PDGA survey

[dmoore1998]

Isn't that also an argument for not having separate gender divisions, at all?

Women fit on a wide range of the athleticism spectrum. Men fit on a wide range of the athleticism spectrum. Those ranges overlap, so that a lot of women have better athletic gifts than a lot of men. So why have a separate women's division?

I'm not saying we shouldn't -- but I think the individual variations argument is a bit flawed, and open to that question.

(The answer might be that, though there is wide variation between individuals, as groups they have different average athleticism, and peak athleticism, and it's on that basis that we offer separate competition. Then we can return to quibbling over how the effects of transitioning affects that difference).

Right, the question is not whether some individuals have an advantage, and it's not whether ranges overlap, it's whether clearly defined populations have a significant advantage over another defined population. That's why Natalie Ryan isn't relevant...other than simply being the most famous individual in a particular group.

 

[Shallows]

Isn't that also an argument for not having separate gender divisions, at all?

Women fit on a wide range of the athleticism spectrum. Men fit on a wide range of the athleticism spectrum. Those ranges overlap, so that a lot of women have better athletic gifts than a lot of men. So why have a separate women's division?

I'm not saying we shouldn't -- but I think the individual variations argument is a bit flawed, and open to that question.

(The answer might be that, though there is wide variation between individuals, as groups they have different average athleticism, and peak athleticism, and it's on that basis that we offer separate competition. Then we can return to quibbling over how the effects of transitioning affects that difference).

If only there was some sort of number, like a rating to allow us to group comparably skilled players in different divisions…

In all seriousness, it doesn't address the fact that there's an essential woman-ness that most females possess and also some males possess that isn't connected to one's sex or any physical identifiers but is sort of a spiritual or at least metaphysical category that is uniquely celebrated in a female protected division in a way which is worthwhile for most women except for the women who prefer to play mixed divisions.

 

[DavidSauls]

If only there was some sort of number, like a rating to allow us to group comparably skilled players in different divisions…

In all seriousness, it doesn't address the fact that there's an essential woman-ness that most females possess and also some males possess that isn't connected to one's sex or any physical identifiers but is sort of a spiritual or at least metaphysical category that is uniquely celebrated in a female protected division in a way which is worthwhile for most women except for the women who prefer to play mixed divisions.

That brings up the question of whether the separate divisions are based on competitive advantages, social factors, or some of both.

I suspect the social factors are part of why there are few complaints about trans-women in FA3. Their skill level fits, and socially they fit there.

 

[DanJon]

A lot of people were really happy when this survey was announced.

But then it was more than one question and they became confused.

 

[Shallows]

That brings up the question of whether the separate divisions are based on competitive advantages, social factors, or some of both.

I suspect the social factors are part of why there are few complaints about trans-women in FA3. Their skill level fits, and socially they fit there.

Good point, nobody complains about all the trans women playing in the FA3 divisions in the tournaments I play in. It must be because they fit there socially.

 

[dmoore1998]

A lot of people were really happy when this survey was announced.

But then it was more than one question and they became confused.

Once people realized their opinions might be worth more or less to the PDGA based on their other demographics, everyone started getting a lot of feelings.

 

[Three Putt]

I tend to think people who say "trans women" in this discussion likely mean "trans women who have transitioned and are on hormone therapy"...but your point about testing combined with the recent leak of emails from the PDGA saying they basically do no testing and require no documentation leads me to wondering if people actually do support all trans women playing in FPO, whether they've done any transitioning or not.

I'm not sure.

To me it seems like the DGPT could require something that involves testing of some sort and they probably are set up in a way that it is feasible. DGPT and the majors are probably what people are most concerned about, anyway. It would be hard to prove the "unfair advantage" angle if there were no women who were transgender who were good enough to compete in DGPT/PDGA major events, eh?

The PDGA again comes up with the problem of someone signing up for say FP55 at USWDGC who has been playing in their area but isn't really known to anyone involved in running the event. This person shows up and suddenly there is a question/rumor about this person. What then? They already traveled there. You don't have on-site testing or time to get that done anyway. So if you have guidelines, you have no way of knowing if they comply or not.

About all the PDGA could do is make it an honor system where you would have to self-report that you are transgender, but with no teeth if you don't because who can actually say you are other than you?

Or something. Again, I don't really know.

 

[Ryan P.]

I often think about who the victims will be in either outcome of a situation. It seems to me like the victims of both situations are

1. if trans women are allowed to play FPO, FPO players are victims
2. if trans women aren't allowed to play FPO, then the trans women are the victims.

I'm not saying that solves the issue at all, but I think it lends some clarity to the weight of each decision. Anyone else see other victims with each decision?

 

[_MTL_]

I'm not sure.

To me it seems like the DGPT could require something that involves testing of some sort and they probably are set up in a way that it is feasible. DGPT and the majors are probably what people are most concerned about, anyway. It would be hard to prove the "unfair advantage" angle if there were no women who were transgender who were good enough to compete in DGPT/PDGA major events, eh?

The PDGA again comes up with the problem of someone signing up for say FP55 at USWDGC who has been playing in their area but isn't really known to anyone involved in running the event. This person shows up and suddenly there is a question/rumor about this person. What then? They already traveled there. You don't have on-site testing or time to get that done anyway. So if you have guidelines, you have no way of knowing if they comply or not.

About all the PDGA could do is make it an honor system where you would have to self-report that you are transgender, but with no teeth if you don't because who can actually say you are other than you?

Or something. Again, I don't really know.

Problems are always easy to find. Solutions aren't.

 

[txmxer]

I'm not sure.

To me it seems like the DGPT could require something that involves testing of some sort and they probably are set up in a way that it is feasible. DGPT and the majors are probably what people are most concerned about, anyway. It would be hard to prove the "unfair advantage" angle if there were no women who were transgender who were good enough to compete in DGPT/PDGA major events, eh?

The PDGA again comes up with the problem of someone signing up for say FP55 at USWDGC who has been playing in their area but isn't really known to anyone involved in running the event. This person shows up and suddenly there is a question/rumor about this person. What then? They already traveled there. You don't have on-site testing or time to get that done anyway. So if you have guidelines, you have no way of knowing if they comply or not.

About all the PDGA could do is make it an honor system where you would have to self-report that you are transgender, but with no teeth if you don't because who can actually say you are other than you?

Or something. Again, I don't really know.

Post event testing is an option. It's not a great solution, but we've seen people have titles removed for failing to comply with whatever requirements exist.

And if you do it that way, you can choose to limit it to only those that have an impact on the event. If the player does not cash in the event, then it's hard to see how anyone could claim to have been harmed by participation.

EDIT: that type of testing is usually applied across the board to winners, so it would not just be limited TFPO, all FPO and all MPO might be subject to some type of evaluation to keep it fair ($$$)

 

[lrshooter12]

Who says transgender people are entitled to play competitive sports? We all make decisions in life that lead to sacrificing one thing for another.
Want to get married? Give up the single life and settle down. Want to have kids? Give up the sports car and get something that can carry them.
Personally I'm of the opinion that if people want to transition to another gender for their own long happiness then sacrificing many forms of competitive sport is a small price to pay.

That said, in disc golf you're not in direct physical competition with your competitors. The idea above of going genderless and dividing players based on rating has merit. Male and female drivers compete against eachother at the highest levels of auto racing so there is precedent that it can work.

 

[dmoore1998]

I often think about who the victims will be in either outcome of a situation. It seems to me like the victims of both situations are

1. if trans women are allowed to play FPO, FPO players are victims
2. if trans women aren't allowed to play FPO, then the trans women are the victims.

I'm not saying that solves the issue at all, but I think it lends some clarity to the weight of each decision. Anyone else see other victims with each decision?

How are FPO players "victims" if trans women have no advantage?

 

[dmoore1998]

Who says transgender people are entitled to play competitive sports? We all make decisions in life that lead to sacrificing one thing for another.
Want to get married? Give up the single life and settle down. Want to have kids? Give up the sports car and get something that can carry them.
Personally I'm of the opinion that if people want to transition to another gender for their own long happiness then sacrificing many forms of competitive sport is a small price to pay.

That said, in disc golf you're not in direct physical competition with your competitors. The idea above of going genderless and dividing players based on rating has merit. Male and female drivers compete against eachother at the highest levels of auto racing so there is precedent that it can work.

No, it can't work. Race car driving doesn't depend on a lot of the same factors that throwing a disc does. We already know what the comparison between women and men are in disc golf. The best women almost definitely wouldn't even be on the MPO DGPT tour.

We've seen a similar comparison in golf...it doesn't really work.

 

[PMantle]

Objectively, you are wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Our-Brai...9&refinements=p_27:D.+F.+Swaab&s=books&sr=1-1 - Here's a good starting point for you. Do catch up, you're coming up on 40 years behind the curve. The brain is the organ that exists as the nexus of identity. Our brains are sexed organs. Trans-women are born women. Their brains are anatomically those of women. Is what is, and is what we've known for decades.

I get that you're new to this discussion, given this has only been an issue burning at the public consciousness for a few years, but you're FAR behind the medical science on the topic.

You can keep saying it, but you'll still be wrong as it pertains to this discussion. Identity is irrelevant. And if we assume that the brain is actually born female that is also irrelevant to the discussion. Female protected divisions do not exist to cater to those whose brains are female. They exist due to the inherent advantage men have in physical sport. Having been born with a female brain does not stop this process.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You can keep saying it, but you'll still be wrong as it pertains to this discussion. Identity is irrelevant. And if we assume that the brain is actually born female that is also irrelevant to the discussion. Female protected divisions do not exist to cater to those whose brains are female. They exist due to the inherent advantage men have in physical sport. Having been born with a female brain does not stop this process.

Ahh so you're not supported by the science, and now the science is irrelevant. Keep shifting those goalposts kiddo. You'll keep being wrong. The fact is that some women are born with inherent physiological advantages. It is what it is. The nexus for identity, whether or not you are a man or a woman, is located in the sexed organ that is your brain. Female protected divisions are social constructions that have little to do with eliminating advantages, some women have massive advantages physiologically over other women - they're still allowed to compete with the rest of the women. Likewise some women who have transitioned will have physiological advantages over other women - and they should still be allowed to compete with the rest of the women. They're all women.

The women we are calling trans-women are women. Full stop.

 

[Shallows]

Ahh so you're not supported by the science, and now the science is irrelevant. Keep shifting those goalposts kiddo. You'll keep being wrong. The fact is that some women are born with inherent physiological advantages. It is what it is. The nexus for identity, whether or not you are a man or a woman, is located in the sexed organ that is your brain. Female protected divisions are social constructions that have little to do with eliminating advantages, some women have massive advantages physiologically over other women - they're still allowed to compete with the rest of the women. Likewise some women who have transitioned will have physiological advantages over other women - and they should still be allowed to compete with the rest of the women. They're all women.

The women we are calling trans-women are women. Full stop.

At the risk of taking on a tangent, how do non-binary people and detransitioners fit into this paradigm of the "nexus for identity" being located in the "sexed organ of the brain"? Specifically curious as to how "identity" and "sex" mean? Are these transient and unlimited concepts or fixed and limited?

 

[DavidSauls]

Female protected divisions are social constructions that have little to do with eliminating advantages...

Can you document this?

Was it true before the trans- issue was added to the discussion?

I suspect eliminating advantages (when the assumption was clear-cut difference between male & female, as determined by reproductive organs) is the origin of most female-protected divisions.

 

[dmoore1998]

Ahh so you're not supported by the science, and now the science is irrelevant. Keep shifting those goalposts kiddo. You'll keep being wrong. The fact is that some women are born with inherent physiological advantages. It is what it is. The nexus for identity, whether or not you are a man or a woman, is located in the sexed organ that is your brain. Female protected divisions are social constructions that have little to do with eliminating advantages, some women have massive advantages physiologically over other women - they're still allowed to compete with the rest of the women. Likewise some women who have transitioned will have physiological advantages over other women - and they should still be allowed to compete with the rest of the women. They're all women.

The women we are calling trans-women are women. Full stop.

So just for clarity, do you believe we should allow a trans woman who has done no transitioning activities to participate in FPO? For lack of a better term, a "Day 1 trans woman"...someone has the realization today "I'm a woman"...should they be able to go compete in FPO (or other female divisions, but FPO seems to be the practical application).

There are a lot of people who agree that person is a woman without transitioning...but that they are a woman who shouldn't be allowed to compete until some form of hormonal treatment.

 

[PMantle]

Ahh so you're not supported by the science, and now the science is irrelevant. Keep shifting those goalposts kiddo. You'll keep being wrong. The fact is that some women are born with inherent physiological advantages. It is what it is. The nexus for identity, whether or not you are a man or a woman, is located in the sexed organ that is your brain. Female protected divisions are social constructions that have little to do with eliminating advantages, some women have massive advantages physiologically over other women - they're still allowed to compete with the rest of the women. Likewise some women who have transitioned will have physiological advantages over other women - and they should still be allowed to compete with the rest of the women. They're all women.

The women we are calling trans-women are women. Full stop.

Holy crap :lol: It's really rare to see such commitment to a losing argument. You completely ignore what i say and build new strawmen with each post. So, what social construct is responsible for the age protected divisions?

 

[dmoore1998]

At the risk of taking on a tangent, how do non-binary people and detransitioners fit into this paradigm of the "nexus for identity" being located in the "sexed organ of the brain"? Specifically curious as to how "identity" and "sex" mean? Are these transient and unlimited concepts or fixed and limited?

Let's be clear though, transitioning as we typically refer to it is not necessarily tied to being transgender. You can be a transgender woman without transitioning, after you've transitioned, or after detransitioning. Transitioning to a more standard societal view of what that gender appears to be just seems more socially accepted.