800. These three are DSD athletes, but what follows and her comments address that as well. 

None of this affects her directly, though, so her attitude is one of not giving a shit. The only thing she seems to care about is spewing rhetoric. But why doesn't she care about younger athletes? As a top athlete, shouldn't she be concerned about the future of women's sport and providing girls and young women with the opportunity to compete on a level playing field? I sure want that. I hope young girls and women get a chance to feel what it’s like to break the tape and confidently toe the line knowing they stand a chance to win.

In a recent interview, if you want to call it that, Hiltz complains about the new policy World Athletics has put in place to protect the female category. This policy includes a one-time cheek swab or blood test to detect the SRY gene for anyone competing in the women's field. It is an extremely accurate, non- invasive test and is correct in determining testes 99.99 percent of the time. An anomaly would require further investigation and a conference with the athlete and his or her trainers. The point is to prevent what happened at the Olympics in Rio in the 800 from happening again. This policy is designed to protect women and the women's category in sports.  

In the interview, Hiltz admits that she doesn't have a clue what she’s talking about, and it’s unlikely she has any interest in learning more about DSD conditions or genetics, or the actual test put in place by World Athletics for that matter. I will add more information on this at the end of the post for anyone who is interested. 

Hiltz basically babbles the equivalent of, "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS TEST IS FOR, BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY!" Imagine not knowing what the test is, yet acting all high and mighty, and then speculating about what it means for the test to be in place. It's utterly absurd. Her arrogance is truly stunning here. 

What’s most shocking is how freely and loudly she spews complete horseshit. The lies just roll off her tongue, and it’s clear she doesn’t give a crap about facts or about others. She comes off as someone who only wants to hear herself talk. She just loves that spotlight. 

In what might be considered the dumbest response of all time, Nikki Hiltz claims that the World Athletics policy is a "slippery slope." She falsely claims that, even though this test is harmless, it could set a precedent and lead other organizations to conduct more invasive testing, only it doesn't and wouldn't. 

These spooky organizations Hiltz created in her own head wouldn't be able to successfully use invasive methods to test sex if World Athletics won't recognize these make-believe investigations as valid. There is zero evidence that any kind of invasive testing would happen. If it did, it wouldn't be because of the policy. But Hiltz has an agenda. Truth doesn't really matter as long as she gets her message out, that non-binary and trans athletes' rights trump everyone else's.

As one reader already pointed out, Hiltz established herself as a liar when she posted incorrect information about a non-binary teen, claiming this person was murdered when the cause of death was actually suicide. She never addressed the issue again, even after major publications and the media as a whole clarified what had happened, that the death was self-inflicted. In this particular tragedy, the young teen threw water at a group of individuals, and then there was an altercation that did not result in the teen's death. Sadly, the teen later committed suicide. If Hiltz meant that possible bullying may have contributed to a suicide, that's not what she said. Hiltz outright claimed the teen was murdered. Words matter. Accuracy matters. Hiltz does not care. 

Continuing with the interview, Hiltz grabs all kinds of fake statistics out of her own ass. She claims that two percent of the population is intersex and that it's as common as red hair. It's not. The correct statistics state it's closer to .018 percent and not nearly as common as having red hair. Again, she shows her ignorance, yet is so unbelievably confident in her fabrications. 

In another jaw-dropping moment of stupidity, she then claims that some people may have been "growing a Y chromosome" at some point, and then it POOF just goes away, disappears, just like that. This is so ridiculous it's hard to know how to address the claim, but no, chromosomes don't suddenly disappear like that. Sex is fixed before the birth of the baby. 

Perhaps realizing that she's flailing around in unfamiliar territory, Hiltz then uses whataboutism after stumbling through her clownish explanation of genetics and claims that abusive coaches and doping (lol) are more important to consider than women having their category erased. The whole thing is cringy to watch. I almost feel bad for her for being so naive (or is she cunning?), but, sadly, there are fans of hers who will stand behind her, no matter how ridiculous her claims.

It's unfortunate that so many podcasters, journalists, and fellow athletes support her, even when she is lying or intentionally being unkind. I think with this latest video interview, though, at least more people will realize she shouldn't be taken seriously. 

For those interested, below are some links that are helpful when discussing the topic of biological men in women's sports:

Male advantage in sports

DSD conditions and sex

World Athletics policy and testing

SRY gene

Swyer Syndrome

Imane Khelif boxing kerfuffle 

Nonbinary and gender dysphoria

Why Calling a Woman a Slut is Bad

I feel a rant coming on. Actually, I have had several rants bubbling inside me since some strange occurrences have presented themselves. For one, I see more and more how people's online behavior doesn't match their true-life identities. You know the types: the girl who posts a million images with quotes about compassion who is anything but considerate, or the guy who posts about how to be a great friend when he is too obsessed with posting to actually be one. Well, this rant is unrelated to that. It's also unrelated to the disgusting behavior of Warren Jeffs that was recently explored in a made-for-TV movie, nor does it relate to Erykah Badu's foolish attempt to be funny by trying to "steal" a kiss from a reporter, though these two events could make interesting blog post topics. For example, imagine if it had been a man trying to sneak a kiss from a female reporter instead of Erykah acting like a twit. That would have ruffled some feathers. I find it odd that many are claiming it was cute or funny when the reporter was clearly annoyed, upset even, with her antics, as he should have been.

I'll skip or save those issues for another time. Right now I'm fired up about something else.

Maggie in a fashion-forward outfit.

The other day, someone mentioned Maggie Vessey on facebook. Sadly, the talk that followed was focused more on her running attire than her performance at the USATF National Outdoor Championships, and someone even implied she's an attention seeker and said that she looked slutty. I assume that athletes who get some attention are more likely to be invited to races, but that's not really the issue. The derogatory comment is.

Here's an example of one of the many outfits Maggie has worn on the track:

Maggy in colorful but appropriate attire with bun huggers that are made from as much material as those of her competitors. The big difference is that hers are something other than boring. 

To me it looks like what she wears might be on the eccentric side, but I don't see a problem with it. I'm not sure why wearing something flashy or eye catching or different translates into her being immoral or sleazy. Athletes spend a lot of time in workout clothing, so what's so horrible about adding a little fashion? If it's not to your liking, why not simply say you don't like her outfit or admit it's something you wouldn't wear instead of going one step further by attacking her character and making assumptions about who she is? Does this outfit that she wears on the track make you think she's lurking around, waiting to do something shady? Please tell me how wearing colorful, sometimes odd costumes that often have more material than her competitors' makes her look slutty. Does anyone think what she wears is offensive? I just can't understand the fuss.

When I was at BYU, our team was one of the first to wear those one-piece uniforms. As far as I know, people didn't call us sluts, because, you know, we were on the BYU team. Instead they stared, pointed and maybe even laughed, but nobody called us names. That's rare in these kinds of situations.

There's a double standard when it comes to men and what they choose to wear. You could see two men in a race, one wearing one of those awful one-sided thongs and the other wearing running shorts, but it's highly unlikely anyone would call the one in the thong a slut or man-whore. Sure, people might scratch their heads or laugh, but they probably wouldn't call the guy a slut. I should add that a man being called a man-whore doesn't have quite the negative connotation that a woman being called a slut does.

Yikes.

Probably one of the most upsetting comments came from a woman who said that with people like Maggie dressing the way she does, it's no wonder why MEN don't respect her. Well, that's a stretch. So far, I haven't seen or heard about any men commenting in ways that suggest they disrespect her or any other woman for their choice in running attire, not in my circle of friends at least, though I'm sure it happens. Why a person is treated with respect shouldn't depend on what that person chooses to wear. That's just shy of claiming women deserve what they get for wearing what they want.

I get that we are all products of our messed up society, and cutting down others has sort of become the norm. Still, it's unkind to call someone a slut based solely on how she dresses, especially when what the person is wearing is no more revealing than the people around her. What Maggie's competitors wear doesn't automatically make them more moral simply because they are not as loud.

What ends up happening with these kinds of ridiculous comments is that they reinforce an idea that women can never get it right. If they don't fit an extremely narrow definition of beauty and what's acceptable, they are up for attack. If they slip a little bit outside the norm, all hell breaks loose, so rein them in at every corner. If a lady is too showy she's a slut. If she's too pretty she's a bitch. When she's too good at something she's a snob, and when she's too smart she's ugly or a nerd.

We can't win, because someone always has to attempt to take us down a notch. We can't celebrate the beauty (inner or outer) and success of a woman, because our society has brainwashed us into thinking a woman can only be a certain way, and that way is limited. You have to keep it down and not attract attention while still being pretty and successful without being a slut, overly sexual or more successful than a man. Shit. Just try to figure all that out. Fuck it all that this is 2014, and we are still living like we just put one foot back in the 50s. And for fuck's sake, SMILE!

Some men claim that because women cut down and criticize other women, none of this is their problem. Sure, women make comments about other women, but who set the standard? Does anyone think it was actually other women? Did women insist all women be subservient to men in their religion? Did women drive the fashion and beauty trends in years past? With no women board members in the largest media companies, in big corporations or in the fashion industry in the very recent past, it's pretty impressive that we supposedly had such power. Wow. We exert way more influence than I ever realized. No, the reality is that, as much as some people want to blame women for everything, even their own inequality, women are definitely a product of this society and have only recently started to do something about it. Well, some have. In the end, we need to realize that putting women down for what they wear doesn't help anyone or accomplish anything.

The start line of the 800.

BTW, Maggie finished fourth in her 800-meter race. She was wearing a fun one piece, but who cares? She ran a fucking 2:00!