Thousands of non-elite women at the Great North Run got neither privacy nor fair competition

Many, many people care about this. You may not have met them, but they exist in large numbers. It's why event organisers publish and categorise rankings. You can look up your or your friend's individual result just by searching for their name.

I have not suggested that mass participation events should not have a female category.

This has already been explained. You can't stop everyone from cheating in a mass participation run. You can create the social expectation that they shouldn't cheat.

This is it for me. Difficulty policing it is beside the point. It's normalising using women's races by male cheats to validate their self image. It's a double whammy, which appears entirely acceptable.

The issue is it's practically acceptable to cheat. Whether it's one or a thousand. Because it's only women.

What about if a percentage of the men were knowingly doping? Do people really imagine that those men who were pushed down the rankings wouldn't be kicking off an almighty fuss about how unfair it all is??

And more to the point, they would have such a tremendous support, that you can bet your life, 'something would be done'.

That is exactly what you are doing when you suggest that mass participation events should not have a female sex category and that the category should simply refer to gender.

You might as well ask why there are priority seats on public transport. We set an expectation that people will do the right thing.

As an ex runner myself, I believe that the times run by anyone outside the elite category in a mass race are of no interest to anyone except the runner themselves and their connections.

Why would they be? Who cares who came eleventh if they don't know them?

Why did you even put "women's" in your question, it's not relevant?

Why do they want to see their names on a list if they don't care about anyone else's times?

Do you have any practical solution to stopping women swapping entries with a man or genetically testing every female applicant in a race with tens of thousands of female runners?

Again, you can't stop everyone from cheating in a mass participation event, but you can set expectations and make the rules clear.

Speaking as a runner who has done a lot of events I agree this one is unwinnable. You cannot test the chromosomes of thousands of female runners. The most the organisers can do is make a clear statement that they expect people to run in the correct category and anyone found to be not doing that may be excluded from the race . But it would be difficult to enforce.

I expect most of us like to see our names in the results and how we compare to others in our category. But honestly, even with chip timing there can be anomalies, it's never foolproof. And most of us are probably running against our own previous times rather than the other runners.

Why should women not also expect fairness? Why should women's sport be treated as an after thought? A concession? Why is it rude for a woman to be competitive?

I have not suggested any of those things.

It makes a noticeable difference to the statistics if the category has much smaller numbers and the man is a clear outlier.

But the principle is just as important. It's accepted that men can spend days or years arguing over a referee's decision and committees can spend months deciding whether a particular bike wheel or shoe or rule change is fair. This doesn't just happen at an elite level, but in amateur sports clubs everywhere.

Why should women not also expect fairness? Why should women's sport be treated as an after thought? A concession? Why is it rude for a woman to be competitive?

I also don't see any practical way it can be stopped, with that number of runners.

This has already been explained. You can't stop everyone from cheating in a mass participation run. You can create the social expectation that they shouldn't cheat.

My main point was your dismissal of non-elite women's times as inconsequential. Care to address that?

Tell that to Paula Radcliffe who peed by the roadside mid-marathon in front of a TV audience of literally millions.

Because people want to see their names in the list.

Do you have any practical solution to stopping women swapping entries with a man or genetically testing every female applicant in a race with tens of thousands of female runners?

There is no point in fighting a battle that can't be won.

Publishing a leaderboard or any ranking is fundamentally discriminatory if there are no efforts made to ensure that correct categories for age, sex and disability status are honoured on the basis of facts rather than personal choice. It's discriminatory because without any such efforts, anyone who isn't a nondisabled male in the peak of his prime for physical fitness is automatically disadvantaged and gets less benefit, in terms or pride/satisfaction from the information published, than those who are in the most advantaged category. It is absolutely patriarchy in action that the people making the decisions are in that most-advantaged category and therefore don't see the problem and don't care who is getting that disadvantage.

If they can't or won't make any effort to ensure that categories are respected then no rankings should be published at all - just the name of the one human who ran fastest.

In 63,000 runners the skew you are talking about will be miniscule.

Do you have any practical solution how it can be stopped with that many entries to police?

I understand what you are saying, but with 63,000 runners I really can't see how a few men running as women is going to make a measurable difference to percentiles.

I also don't see any practical way it can be stopped, with that number of runners.

So although I know it makes me enemies among the gender critical (of whom I am one) my message is still the same. Stick to the battles that can be won, otherwise the movement risks looking as unreasonable as the other side (without the violence) and weekens the whole fight.

It still matters to those women though and their rankings and the average women's times will be skewed if TIMs are running as women. It may not matter to you but it does to others.

I also find it interesting that at Parkrun it apparently doesn't matter as it's a 'fun run not a race' and women are told to keep their ire for actual timed races and now they also shouldn't be bothered about actual timed races because the time only matter to them and their connections.

The problem is that iwanttoretire posts a link and extracts from the link without it being clear that its a quote and not her opinion. Then gets pissy when someone critises the post.

Its useful to have articles we would otherwise miss, but its the same argument over and over again.

I'd hate to be peeing with my head popping out of the cubicle. Men are used to it with urinals, but its not usual for women.

None of the mass event times matter to anyone but the runner themselves and their connections.

And yet they bother to publish a leaderboard for the mass participation event.

https://results.greatrun.org/leaderboard

I used a women's urinal at London marathon in 2018. Far better and swifter option than queuing for a portaloo. I think I still have one of the shewees somewhere (unused).

Absolutely an option to have a private space, for both sexes. But if you want a much quicker wee (or 3) then for me and many others, a zero queue urinal vs a 300-deep queue for a dirty portaloo is a no-brainer and frankly a non-issue when you're about to experience all that humanity has to offer for the next 26 miles.

It's not just about competition though - there can be only one winner but it's still a point of pride/personal satisfaction to know roughly where you come in the rankings. If when I am just starting out as a runner I'm in the 90th centile of runners in my category and then a few years later after more training I'm in the 50th centile then that's a significant improvement. But it only works if everyone is in the right category - my 90th centile result for 45-60 year olds might give me a 50th centile ranking if I pretended to be age 75+ but it would be a lie. These category rankings get spoiled for almost everyone if people identify into a category they don't belong to - only people in the category that it would be disadvantageous to incorrectly identify into (males at the peak of their physical prime) don't get this spoiling effect. Other categories than sex, like age and disability status, would obviously be dishonourable to identify into if you don't qualify, but somehow the categories of sex, which legitimately exist because hips that are evolutionarily shaped for childbearing are less efficient for running, are somehow ok to disrespect?

If the categories aren't honoured then I have no idea whether my 50th centile or 90th centile ranking is accurate because I have no idea how many liars there are who have been incorrectly included in my category

I get that you can't do genetic testing for all individuals in a mass participation event, but the organisers could and should make it very clear that anyone who identifies into a category that they don't qualify for is a dishonourable, selfish arsehole.

How did they sex segregate the 20 elite women runners?

I assume that the elite race has to comply with the rules of the IAAF and that they will have taken the mandatory test. I don't think any mass participation event is going to go to those lengths.

Exactly. I never see any of the articles quoted by @IwantToRetire in real life so having them here is useful and relevant.

I don't understand the constant criticism of @IwantToRetire for posting articles in FWR that are related to FWR discussions. I see this a lot and it's unnecessarily negative imo.

If you're interested read and comment (or don't comment, whatever), if you're not interested then go take part in a different thread. No need to scold someone for contributing to knowledge here.

How did they sex segregate the 20 elite women runners? Why can't they use the same process for the rest? Or is it just visual and the numbers would make it too hard?

And I agree about those peequals. It's a make-do for women. It's certainly not equivalent to the men's.

I imagine the amount of money required to make everything equivalent for women, because they actually have to sit on a seat and wipe and have periods, would make the whole thing untenable. (although I bet if it was the other way round and it was men who needed the investment, they'd get it).

There is no real competition outside the elite category at a mass event though, is there?

None of the mass event times matter to anyone but the runner themselves and their connections.