Several Oregon families’ names are synonymous with excellence in cross country and track, including the Bennions of St. Mary’s in Medford, the Baldovinos of Lakeview and the Martins of Adrian. Our family has not attained the status of these folks, but we do, I suspect, hold an unusual record. We set the standard for most siblings to have competed in the 3,000-meter race at the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) State Track Championships: 10. Our middle daughter, Katriel, won both the 1,500 and 3,000 meters twice at the 2A level; she also came in second at the 1A-2A-3A cross country championships three times and won the race her junior year. I say this not to brag but to establish my track record, as it were, in high school running. I have been involved as a parent, spectator and coach for two decades.

In terms of accomplishments and accolades, Katriel was a standout, good enough to run at an NCAA Division I university. Her brothers, on the other hand, were good runners but never achieved Katriel’s success. That said, Katriel was under no illusion that she could outrace her brothers. They all were faster than she, and she accepted that as biological fact. This was a moot point, however, because on tracks and cross country courses, Katriel competed against other young ladies. And she thrived in that environment.  

Regrettably, what Katriel’s common sense revealed to her escapes the grasp of many officials in charge of organizing high school sporting events today. Specifically, OSAA officials ignore this reality: In 2024, OSAA officials allowed a biological male to compete in the women’s division of the Portland Interscholastic District Meet and then at the 6A State Track Championships. 

The biological male, Ada Gallagher, competed in the women’s divisions of the 200 and 400 meters. The results surprised many. Although the sophomore from McDaniel High School in Portland won the 200, as expected, he – I use “he” because that is the pronoun used for males since William Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Bible codified the English language in the early 1600s – placed second in the 400. Also surprising to many was spectators’ reaction. They booed when Gallagher took the awards stand. National media voiced outrage over fans’ insensitivity to Mr. Gallagher’s “success.” 

But should the fans’ response have elicited the ire of the media? After all, the OSAA subjected the young ladies competing in 6A track to a gross injustice. To wit, Gallagher’s participation in the 200 and 400 at the district meet deprived two young ladies of the joy of competing at Oregon’s Hayward Field, the premier track venue in the world. Further, his participation at the state meet kept two female runners off the awards stand. These injuries to female athletes were bad enough but were arguably not the worst slights. Allowing Mr. Gallaher to compete in the ladies’ races introduced animosity and tension into the events that generally foster joy and camaraderie. 

Do not misunderstand: In competitions at this level, tension always exists. However, it is a tension spawned by a spirit among athletes who have often developed a bond from competing over the years. One of the great joys for coaches and spectators is to watch athletes laugh and joke before a race, transform into archrivals on the starting line and then resume their joking at the race’s end. The tension OSAA introduced was not resolved amicably. Rather, it was a tension generated by the knowledge that the organization had chosen sides and violated the rules of fair play by allowing a male into the females’ race. 

There is another reason the media should have been neither surprised nor angered by the fans. The fans understood what Katriel realized at a young age. Society has men’s and women’s divisions in every sport at every level after elementary school for a reason: because biology matters. 

For anyone who thinks that last statement is simply the ravings of some patriarchal dinosaur, consider the nearby graph. The graph compares the performance of men and ladies at the OSAA 6A Cross Country Championships in 2023. This classification was not chosen arbitrarily. Even casual observers notice that at the 5A and 6A classification, runners, particularly female runners, are a much more homogenous group. The ladies, generally speaking, fit the stereotype of runners: gazelle-like. If boys and girls are equals in running anywhere, that should be on display at the 6A level. But we do not see equality in outcomes. In fact, quite the opposite. For context, 148 female and 158 male runners competed with average times of 21 minutes flat and 17:21, respectively. To put this disparity in average times into perspective, Jane Average would have been a half-mile back when Joe Average finished. But what about runners who were not average? The top female runner threw down an impressive time of 18:00.02. However, had she been competing with the men, she would have finished behind 129 or 80% of the “XY” competitors. Even the last male finisher, with a relatively slow time, finished faster than one-third of the females. Whatever term one employs to describe these results, parity is not an accurate one. These results do not diminish the ladies’ accomplishments but demonstrate again that biology matters.

So why in the face of evidence from its own events and in contradiction to old-fashioned common sense would the OSAA allow a biological male to compete in the girls’ divisions? One can only speculate, but it may stem from a misguided desire to treat athletes like Ada Gallagher “fairly.” That is, OSAA officials may have compassion for this athlete and therefore desired to do what was best for him. But one cannot jettison well-established and well-reasoned rules simply to accommodate one person without negatively impacting all to whom the established rules applied. As my lawyer friends say, “Hard cases make bad law.” 

A better solution for this athlete would have been for his parents, coaches and the school administrators to have said: “We do not know the source of your struggles with gender identity, but you are a biological male. For the purposes of athletics, this is where you compete.” We adults communicate the wrong lesson when we imply young people who find themselves in the middle of the pack – which Mr. Gallagher did – should quit and find a less competitive pack. If one thinks my suggestion insensitive, there may be a better approach. However, whatever tack one thinks appropriate with Ada Gallagher and the ones who will follow in his footsteps, the approach the OSAA has adopted is wrongheaded. Under the existing regime, the hundreds of hours young ladies devote to achieving athletic excellence are evaporating before their eyes. To add insult to the ladies’ injury, the individuals responsible for this travesty of justice are the very ones charged with creating a level playing field. 

So what are those who love high school sports and those whose daughters are competing supposed to do? How do we change this – what else can one call it? – madness? I offer several suggestions, starting with a general one and moving to more specifics. Even in offering these, people must understand the solution is going to be multifaceted and the battle is going to be hard fought. 

First, advocates for fair play in women’s sports should quit ceding the language to those who advocate allowing biological males to compete against girls. Whatever the roots of so-called gender dysphoria, no one benefits from contorting the English language to accommodate people who are so afflicted. Definitions exist for a reason; they allow us to communicate clearly and effectively about the realities around us. A biological male may feel he is female, or a female may think she is male. Thankfully, no human can alter reality through mental or emotional vacillations; otherwise, chaos would ensue. All are better off when everyone yields to reality and moves forward making the best of it.

Second, coaches, athletic directors and administrators can take a stand on behalf of their female athletes. We need to be communicating to OSAA officials both before and, if necessary, at events that formal protests will be filed any time a biological male competes in the ladies’ division. If the OSAA refuses to budge on this issue, school boards should break with the Association and form a new association. 

The last suggestion is the most difficult. I fear the brunt of this battle must be fought by female athletes. These ladies are best situated to respectfully protest the fundamental unfairness being foisted upon them. In cross country and track, tell the starter: “You are starting this race in violation of the rules. I will not compete until that young man steps off the line.” This will, of course, get the athlete disqualified. Depending upon how assertive the athlete is, it might even get her arrested, but if half the ladies employ this strategy it will send a clear message. This asks much of young female athletes who simply want to compete in a fair race; yet, I know some are up for the challenge. Their courage will probably inspire others to follow the example. 

Female runners have displayed outstanding athleticism and fortitude in the 20 years I have been watching Oregon high school track and cross country. The 3,000-meter race in 2010 between Mary Bennion and Ashley Baldovino is one of the best examples of bravery and fortitude I have witnessed. Let us not allow the battles between the future Marys and Ashleys of Oregon to be overshadowed and denigrated by misguided policies of the OSAA.