Boston Marathon’s trans runner tramples women athletes — time to take a stand

New York Post - Apr 20th, 2025

The Boston Marathon, a prestigious annual event, has sparked debate by allowing Riya Suising, a transgender woman, to compete in the women’s division. Critics argue that this decision undermines fairness in women’s sports by allowing biological men to compete against women, potentially displacing female athletes from the podium. The race, now offering men, women, and non-binary categories, has become a focal point for discussions on gender identity and athletic competition.

The controversy arises amid broader societal debates on gender identity, legal rulings, and the implications for women’s sports. With corporate sponsors like Bank of America and Adidas backing the marathon’s decision, critics call for boycotts similar to those seen with Bud Light. The issue highlights the tension between inclusivity and ensuring fair competition for female athletes, with many Americans advocating for the protection of women’s sports categories.

Transgender Athletes Women's Sports Boston Marathon Riya Suising Gender Inclusion Boston Athletic Association Corporate Sponsorship

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and controversial topic with significant implications for sports and gender policies. However, it lacks balance and transparency, relying heavily on emotive language and a singular perspective. The absence of credible sources and diverse viewpoints undermines its accuracy and source quality. While the article has the potential to engage readers and impact public opinion, its effectiveness is limited by its biased presentation and lack of factual support. To provide a comprehensive understanding, the article would benefit from a more balanced approach and clearer distinctions between fact and opinion.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that require verification, such as the existence of three gender categories in the Boston Marathon and the qualifying time differences among them. The claim that the non-binary category uses the women's qualifying time aligns with available data. However, the assertion that both winners in the non-binary category have been biological men lacks specific evidence or sources to support it. Additionally, the article's discussion on biological advantages, such as VO2 max differences, is presented as factual without citation from scientific studies. The mention of President Trump's executive actions and Britain's Supreme Court ruling also needs verification, as these are significant claims impacting the narrative.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a single perspective, focusing on the perceived unfairness of allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports categories. It lacks a balanced representation of differing viewpoints, such as those from transgender athletes, advocacy groups, or organizations supporting inclusive policies. The narrative is heavily skewed towards a biological essentialist viewpoint, with little to no acknowledgment of the complexities and nuances involved in the debate over gender and sports. This one-sided presentation could lead to a biased understanding of the issue.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct manner, but the tone is often inflammatory and emotive, which can detract from the clarity of the information presented. The structure is somewhat logical, with a progression from the introduction of the issue to the presentation of arguments and conclusions. However, the use of charged language and rhetorical questions may confuse readers about the factual basis of the claims versus opinion. The article could benefit from a more neutral tone and clearer distinction between fact and opinion.

Source quality

The article does not provide direct citations or references to credible sources, such as scientific studies, official statements from the Boston Marathon organizers, or legal documents related to the claims made. The lack of attributed sources diminishes the reliability of the information presented. The article relies heavily on opinion and anecdotal evidence, which undermines its credibility as a news piece. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources, such as experts in sports science or gender studies, further weakens the article's source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency regarding the basis for its claims and the methodology used to arrive at its conclusions. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, such as the author's affiliations or motivations. The article does not clearly explain how data, such as the percentage of Americans supporting women's sports, was obtained. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality of the information and the validity of the arguments presented.