Parkrun comments giving me the rage

It's not inclusive now.

*former Olympians who by necessity have a freakishly good set of genetics and mentality to get to that level. They are effectively protesting that they can't have gold in the parents race at primary school. It's pathetic and should be beneath them.

No one is excluded.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj5l612080o

This kind of egg and spoon race?

It isn't a WR because it wasn't properly officiated or timed. It's just a media org uncritically repeating a press release.

Women (however they identify) are excluded from having data of comparative quality to that given to men.

But again, if data collection and sharing isn't important, parkrun can always drop that aspect of what they do.

What is your point here? It is clearly significant enough for the BBC to put the article on their website.

But again, if data sharing is an unimporant aspect of parkrun, then it's a simple problem to solve. Just don't share the data.

The timing equipment doesn't differ, you just don't like that they use gender instead of sex. No organisation collecting self reporting data can claim to have sex as their data, so it's good they're being transparent about this issue (prof S could learn from them)

The entire media devoted huge amounts of space to a family moving house. They also had articles about a child starting school. That a story makes it into the media doesn't mean it is significant.

They arent collecting gender because they haven't defined it. There's not a definition of gender that most people would know and understand let alone identity with.

What they are asking for is sex, and letting a few delusional men lie and say they are women.

We all know this. What you are unhappy about is that its obvious to everyone what is going on - parkrun are indulging these men.

Agree with that, I was involved in setting up our local one over ten years ago. There's a lot more to it than just telling people to turn up at the park at a certain time.

Keep the discussion going, people! This forum is such a good resource to have. People on the fence about these issues, wondering what all the fuss is about - no one's denying sex exists or is important! there are strong arguments on both sides! - drop by here, and what do they see?

• A Parkrun email celebrating a "female" runner who is male, described by TRA posters celebrate as "transparent".

• A Parkrun email congratulating someone on coming "first" (and actual BBC articles about "world records"), interpreted by TRA posters as showing "it's not a race".

• GC posters arguing for the importance of upholding women's rights to have the same quality of provision, information and inclusion as men... described as "mad... deranged... hatred... destroy... far gone... bizarre" (all in one short post, no less).

A person who really, truly believes (for example) that the sky is polka dotted green and black, and writes screeds "proving" this, will of course also believe they've made their case well. Meanwhile, though, most readers see them as making an entirely different kind of case.

I'd laugh, if it weren't so frighteningly Orwellian.

Alcove & co. - why not try acknowledging that there's a valid debate to be had here, with both sides having some grounds for believing their approach is the more inclusive one? That would, in turn, lead you into making more considered arguments.

(Alternatively - keep it going, people!)

No, I don't like that they use gender. I don't know why anyone would want to classify themself according to sexist oppressive stereotypes. This is the feminism board, so that shouldn't surprise you.

No organisation collecting self reporting data can claim to have sex as their data,

Because you think people would lie? So instead you have a category which is completely irrelevant to running speed? What next? asking people about their favourite colour?

That a story makes it into the media doesn't mean it is significant.

And another! You know that phrase, "S/he'd argue black is white"? We never dreamt how literal it would become.

Every so often, I get so infuriated by the paucity of argument, I find myself wanting to help out.

How about...

OK, I acknowledge the media typically reflects the issues people find important - for example, a representative article about a child starting school will be published when there's a focus on this, and an article celebrating an individual achievement - while a very different kind of piece - likewise indicates the likelihood of wider interest in that. But I'd still argue that this article celebrating a world record doesn't actually show Park Run's a race, because...

...Nope. Sorry. Can't do it. Just can't work out how to finish that sentence.

Alcove? Polly? A bit of help here?!

...Or have I just hit on why "hatred" and Orwellian denial are so preferable?

No organisation collecting self reporting data can claim to have sex as their data.

And another! Well, bugger. That's most research down the drain. Surveys are out for good.

Sorry, I'll stop now. It all just (weirdly) has me thinking, totally simultaneously

"Yay - let them speak! Oh boy, let them speak..."

and also

"Stop them! Please, someone, just tell them how it looks!"

I never could watch Frasier - far too sensitive to secondhand embarrassment.

I still can’t get past it’s so unimportant nobody cares yet still threatens to destroy Parkrun, the planet and the Universe.

Where’s Doctor Who? Only he/she/they can save us now.

Not at all. Most surveys/research will be sex but we can't know which ones are (not). Where a cohort isn't sex, the numbers involved are usually very small and won't materially impact on any inferences made.

They will materially impact a small cohort.

What on earth does "most surveys will be sex" mean?

You may not like it but others choose to do what you dislike. Gendered data collection doesn't have to come about because of deliberate actions; on a menu of choices people sometimes just pick the wrong option by accident. There will be some women listed somewhere as male for this reason. It's not all an agenda driven conspiracy to be honest about the accuracy of the data held.

They cannot be collecting sex data because it isn't verified and people make mistakes that means some (not identifying as trans) men will be females and conversely.

I can't follow this.

Not at all. Most surveys/research will be sex but we can't know which ones are (not).

Is this an acknowledgement that the words we used to use to distinguish between the sexes have been degraded to such a degree that we've lost our ability to unambiguously research (for example) how to save female lives (as, just to choose two examples of thousands, the sex which is 70+% more likely to be injured in a car accident due to male-default design? or to die from heart attacks in disproportionate numbers following due to male-default treatment?) I can't understand it any other way, although it seems unlikely this is what you meant...?

Where a cohort isn't sex, the numbers involved are usually very small and won't materially impact on any inferences made.

And this seems to be claiming that sex is the only meaningful variable in research design?!?!?! (extend by several hundred more ?!s)

Seriously - I don't understand.

It's not all an agenda driven conspiracy to be honest about the accuracy of the data held.

I think the last 5 or so posts kind of prove my point.

It's like watching Niles doing the ironing. But not as fun (classic scene). Am letting it go now.

All these posts just don't seem to understand how park run works. I can't imagine anyone would want to play detective on the details behind the barcode they scan.

I'm GC and I appreciate that parkrun are holding out on sex based categorisation but I don't see how you win this one.

If surveys can't collect sex data because people may sometimes lie or answer mistakenly, then we can't collect any data.