PDGA Board of Director Elections

[ChrisWoj]

This is going down a rabbit hole that was already addressed a few pages up.

Definitions matter and if we aren't defining the word anomalous the same way it is hard to have a meaningful conversation.

I suppose I am coming at it from a different perspective relative to the initial conversational frame used initially, with regard to mutations and such. I should have addressed, more directly, the post you made where you provided the definition. My posts this afternoon have really been more tightly aligned with responding to your use of the definition of the word.

 

[foxdawg10]

I suppose I am coming at it from a different perspective relative to the initial conversational frame used initially, with regard to mutations and such. I should have addressed, more directly, the post you made where you provided the definition. My posts this afternoon have really been more tightly aligned with responding to your use of the definition of the word.

This entire post is an anomaly, lolol.

Either way, I had this conversation a week ago and have no interest in revisiting it.

 

[roblee]

We've had input from 2 of the 13 candidates. I've seen Laura's site. Can anyone provide other sites where other candidates are campaigning? Looked at Reddit but didn't find any first person info. I'm not very media savvy so suggestions would be great.

 

[Hampstead]

I've never been motivated to vote for PDGA BOD before. That's on me, I know this. Finally voted today and it sure wasn't for the two transphobic candidates.

 

[DavidSauls]

Voting is a much bigger pain than it used to be.

Once upon a time, there were barely enough candidates for the open spots -- sometimes, almost enough candidates. It was a pretty easy choice.

Nowadays, a lot of people are willing to do it, many or most of whom seem qualified, and it takes a lot more effort to sort through them. But to offset the hassle, I'm grateful that so many have volunteered.

 

[CPAPhil]

Voting is a much bigger pain than it used to be.

Once upon a time, there were barely enough candidates for the open spots -- sometimes, almost enough candidates. It was a pretty easy choice.

Nowadays, a lot of people are willing to do it, many or most of whom seem qualified, and it takes a lot more effort to sort through them. But to offset the hassle, I'm grateful that so many have volunteered.

I kind of talked about it a few pages back, but if I do get on the board, I would certainly like to revisit the process to make it so it's not as much as a burden on the members to absorb so many hours of content. When this happens I feel it's much easier to be a 'one issue voter' becuase you simply don't have the time to get through everyone. I'm a large contributor to the issue with how long my narrative was, but that's based on the guidelines presented. I had no idea how long or short others narratives were going to be, or even how many candidates there would be. Atleast my videos were not the longest ones lol.

 

[biscoe]

Voting is a much bigger pain than it used to be.

Once upon a time, there were barely enough candidates for the open spots -- sometimes, almost enough candidates. It was a pretty easy choice.

Nowadays, a lot of people are willing to do it, many or most of whom seem qualified, and it takes a lot more effort to sort through them. But to offset the hassle, I'm grateful that so many have volunteered.

The process needs to change for sure whether it becomes ranked choice voting or having 2 rounds of voting with the first to weed out the non-contenders or something else. I am fearful that the single issue candidates are going to be able to get in simply based on all the other votes being spread out across a lot of people, a number of whom are clearly unqualified. Nagtegaal/Mills 2022!

 

[ChrisWoj]

The process needs to change for sure whether it becomes ranked choice voting or having 2 rounds of voting with the first to weed out the non-contenders or something else. I am fearful that the single issue candidates are going to be able to get in simply based on all the other votes being spread out across a lot of people, a number of whom are clearly unqualified. Nagtegaal/Mills 2022!

If you want the candidates with the most broad appeal you don't want ranked choice. Ranked choice is barely better than first past the pole. You want approval voting.

Vote for as many candidates as you want.

One voter, one vote on each candidate - yes or no. No violation of one voter-one vote.

Most votes win.

 

[CPAPhil]

I am fearful that the single issue candidates are going to be able to get in simply based on all the other votes being spread out across a lot of people

This is a fear. I actually have seen their followers/advocates advertise this specific strategy.

 

[biscoe]

This is a fear. I actually have seen their followers/advocates advertise this specific strategy.

Doesn't even need to be called "strategy." It's a natural by-product of the process.

 

[DavidSauls]

The process needs to change for sure whether it becomes ranked choice voting or having 2 rounds of voting with the first to weed out the non-contenders or something else. I am fearful that the single issue candidates are going to be able to get in simply based on all the other votes being spread out across a lot of people, a number of whom are clearly unqualified. Nagtegaal/Mills 2022!

Primaries? We need primaries?

 

[PennedStarValkyrie]

Whether you're born expressing the same sexual characteristics externally as you are neurologically, top level athletes are going to have expressed their physicality throughout their development in a way that 99% of their field is not going to be able to overcome.

Irrelevant. Female divisions are based on one factor alone, being female. There are no 'weight classes' in disc golf and someones physical abilities beyond their sex is what makes it a competition worth having.

The average male has a strength comparable, depending on the study, to a female in the top 7.5% to 5% of all females. The comparison should be between the strength of women post-transition and women born with female external sexual characteristics in the top 7.5% to 5%. This is not problematic unless your perspective is that these women are inherently immoral cheaters looking for advantages. This is because, the fact is, that all women are not born equal in terms of their athletic potential. The advantages of genetic expression that occur as a result of various influences are very real within the population of women before we even consider women post-transition. This is just another example of that. It is a totally unfair standard to apply to them, given the BROAD differences we already see in the population of women before we consider transitioned people at all.

Once again, you're attempting to differentiate between women of different abilities when the division's eligibility is based on one factor alone. You're also basically conceding the point that the average post transition trans woman has the physical potential to the top 7.5 to 5% of female athletes which indicates an advantage.

1. You don't seem to understand what statistical impossibilities are. A statistical impossibility is generally referred to as something that is far beyond what would apply to the possibility of a post-transition woman winning a World Title. Statistical impossibility is getting down to the point of twenty to thirty decimal places.

2. You represent your argument by sensationalizing the accomplishments of Nova and Natalie. This tells me everything about your objectivity on this matter. You are intentionally twisting the most easily refutable facts here Natalie Ryan is not finishing consistently top 10, in fact less than half of the time on tour in the last few years. Nova is not a 5x world champion. The fact that you took the easiest part of the conversation, outlining the accomplishments of the people we have read the most about in disc golf at the center of this, and chose to outright lie about how much they've done demonstrates you do not want to have an adult conversation about this.

I am willing to have an adult conversation. I'll admit I haven't run an in-depth statistical analysis of Ryan's or Nova's performance relative to the field. However, I would wager that in the case of Nova, her chance of being a now 6x world champion is extremely improbable. Regardless of these two, it was one point among many arguing against trans women in FPO.

No, parts of what compose them have elements in common with what we traditionally consider "male." And other parts of what compose them have elements in common with what we traditionally consider "female." Actual physical parts of their bodies from birth are female. You are overly obsessed with some parts of their physical being over other parts of their physical being. Even within people with a clear-cut XX or XY chromosomal makeup - there are shades of gray throughout their phenotypic presentation of characteristics, where those with an XX makeup present in many ways as extremely masculine, and those with an XY makeup present in many ways as extremely feminine - without necessarily being transgender, and including the way their bodies produce testosterone. The ways in which their bodies function result from vagaries in their genetic makeup that we have continued to identify as we have advanced microscopy beyond the pre-1960s space you seem to occupy. As I noted above - the phenotypic presentation of their genetics is a huge part of what gives athletes like Abby Steiner or Serena Williams their advantages. What we traditionally consider "masculine" or "feminine" is all phenotypic expression, parts of their genes have more in common with what we traditionally consider men. We don't argue against their participation. But we argue against the participation of other women, like Nova or Natalie, based on their genes being arbitrarily more in common with men - even though they don't even present nearly as strongly as other women at the top of the athletics world.

Once again, they are either XY male or XX female at birth except for extremely debilitating exceptions. This is the simple truth you don't want to accept. Being female is the ONLY criteria to play in FPO. These 'shades of grey' in phenotype expression are genetic disorders and do not apply to trans persons.

There have always been 'masculine' women and 'feminine' men. This is once again irrelevant, because their genetic makeup and their ability to procreate is still firmly determined by their sex at birth. Being born a male provides a physical advantage over women even after hormone treatments.

It is exactly as fair as Sydney McLaughlin receiving scholarships and money for the way her phenotypic expression led to advantages over the rest of the competing female track and field population. You are expressing an observation of unfairness in the way Nova or Natalie express their genetics, while arbitrarily ignoring so so so many others.

The son of former NFL DLineman Tracy Rocker, pitcher Kumar Rocker, was chosen third in the Major League Baseball draft yesterday. Kumar grew up being screamed at like he was an adult by angry parents who didn't want their kids going up against him, even when he played UP divisions against OLDER competition. If those parents had their way - Kumar Rocker would not currently be preparing for a Major League career, he wouldn't have even had a chance to experience competitive baseball as a youth. This stupid "moms are very upset" argument has absolutely no bearing on anything being discussed here, aside from being an example of how parents can be just as ridiculous as any random person on the internet.

Strawman argument. Sydney is was born a female. Kumar was born a male. They are gifted athletes playing in appropriate divisions.

Here's a basic question for you: is height an advantage in disc golf, all else being equal?

 

[Streets]

Speaking of single issue voters...

 

[Nova P]

Here's a basic question for you: is height an advantage in disc golf, all else being equal?

As I am so often fond of saying, I am the tallest female disc golfer in the world.

Am I the best in the world? Not by a damned sight.

 

[Dingus]

As I am so often fond of saying, I am the tallest female disc golfer in the world.

Am I the best in the world? Not by a damned sight.

No offense, but repeatedly pointing out your own lack of talent does nothing for your argument.

blah blah blah

Why don't you and your buddies create your own disc golf tour? The PDGA has a policy in place that is in line with other major sporting bodies around the world and works just fine. You aren't trying to defend the women's division of the PDGA, you are trying to change it. Instead of changing something that already exists, why don't you create the new trans exclusionary division of your dreams on your own dime? If people truly want a women's division that excludes trans women they will flock to your tour and you will be a shining success. If not you will fail and lose money. Seems like a much more fair way to handle this than coopting an entire organization over your little pet issue.

 

[Hampstead]

Feels like we've entered small basket territory.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Irrelevant. Female divisions are based on one factor alone, being female. There are no 'weight classes' in disc golf and someones physical abilities beyond their sex is what makes it a competition worth having.

I never brought up weight classes. Do stay focused. We are talking about females - females like Nova and Natalie, that you're actively discriminating against because one part of what composes them genetically expresses as more masculine, despite the fact that many other women you're okay with competing have parts that also express as more masculine.

Once again, you're attempting to differentiate between women of different abilities when the division's eligibility is based on one factor alone. You're also basically conceding the point that the average post transition trans woman has the physical potential to the top 7.5 to 5% of female athletes which indicates an advantage.

Why isn't anyone complaining about the physical advantages of Abby Steiner or Serena Williams, both of whom express physical characteristics with more in common with men in terms of athletic performance than Natalie or Nova? I'm "conceding" nothing because nothing about what I've said has been in contrast to anything I've said before nor is it changed in response to any of what you've said. The fact is that it is possible for a woman who has transitioned to be among the top end of female performers. Just like it is possible for other women to be among the top end of female performers.

I am willing to have an adult conversation. I'll admit I haven't run an in-depth statistical analysis of Ryan's or Nova's performance relative to the field. However, I would wager that in the case of Nova, her chance of being a now 6x world champion is extremely improbable. Regardless of these two, it was one point among many arguing against trans women in FPO.

No, they were lies - in an effort to sensationalize the performance of trans athletes in an effort to make people fearful of their inclusion. You didn't have to do any in depth statistical analysis, and you're obfuscating that here intentionally to avoid the fact that you just plain chose to lie about the most basic facts regarding their performance.

Once again, they are either XY male or XX female at birth except for extremely debilitating exceptions. This is the simple truth you don't want to accept. Being female is the ONLY criteria to play in FPO. These 'shades of grey' in phenotype expression are genetic disorders and do not apply to trans persons.

Incorrect. Once again - your perception of gender expression as a result of genetics is stuck in the pre-1960s. Please, join us in modernity! The shades of gray are not genetic disorders, and the shades of gray are expressed in many women you'd consider completely healthy - from Mia Hamm to Sue Bird.

There have always been 'masculine' women and 'feminine' men. This is once again irrelevant, because their genetic makeup and their ability to procreate is still firmly determined by their sex at birth. Being born a male provides a physical advantage over women even after hormone treatments.

So does being born the child of professional athletes. Your obsession with the fact of one being able to procreate as the sole determinant of one's identity as male or female is completely outdated, and outside of association with medical treatment - completely pointless.

Here's a basic question for you: is height an advantage in disc golf, all else being equal

It is, and people born with female genitalia that you would limit your acceptance to exist along a spectrum of advantaged and disadvantaged for the purpose of athletic performance that athletes like Nova and Natalie exist well within. There are 6'4+ women, just like Nova. These women have advantages over other women. Nova has no unfair advantage, she only has the advantages she was born with as a woman, just like any other woman.

 

[gingerandhoney]

This is going down a rabbit hole that was already addressed a few pages up.

Definitions matter and if we aren't defining the word anomalous the same way it is hard to have a meaningful conversation.

In this fairly narrow discussion topic, biologists, the actual scientists who could chime in with actual first had research on the matter, do not speak of defects, abnormalities, or anomalies. Those words are xxx-normative, and are rarely used without intrinsic negativebias built in. (In this topic that would be cis-normative) They speak of variations.. For a reason.

 

[Streets]

Feels like we've entered small basket territory.

IDK...PSV's avatar and his fascination on one topic make me think of another poster

 

[Countchunkula]

^Big Sky?