Register

  • Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

OTB Lawsuit Predictions

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that is a little moot in my opinion is that it dosent 100% revolve around the biological aspects just as a 1000 rated pro playing in ma3 is not really ok.

The subject is quite grey and unfair advantages can be argued to even be the fact that as male you get better support and encuragement straight from birth. Is that an ok advantage? The fact that the higher testosteron levels can let you practice more and recover better getting more experience?

I feel for women sports and this will take some time to figure out.
 
Skervoy said:
One thing that is a little moot in my opinion is that it dosent 100% revolve around the biological aspects just as a 1000 rated pro playing in ma3 is not really ok.

The subject is quite grey and unfair advantages can be argued to even be the fact that as male you get better support and encuragement straight from birth. Is that an ok advantage? The fact that the higher testosteron levels can let you practice more and recover better getting more experience?

I feel for women sports and this will take some time to figure out.
Click to expand...

It's too rare that anyone really discusses the societal and environmental aspects of athletic success. That's odd, because they've been shown repeatedly in studies to have the greatest impact on performance, compared to ones peers.

One of the studies people bring up when debating trans inclusion involves muscle memory tests that were done, and while the study is horribly flawed for much more egregious reasons (like ignoring any data from tests with the participants off-hands, because it didn't match the conclusions they wanted to draw), one of the most important is the gendered upbringings of the participants. Boys and men don't fare better on hand/eye coordination tests because they have higher testosterone - they fare better because as kids, there are so many more traditionally male perceived activities that they do during their formative years of play. The thing is, it would be utterly wrong to exclude an entire group based on that, because you can't know who had what kind of upbringing, or what they were good at before they picked up the sport in question.

There's no means by which to control for societal or environmental factors in competition rules, and as time goes on with more and more elite level women being celebrated as athletes, the gender disparities like playing sports or video games during childhood are getting smaller.

Far more than those things though, is a players financial state during childhood. More affluent parents can afford extra coaching, better equipment, have more time available to take their kids to better leagues and tournaments, and have better facilities nearby to practice and play at.

You wouldn't set rules to exclude people who had a privileged upbringing though, and you'd be right not to do so - even though it does have a significant impact on athletic performance throughout a persons life.

Some athletes also grew up at different altitudes (which causes muscles and blood to develop in ways that more efficiently deliver oxygen), or in regions without a harsh winter (which allows them to train year round), or any number of other factors that directly impact their practice, skill, and performance.

When it comes to testosterone, the whole point of making the player wait at least 24 months with their level within that of a cis woman, is that they lose those physical advantages of its presence. They lose muscle mass, muscle composition shifts from fast-twitch dominant to slow-twitch dominant, their hemoglobin levels drop to that of a cis woman, bones degenerate, weight distribution (and thus center of gravity) shifts to a new place in their body. Lots of subtle (and not so subtle) changes combine to take a trans woman from someone who can compete with men, to someone who (much like a cis woman) stands no chance when doing so - and puts them on even footing with cis women.

That's what most people don't really understand in-depth, but it's why we're insistent that it's perfectly fair for trans women to compete in FA* and FPO, post-transition.
 
Skamanda said:
It's too rare that anyone really discusses the societal and environmental aspects of athletic success. That's odd, because they've been shown repeatedly in studies to have the greatest impact on performance, compared to ones peers.

One of the studies people bring up when debating trans inclusion involves muscle memory tests that were done, and while the study is horribly flawed for much more egregious reasons (like ignoring any data from tests with the participants off-hands, because it didn't match the conclusions they wanted to draw), one of the most important is the gendered upbringings of the participants. Boys and men don't fare better on hand/eye coordination tests because they have higher testosterone - they fare better because as kids, there are so many more traditionally male perceived activities that they do during their formative years of play. The thing is, it would be utterly wrong to exclude an entire group based on that, because you can't know who had what kind of upbringing, or what they were good at before they picked up the sport in question.

There's no means by which to control for societal or environmental factors in competition rules, and as time goes on with more and more elite level women being celebrated as athletes, the gender disparities like playing sports or video games during childhood are getting smaller.

Far more than those things though, is a players financial state during childhood. More affluent parents can afford extra coaching, better equipment, have more time available to take their kids to better leagues and tournaments, and have better facilities nearby to practice and play at.

You wouldn't set rules to exclude people who had a privileged upbringing though, and you'd be right not to do so - even though it does have a significant impact on athletic performance throughout a persons life
Click to expand...

When people say compare top pro male and female ratings and similarly records in other sports, the above is one factor they usually ignore. Another is participation levels. If you randomly group athletes into two groups, one ten times larger than the other, you'd expect the larger group to have all the records. The occasional outlier, like Billie Jean King beating Jimmy Connors in a tennis match, would just be the exception that proves the rule. Women participate in sports at much lower rates because, among other things, the financial rewards are not the same.
 
Skamanda said:
It's too rare that anyone really discusses the societal and environmental aspects of athletic success. That's odd, because they've been shown repeatedly in studies to have the greatest impact on performance, compared to ones peers.

One of the studies people bring up when debating trans inclusion involves muscle memory tests that were done, and while the study is horribly flawed for much more egregious reasons (like ignoring any data from tests with the participants off-hands, because it didn't match the conclusions they wanted to draw), one of the most important is the gendered upbringings of the participants. Boys and men don't fare better on hand/eye coordination tests because they have higher testosterone - they fare better because as kids, there are so many more traditionally male perceived activities that they do during their formative years of play. The thing is, it would be utterly wrong to exclude an entire group based on that, because you can't know who had what kind of upbringing, or what they were good at before they picked up the sport in question.

There's no means by which to control for societal or environmental factors in competition rules, and as time goes on with more and more elite level women being celebrated as athletes, the gender disparities like playing sports or video games during childhood are getting smaller.

Far more than those things though, is a players financial state during childhood. More affluent parents can afford extra coaching, better equipment, have more time available to take their kids to better leagues and tournaments, and have better facilities nearby to practice and play at.

You wouldn't set rules to exclude people who had a privileged upbringing though, and you'd be right not to do so - even though it does have a significant impact on athletic performance throughout a persons life.

Some athletes also grew up at different altitudes (which causes muscles and blood to develop in ways that more efficiently deliver oxygen), or in regions without a harsh winter (which allows them to train year round), or any number of other factors that directly impact their practice, skill, and performance.

When it comes to testosterone, the whole point of making the player wait at least 24 months with their level within that of a cis woman, is that they lose those physical advantages of its presence. They lose muscle mass, muscle composition shifts from fast-twitch dominant to slow-twitch dominant, their hemoglobin levels drop to that of a cis woman, bones degenerate, weight distribution (and thus center of gravity) shifts to a new place in their body. Lots of subtle (and not so subtle) changes combine to take a trans woman from someone who can compete with men, to someone who (much like a cis woman) stands no chance when doing so - and puts them on even footing with cis women.

That's what most people don't really understand in-depth, but it's why we're insistent that it's perfectly fair for trans women to compete in FA* and FPO, post-transition.
Click to expand...

I think there is a lot to the concept of a changing adolescent landscape with regards to physical activity. My family is also into rock climbing/bouldering, and now that we are seeing a generation of women grow up in the gyms becoming beasts, that sport has one of the narrowest gaps even at the tippy top of the ladder.

Laura Rogora climbed a 15.b/c last year. That route is insane. Three men and one woman, total, have climbed this. We haven't seen the end of this journey and I think a lot of people are going to be shocked where it goes.
 
Skamanda said:
That's what most people don't really understand in-depth, but it's why we're insistent that it's perfectly fair for trans women to compete in FA* and FPO, post-transition.
Click to expand...

Great post.

I watched with interest Natalie Ryan playing in the Throw Down The Mountain, a couple of months back. I saw no evidence of an unequal playing field at all. The Lynd sisters threw just as far and the only reason Ryan took the tournament down was due to one of the sisters burping up a 5 stroke lead on the back 9, and Ryan playing really well down the stretch. Of course, that didn't stop mother Lynd going on a transphobic rant.

I'm pretty much done with disc golf at any sort of structured level while this nonsense persists. The DGN, DGPT and PDGA won't be getting any of my cash going forwards. I'm sure they'll be fine, as will I.
 
gooberau said:
Great post.

I watched with interest Natalie Ryan playing in the Throw Down The Mountain, a couple of months back. I saw no evidence of an unequal playing field at all. The Lynd sisters threw just as far and the only reason Ryan took the tournament down was due to one of the sisters burping up a 5 stroke lead on the back 9, and Ryan playing really well down the stretch. Of course, that didn't stop mother Lynd going on a transphobic rant.

I'm pretty much done with disc golf at any sort of structured level while this nonsense persists. The DGN, DGPT and PDGA won't be getting any of my cash going forwards. I'm sure they'll be fine, as will I.
Click to expand...

The more good people that don't renew, the less good people voting against the bad people, when the board elections happen. It's up to you whether that's something you're willing to invest $50 or more on, but that's been reason enough for probably three dozen people I've talked to, to renew or reactivate expired memberships... :D
 
Pretty aggressive call out of Natalie Ryan's incendiary language by Paige Pierce in her post-tourney interview, though it was perhaps poor taste for her to reference Jon Baldwin's suicide in the same breath.
 
denny ritner said:
Good people vs. bad people, how does that help us reach a middle ground?
Click to expand...

Good people - Willing to engage in nuanced discussion and alter viewpoints based on evidence and science.

Bad people - The opposite.

Each of the 'sides' to this discussion fall largely into these categories.
 
Skamanda said:
The more good people that don't renew, the less good people voting against the bad people, when the board elections happen. It's up to you whether that's something you're willing to invest $50 or more on, but that's been reason enough for probably three dozen people I've talked to, to renew or reactivate expired memberships... :D
Click to expand...

That is a big ask for many reasons.
 
RowingBoats said:
Good people - Willing to engage in nuanced discussion and alter viewpoints based on evidence and science.

Bad people - The opposite.

Each of the 'sides' to this discussion fall largely into these categories.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.
 
biscoe said:
There's not going to be any middle ground with the current construction of the PDGA board. Too much power consolidated in the hands of one zealot.
Click to expand...
Isn't he up for reelection this year?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
DGPT Adjusts Schedule to Protect Conpet
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
8K
MikeK
M
TalbotTrojan
To FORE Or Not To FORE?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
7K
zippo13132001
Z

Latest posts

Top