Tomorrow night, the Tony Awards will enter stage right. And for the first time, two gender-nonconforming performers earned nominations. However, one of the nominees withdrew from award consideration over the show's gendered categories, renewing convos around why the separation exists in the first place. Some say it's to help ensure gender representation. But in the past few years, more and more nonbinary performers have publicly said, 'what about us?' (shoutout, Asia Kate Dillon, Liv Hewson). To learn more about the history of gendered categories and the differing perspectives, we spoke with Michael Schneider, TV editor at Variety. He's covered the TV biz for nearly 25 years and directly reports on gendered categories at awards shows. Here's what he had to say… Q: Can you briefly explain the history of gendered award categories? When did they first begin and why? For most of these awards' histories, they've had gendered categories. Part of it came out of the opportunity to narrow the field of competitors, to some degree, and to give out more awards. All the awards shows are as much about awarding people as they are about making money for the organizations that pass out these awards. So obviously, the more awards you pass out, the more that you gain in revenue … And also there was real gender bias in the early days where there was this sexist notion that acting was different for men versus women — and that it wasn't fair to compare the two. Q: As you know, many performers have recently taken a stand against gendered categories at award shows. Justin David Sullivan, for example, opted out of Tony consideration this year over it. What has led to this push? Now, there's more understanding that there are some people who are nonbinary. And in order to be fair and equitable, it doesn't necessarily make sense to force people to choose a category if they don't feel comfortable in either. And there's been recognition that, to some degree, sidling men and women into separate categories sounds and feels a little antiquated — in an era where people aren't judged on their gender or shouldn't be judged on their gender. That conversation's been going on for a couple years, particularly in television and film, but also in TV, as we've seen more nonbinary performers in major roles. This has become a conversation that needs to be addressed and everyone's agreed to that. Q: You've previously reported on how more and more awards shows have begun eliminating gendered categories. But prime time shows — like the Tonys and Oscars — have kept the binaries in place. Why do you think that is? Change is tough. There are concerns that if you do go gender-neutral, that one gender might dominate over another, and as a result, some really deserving people won't be awarded. That there will be less awards. And there's just fear of change … There are people who feel that things don't need to change — that status quo is fine … Although, I think there are ways to create new categories that are gender-neutral, that opens up the tent a little bit more. But there's just a concern that some people may be suddenly shifted aside in the process. Q: How could award shows go about eliminating gendered categories, if they chose to do so? You've already seen it on shows like the MTV Movie and TV Awards and the Grammys that got out of the gendered categories. Quite simply you just create new categories that are genre-specific. Or there's opportunities to find ways to award more different kinds of shows — that may also solve the issue of certain shows that are never in the running because they're not seen as 'prestigious' enough. You could still have the same number of acting categories, but different ways to classify them, that way you can open up to non-gendered nominees. | 
