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

PEEQUAL female urinals are brilliant and it's ridiculous to call them undignified. They are a great equaliser for women who just need a quick wee just as male urinals are. Just like with male urinals you aren't fully surrounded with the privacy of a cubicle but everything that needs to be shielded from public view is shielded and you can do your wee and get going quickly. If you need to do anything more complex than a quick wee you can use a cubicle (which is equally true for men). Having peequal urinals obviously then frees up the cubicles and makes them more available for those who need them. No one is forcing anyone to use a urinal but complaining that their provision is somehow sexist is absolutely insane. They are the opposite.

I think I'd be OK with the peequal provided it was in a single sex area where no blokes could watch! Shameful that men were allowed to ID into the women's category as well. IMO there is an important difference between ppl passing on race numbers against the T&Cs and permitting men to enter as women.

I know I'm being pedantic, but it's not an equaliser, because women and men have different needs. Arguably the reason for providing urinals for men is to prevent them just weeing everywhere, but a woman is much more vulnerable when she squats and is likely to need to remove clothing so she needs specific provision, and that's before you consider periods. (as an aside, I think that the increase in women wearing trousers in the twentieth century was linked to better toilet provision)

It's additional provision which clearly suits some women, but it's not the equivalent of a male urinal.

Can someone who's used it explain to me how the women's urinals thing works? It seems like a good aim to try to give women a quick pee option but the logistics are challenging me. I have looked at the link and didn't find clear diagrams.

Where do your clothes go? Are you just in a little booth where someone could peer over the top or follow you in, we're relying on the fact everyone's top half can be seen to stop people doing this? Can you wipe and dispose of loo paper?

Daft that the article says "women were forced to queue for portaloos" as if this was something unusual and shocking! As others have said it is absolutely par for the course. I'm not against the "peequal" provision, however I don't know why they felt the need to say it is for "women, trans women, AFAB, and non-binary runners". Surely it would be sufficient to say it's for women.

I agree men running in the female category is a problem. But I don't know how you stop this in a mass participation event, for the reasons others have mentioned. There have always been instances of people running in the wrong categories, not necessarily out of an intent to deceive. Agree that making it easier to transfer numbers "legally" would
be a start.

At London marathon the queue for the perquels was longer than those for the portaloos! Possibly out of curiosity? Also it’s great that sanitary products are starting to be offered at races but what about incontinence products sadly there not but I’d an issue for many female runners.

As a regular hiker I'm very aware that some inequality in men's and women's urination options is just hardwired, unfortunately. You just learn to be a bit more brazen about the visibility of some parts of your body while you squat (not the actual business parts of course) - and in doing so you become a bit freer. After all, we see men's bodies when they wee on the moors, and the relative acceptability of that sight, compared with the sight of the upper parts of a woman's squatting body, is just a mutable cultural quirk.

Of course inequality still persists, because women are vulnerable to voyeurism. But the addition of PEEQUAL facilities seems to do as much as possible to mitigate that inequality by providing some shielding using a system that is compatible with the much-needed mass provision.

In addition to the barriers around the weeing women, there is, according to their website, a barrier around the whole set of facilities which (if it weren't for the idiocy of allowing trans-identified males in) make it a woman-only space, just as a normal public toilet consists of cubicles within a woman-only space.

PEEQUALs sound great to me, an admirable way of minimising the natural disadvantages women have when it comes to public weeing.

But I don't know how you stop this in a mass participation event, for the reasons others have mentioned. There have always been instances of people running in the wrong categories, not necessarily out of an intent to deceive.

I think it's about setting the expectation of fair competition. Obviously there is a limit to how much this can be monitored at a mass participation event.

I have a feeling the marketing department for PEEQUALs have found this thread.

I ran the Great North run about 10 years ago. Many many women were just peeing in the bushes near the start. I suggest these female urinals are an improvement in terms of decency and privacy.

@IwantToRetire This is a feminist forum, where it is assumed women will listen to other women. And articles like this help us hear from other women.

Being a feminist does not mean all feminists have to agree after they have listened.

If women fighting the gender critical battle continue to complain about non issues like this one, they reinforce the view of the trans lobby that they are just being hysterical and prevent the important arguments from being heard.

These female urinals are brilliant for women who don't have mobility issues.

They are clean, private (other than your head, which I do think is an odd design choice as the wall could be 1' taller), quick, non-stinky.

You aren't exposed to view as each cubicle is a sort of short spiral - once in the middle of it even someone standing at the cubicle entrance wouldn't be able to see you. And they are raised up a few stairs so even tall people can't see over the top.

You don't have to strip. I have to 'free wee' a few times a year and when you squat you yank your trousers/pants well forward through your legs and pee behind them. You do need decent balance - an advantage of these is you can hold on with your other hand) but I'm 60, fat and unfit and manage.

Or go to a Portaloo...

It's basically the same as doing a "wild wee" behind a tree when out in the countryside. You pull your trousers down to your shins or hitch your skirt up to your waist and squat, and your bum is pointing down at the ground with no legs or fabric between you and the ground, then you wee. In the countryside there's always a danger that the ground slope may carry the stream forwards to your feet but with a peequal the drain and floor slope ensures that doesn't happen. In the countryside you can never be sure if another rambler may suddenly appear from an unexpected direction but with a peequal you are fully screened (from just below boob height downwards) around 360 degrees so no one will see anything.

If you are having a period, need a poo, are wearing dungarees or other clothing that isn't compatible, or aren't physically fit enough to balance in a squat for 15 seconds, then you use a cubicle and you are no worse off that you would have been if the peequal wasn't provided.

The benefit of urinals, whether for men or women, is to provide a "fast lane" for those whose needs are quick to deal with, like the "5 items or less" queue at the supermarket. Complaining that they don't fully serve all possible needs rather misses the point.

If you need to wipe then have a tissue in your pocket and bin the tissue when you leave, the urinals are for liquid only, no paper.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?