Pdga has finally announced new rules on transgender competition

[Broken Shoulder]

It's a weird ruling. To me it looks like a fix to the problem of trolls attacking DGPT livestream comments and PDGA social media posts since it only applies to those sorts of events. It's really targeted right at Natalie Ryan, which I would think (which is a lot different from knowing since I don't) would help her in a legal case.

In theory it leaves open for females who are transgender to play at lower levels of the sport, but if it was me and I knew I was banned from the highest levels of the sport I'd be gone. Why hang around a sport that wants to hide you? I'd never give an org like the PDGA a dime if I was transgender.

For that matter, why would they define fairness differently based on professional vs amateur status?

 

[dmoore1998]

For that matter, why would they define fairness differently based on professional vs amateur status?

Except they don't, which is maybe MORE weird? Amateurs, all fine. Pro...everything is still fine except these 4 events they've picked out.

 

[Three Putt]

The Champion's Cup, a Major, is coming up in April. Should I (the current FP50 World Champion) wish to enter, I cannot. Natalie Ryan earned an invitation by winning the DGPT Great Lakes, but is ineligible to play. Because we're trans and the Champion's Cup is an FPO major.

Step on a Lego, PDGA.

Saying you can play in a B-tier but not in a Major to me is just the PDGA trying to keep you from ever being in a position where there is any media coverage. That doesn't have squat to do with "fairness" or any of the other crud they are using to justify it.

 

[Nova P]

Joke's on them. I never make it onto media coverage because I suck in FPO and nobody gives a **** about FP50. =D

 

[Three Putt]

For that matter, why would they define fairness differently based on professional vs amateur status?

Except they don't, which is maybe MORE weird? Amateurs, all fine. Pro...everything is still fine except these 4 events they've picked out.

Because there isn't a DGPT livestream comments area for trolls to derail with hate-drivel at those other events. The PDGA isn't going to post a picture of the winner of FPO in the such and such A-tier in Poughkeepsie for trolls to freak out on, so it's OK there. That's the only difference that I can tell; it gets the subject out of the public eye. Rather than defend the rights of women who are transgender, they are trying to run away and hide.

 

[dmoore1998]

I'm thinking and also now wondering who is the population of people who are happy about this ruling? Transgender women? No. Men who seemed to be pushing the "I'm trying to protect my daughter from competing against biological males" idea? No, because the rules didn't change at most events. CIS women who don't want to compete against trans women? For the most part no because again the rules didn't change at most events.

Is it really just a handful of DGPT FPO players? I mean I know a lot of the people pushing the "my daughter should play against girls" didn't REALLY care about that.

So maybe I should ask, who actually benefits rather than who is happy. The benefit is to a few dozen touring FPO pros right? Is there ANYONE else?

 

[dmoore1998]

Because there isn't a DGPT livestream comments area for trolls to derail with hate-drivel at those other events. The PDGA isn't going to post a picture of the winner of FPO in the such and such A-tier in Poughkeepsie for trolls to freak out on, so it's OK there. That's the only difference that I can tell; it gets the subject out of the public eye. Rather than defend the rights of women who are transgender, they are trying to run away and hide.

That's my point. A Pro/Amateur distinction might have at least made some logical sense to say "we've picked this line to divide on, and that distinction at least exists already". The line of "no popular events, but unpopular events are fine" seems difficult to even pretend to defend on the basis of an advantage existing.

It makes me wonder...like who "won" here? People who didn't want transgender women in FPO seem to be happy about it...but 99% of events still have transgender women eligible to compete in FPO...sooooooo.....

It's hard for me to picture a worse logical decision. Obviously banning all trans women from female divisions everywhere would have made transgender women less happy...but the logic would have been more sound.

 

[ChrisWoj]

https://www.pdga.com/files/shared/pdga_medical_subcommittee_paper_gender-based_competition.pdf

The entire decision hinges on:

Elite female disc golfers regularly demonstrate the ability to master the skills necessary and therefore skill performance is not relevant to this discussion.

Not coincidentally: this is also completely unsupported by any evidence. There is no examination of this in the paper, there is no other source that examined this. They simply make this statement in the hopes that players will accept that FPO players are as skillful as MPO players, disregarding the fact that FPO is not yet drawing a field of athletic people nearly as skillful as MPO (which is not in any way a statement that women are actually less skillful in general terms, but is wholly reflective of the fact that disc golf has not had nearly as much penetration into the population of athletic females as it has men). FPO is at least a DECADE away from the competitors demonstrate mastery of skill on par with MPO players - only a few of the elite of the elite are actually demonstrating "the ability to master the skills necessary."

 

[Three Putt]

I'm thinking and also now wondering who is the population of people who are happy about this ruling? Transgender women? No. Men who seemed to be pushing the "I'm trying to protect my daughter from competing against biological males" idea? No, because the rules didn't change at most events. CIS women who don't want to compete against trans women? For the most part no because again the rules didn't change at most events.

Is it really just a handful of DGPT FPO players? I mean I know a lot of the people pushing the "my daughter should play against girls" didn't REALLY care about that.

So maybe I should ask, who actually benefits rather than who is happy. The benefit is to a few dozen touring FPO pros right? Is there ANYONE else?

Nope. The $30,996 that Natalie Ryan won last year in DGPT/PDGA Majors is now up for grabs for the rest of the FPO field. That's about the only "winners" I can see from this.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Not going to quote tweet because it will be deleted.

That ruling is in favor of people like GMc harassing people here. He should be banned.

 

[ru4por]

As I read it, Natalie can play in two year's time under this new ruling (if she's keeps her testosterone levels up to date) at A Tiers or lower.

She can't and potentially won't be able to ever play in PDGA Majors or DGPT events as she didn't transition as a child (feel free to correct me if my thoughts are wrong here).

Many states are outlawing that last part (which is extremely rare to begin with), so as I said, this basically effectively bans current trans players for at least two years and they can only play lower level events if they meet testosterone levels during that time period.

Basically it's punting the issue.

"Yeah, we still technically allow trans women to play, but there's probably not going to be anyone who is able to meet our requirements."

Should be interesting to see the lawsuits and what it ends up costing the PDGA and DGPT.

Unfortunately some of my discussion of A Tier and below, becoming the battleground was caught up in some deleted quotes and lost.

The entire issue is indeed punted, right into the laps of the clubs running events across the country.

With the number of frightened and hateful AM men, it is only a short while before an issue is brought to the locall B Tier TD. Any female player, not meeting the standards of what some AM2 male thinks is appropriate looking, could be reported. Anyone can accuse someone of being transgender. I would expect that the PDGA will provide competition standards, guidelines and process, but I am not confident they are capable of providing clear and appropriate directions. How it is handled could easily put a TD in the middle of violating either PDGA rules or local law.

I have to believe that clubs across the country will now have to have a discussion as to the merits of running sanctioned events.

 

[Shallows]

Unfortunately some of my discussion of A Tier and below, becoming the battleground was caught up in some deleted quotes and lost.

The entire issue is indeed punted, right into the laps of the clubs running events across the country.

With the number of frightened and hateful AM men, it is only a short while before an issue is brought to the locall B Tier TD. Any female player, not meeting the standards of what some AM2 male thinks is appropriate looking, could be reported. Anyone can accuse someone of being transgender. I would expect that the PDGA will provide competition standards, guidelines and process, but I am not confident they are capable of providing clear and appropriate directions. How it is handled could easily put a TD in the middle of violating either PDGA rules or local law.

I have to believe that clubs across the country will now have to have a discussion as to the merits of running sanctioned events.

Have you been doing any enforcement beyond referring back to the PDGA's database and listed genders there? That's all we've been doing with the 10 nmol/L policy and I don't imagine it changing now that it's 2 nmol/L.

I do see this little new proviso:
"The PDGA provides tools for relevant staff to determine the eligibility of each competitor for each event and division in which they are registered."

Have you taken advantage of this? I always assumed it just referred to referencing the database as opposed to anything material, but I may be wrong.

 

[seedlings]

I wonder if any high-level pros in MPO or FPO (not affected by new rules) will be voluntarily boycotting tournaments or holding any sort of protest(s) based around tournaments. Manufacturers and sponsors could pull tournament funding.

 

[elmexdela]

genuine question whats the counter argument to switching to qualifying by ratings instead of gender/age/etc

(or are we just not there yet as a society)

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

I wonder if any high-level pros in MPO or FPO (not affected by new rules) will be voluntarily boycotting tournaments or holding any sort of protest(s) based around tournaments. Manufacturers and sponsors could pull tournament funding.

I'm cynical, but I am highly doubtful this will happen. I don't even expect manufacturers to mention it for all kinds of reasons, including that the market has supposedly spoken.

 

[oddjob]

genuine question whats the counter argument to switching to qualifying by ratings instead of gender/age/etc

(or are we just not there yet as a society)

Most females are terrible (see putting) outside of like 5 players such that the rest of FPO still deserves cash for rec/int play.

 

[BillFleming]

Interesting that the PDGA waited until mid-December to make the ruling - after the majority have renewed their 'non-refundable' memberships. They can now say...."look, we made this controversial decision, but hardly lost any members."

 

[DanJon]

Pretty sure Natalie can play A-tiers or lower now if she meets the hormone therapy requirements already (and those requirements existed in part prior to this, so I'm guessing she's likely fine to compete at those events now).

My point was really twofold:

1. Let's not equate the DGPT with "disc golf". In Natalie's case...they're pretty much the same...for the vast majority of disc golfers though, they are not the same thing. The impact of this on the vast majority of disc golf events should be rather minimal.

2. Let's not equate DGPT with PDGA. The PDGA is stopping Natalie from competing in 4 events. The DGPT is choosing to stop her from competing at the other pro tour events.

In a time where headlines seem to be ruling things...I think it's important to keep straight what the rules are, and who is making those rules. I've already seen headlines like "PDGA prohibits Natalie Ryan from playing FPO"...which is not actually true. It's also important to know WHO is making the rules, because people who dislike the ruling may have more impact with the DGPT changing their ruling than the PDGA potentially.

Based on the PDGA's ruling and the DGPT's subsequent adoption of their high-end standards, they basically have prohibited Natalie Ryan from ever playing at that level again in FPO (under these new requirements).

Did you look up what Tanner Stage 2 is?

Beyond that, for A-Tier or lower, the old rule was X amount of testosterone for 1 year.

Now it's Y amount of testosterone for 2 years.

So no, under these new requirements, Natalie can't play in an A Tier until she shows Y amount of testosterone continuously for 2 years.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Interesting that the PDGA waited until mid-December to make the ruling - after the majority have renewed their 'non-refundable' memberships. They can now say...."look, we made this controversial decision, but hardly lost any members."

Is this true? I almost never renew my membership until we're into the year. Do most people who sign up for the PDGA renew by the end of the prior year?

 

[ru4por]

Have you been doing any enforcement beyond referring back to the PDGA's database and listed genders there? That's all we've been doing with the 10 nmol/L policy and I don't imagine it changing now that it's 2 nmol/L.

I do see this little new proviso:
"The PDGA provides tools for relevant staff to determine the eligibility of each competitor for each event and division in which they are registered."

Have you taken advantage of this? I always assumed it just referred to referencing the database as opposed to anything material, but I may be wrong.

We have, and will continue to follow the strictest letter of the PDGA rules. It is our responsibility to the players in our leagues and tournaments, in addition to the paying members of our club. We shall await the procedures set forth by the PDGA. Gender identification is not enough, if the player in question has transitioned. Is the gender listed on the PDGA database, going to be enough for sating the fear of same rando 866 rated AM3, reporting the FA2 player, identifying as male, having undergone no transition. It is likely that her looks alone, will strike terror into the hearts of the intolerant. You might say no, won't happen, but I think this board alone, has shown it likely.

It is now the TD's job to pull aside the accused player and have difficult discussion with her, because has cropped hair? I find that uncomfortable and inappropriate, as another human. I am initially resentful for the PDGA putting me, or any TD, in that position.