parkrun stat - 130 first places.

[WomaninBoots]

Just seen this linked elsewhere and am wondering how this statistic was figured out?

https://twitter.com/mytw68/status/1682304791916027907

Can anyone tell me?

Before I get too grumpy, over and above base level grump at parkrun for allowing self-ID.

(Am not on twitter so can't ask the tweeter direct AND find it impossible to dig around on to see if anyone else has asked etc)

All they linked was the list of first finishers for all parkrun events

No explanation that I can see beyond that.

I wonder, how do they know which ones are male?

I'm fine to believe the stat but I want to see the working out.

I think it might mean that in total, in over parkrun events the first 'female' finisher was actually a male.

There are over 1,000 parkruns in the UK but even I can't imagine that 10% of them have a trans woman taking part and winning the women's sections each week.

There are however at least a dozen known transwomen that do parkruns and between them they may well have notched up that many 'wins' over a period of time.

I know. It simply can't mean 130 "female" winners last weekend were actually males. That would be crazy.

But a dozen known transwomen could have notched up 130 "wins" over time.

It's not a race though. 😆(except it is)

One of the replies said this.

One race is one too many.

I agree, Cloudyz. But knowing how many it actually is, accurately, is also useful.

The tweet says it's 130 and links to last week's UK first finishers when asked to explain how the figure was reached.

This means it's sating that 130 of those on the women's list are transwomen.

But at no point does it describe how it validated that over 10% of UK parkruns had transwomen first finishers on that day.

Without showing methodology, I don't see how that figure can be relied on.

If it is 130 in a week, are they counting all age catagory first finishers? That's the only way I can see it making sense. The age categories are done in five year blocks, so you'll get quite a few female "first in age catagory" per parkrun.

It seems like a lot of digging into the results was done. If you're going to do all that work, it is a shame to undermine the power of what you've found with a lack of clarity. I'm seeing the veracity of the stat being questioned because it is unclear in the tweet exactly what it refers to and how the number was arrived at. (The second point is now clearer for me, thanks, but still unsure on the first.)

If it is 130 women A WEEK missing out on being "first in age catagory" (and that little warm glow you get from being that) then that is a really punchy stat.

The link in the tweets was to the first finishers.

No mention of age or anything else other than first finishers in the tweet.

No other methodology shown.

You know when you get a bee in your bonnet about something?

If I have to join twitter to fine out what this darn 130 number actually is... 🤣

That won’t help you as it doesn’t say

But surely I could then ask? Or does twitter not work like that?

I was rather hoping someone involved or the person who posted on twitter might also be on here so there could be some clarification.

If you look at the page of a specific Parkrun (example: https://www.parkrun.org.uk/york/ ) and scroll right to the bottom it has the record for the fastest male and fastest female ever to finish that particlar course.

A few TW could have travelled to different events and taken 130 of these, potentially?

Just speculation - I don't know whether that's what the person on Twitter meant!

Yes. I've considered that too. Current possible options for me are...

1. 130 first female finishers ever.
2. 130 first female finishers last week.
3. 130 first female age catagory finishers last week.
4. 130 female course records.

Number 1, 130 would be not a huge number but still too high because 1 is too high... but people would say "that's not very high, what's the problem".
Number 2, 130 would be a HUGE number, over 10% of female places taken by transwomen. In one weekend. Each of the 130 an individual transwoman, and a fast-ish one.
Number 3, 130 would be about 1% of female places taken by transwomen, assuming say 10 age categories represented on average at each parkrun. An overrepresentation of transwomen in the results (about double what base rate representation would be). Still 130 individuals, and many more displaced female athletes, but not so fast.
Number 4, 130 would again be about 10%, with one course record per parkrun. But over a longer time frame than number 1 and one transwomen could have set multiple records.

The context we have is "first place females recorded in the weekly results" actually does point to number 2 on my list... but that's the most bonkers!

I believe it is the number of female course records held by men.

Because I believe the same few men go around different events, getting the women's record in each of them

I have not checked this - it is what I have been told before

That is not what the tweet says.

It refers to, and links to, last week’s first finishers

If you believe it refers to something else (such as course records) can you show the methodology for how that was arrived at?

You could potentially join the parkrun statsgeek group on Facebook and ask there. But it would probably open up a can of worms.

I have to say that I find that stat vanishingly unlikely - whether 130 in one week or even as an all time stat unless as someone says they are counting age category records.

If you went through every parkrun and found the female course record, you could then go to UKA website and see if they are listed there (though the transwoman record holder I know of is registered female so it won't necessarily help, and with some googling you might find photos and be able to take a view on whether you thought they were biologically female or not.

I really don't know how people can know for sure.

I really can't believe that 130 of the events last week had a transwoman first "female" finisher! 13 maybe, and even that seems like a lot.

Someone has asked on one of the Facebook stats groups. Not me, a bloke.

Unfortunately it sounds like it might be a bullshit number that might be unattainable from the available data! We really don't need to be making up bullshit stats to make our point here so if someone has done that it is incredibly frustrating.

I still hope someone involved might come out and show their working. Because rightly or wrongly the doubt around this undermines our position.

It doesn't need to undermine the position that allowing any men to finish in the female category is detrimental to women, though. It doesn't matter if it's one male or 130 males in terms of the issue.

Obviously it would be more helpful if people could cite sources and/or explain their methodology when throwing around statistics that they're trying to get other people to believe. But we know from Parkrun's policies and celebration of males happily being recorded in the female category that even if it isn't definitely 130 now, it's possible from Parkrun's policy that it could be true, and we know that Parkrun would be fine with that.

It doesn't have to, no, but it will. The TRAs might be happy to throw around bollocks stats around sporting issues but we wont be allowed to.
AND....
We.
Don't.
Need.
To.

So Sharron Davis starts saying this 130 stat... amoung all her absolutely true stats, someone latches onto the 130 parkruns stats and checks it out... finds it to be bollocks or even just un-sourced and unproven. Then what do they think about all of the other stats Sharron has said on her interview?

It's not good.

Show your working, properly break down what the 130 number is, and it's fine. But if it is bollocks we need to call it out as such rather than defend it. I can't speak for others but I'm here for truth and reality and I can't abide distortions even from my own "side".

That doesn't mean parkrun's policies are fandabbydoozy either. I think they are bollocks too. One male taking a female record is bollocks. The 130 stat is shocking but unnecessary to back up the point. And if it is untrue, people will use it to dismiss us as "shit stirrers", "culture warrers" and "trouble makers". They just will. If we stick to facts and principles it is harder for them to do that.

What I predict happening is parkrun removing records and categories and listing results in order altogether. And women will get the blame for them making that move of course. They aren't going to take the backlash of encouraging participants to run under their sex rather than gender ID any time soon, even if they wanted to.

I can't speak for others but I'm here for truth and reality and I can't abide distortions even from my own "side".

No, I get that.

I think people have to take responsibility for checking the sources they're quoting themselves, though. If they don't cite a source that I can check or their source doesn't confirm what they say it does then I won't be quoting that stat.

It might be real, it might not, but I'm not going to use it in an argument if I don't know where it's come from.