Coming Together: DGPT Launches United Series

[Skamanda]

OK, one question I'm not clear about based on the rest of the season...

Are there DGPT or PDGA events during the remainder of the year that Natalie (or others) will NOT be allowed to compete in? (Admittedly she or others will be competing in something designated "Unified", but I don't understand if there are places/events that will still exclude her entirely - a DGPT or PDGA event that has FPO but not Unified...)

These tournaments will still be using the C3 requirement (transition prior to age 12), which excludes all currently playing trans women: Mid America Open, LWS Open, and DGPT Championship.

DGLO and I think at least one other (MVP? The playoff events, if I remember right) will still be invite-only, for anyone who isn't a tour card holder, so at the very least ever trans player who isn't Natalie isn't allowed to play, because it's too late for any of us to get invited.

 

[Rastnav]

We use electricity to try to improve brains. I still have no clue how it works, but at least we haven't electrocuted people so far

I hoped it was coherent even though a little bit of rantiness slipped in. Sorry, I'm actually trying to have/promote a conversation. Summarizing what I actually think (which could be wrong, and I really do want answers to my questions but no one is obligated to give them to me):

1. I'm not really sure I should even speak up at all. Sincerely.
2. If we're going to talk about science, let's talk about science.
3. If we're not talking about science, let's talk about what we want to talk about. It's better to state that it's not science if it's not science.
4. Yeah, science is a fucking mess in this country, so hopefully my post gave insight into that and why we have a lot of general issues, which you can imagine are only worse in transgendered studies (and jenb pointed out a very significant problem about duress/implicit coercion in many of those studies, too*).
5. I still think we can all work to have more good faith and fewer bad faith arguments in general as humans. This has been getting measurably worse and worse in the age of social media (yes, people study that too).



If it's welcome I'd love to air things out. I'm very sensitive & sincere to point out that I'm not wanting to overstep into terrain where I shouldn't be, but if it's welcome somewhere I'm happy to be there.


I'm learning a lot from you and mostly just listening. I'm still trying to figure out what the "glass half full" attitude Spring is talking about and "separate but equal" perspectives mean here & to you or Natalie or Nova etc. I'm also still trying to figure out what that means in the context of the FPO women who have issues with transgendered inclusion and perceive that it's an intrusion/fear stimulus/unfair etc. into something they wanted and felt they needed in a male-dominated society. I'm curious about your/others thoughts about that.

None of what I'm writing is intended to be leading comments or questions, even if that is how some of it came across.



*One of my favorite topics in all of science, ethics, and philosophy is relevant here: When is "informed consent" really informed, and really consent? Is there even answer to that question? Don't worry, there are hundreds of pages of arguments and studies on that, too.

I can say without reservation that your overall contribution to DGCR has been extremely positive, to my mind. I'm sure any contributions made to discussions about trans people, and trans athletes in particular, would likewise be positive. To the extent that you either consider yourself an ally of trans persons, or even someone who accepts that trans people exist, and have well thought out and genuine questions, I think it would be a negative if you didn't participate in these conversations. As I have said before, one of the net effects of those who take the most inflammatory positions is to promote ignorance of, and discomfort with, anything related to the topic. It frequently allows those with the most inflammatory positions to dominate the conversation, or even prevent any conversation at all. One way to combat that is to simply "flood the zone" with good faith, positive, conversation. If that discomfort is allowed to remain the default attitude, those who are trans will continue to be marginalized and regarded as taboo.

As to your rant musings on the state of science, I have a close friend who has headed a lab for roughly 25 years, fighting for grants and publications. My father was a professor for almost 40 years, Academia is different than it used to be, for sure, but we also continue to advance science at a prodigious rate. I'd argue that one issue is simply the fractal nature of scientific knowledge. The more we learn, the more we discover what we don't know. Ideals are always in conversation with reality and "pure science" is a direction not a destination. Keep pushing that rock up the hill.

Also, in areas where we need science to inform public discourse, there is no escaping the need for the intersection of the two. Yes, people will misuse scientific terms and will attempt to represent vague traditions as "scientific fact". This should be corrected as accurately as possible, but using strictly academic language and methods of discourse will actually harm the overall endeavor. Non-academics will misunderstand and misuse statements that are made in this manner, but that is mostly not the fault of the non-academic. All language is contextual. You can't use academic language in a non-academic setting and expect to accurately convey information, especially if the audience isn't remotely familiar with how academics communicate.

 

[Rastnav]

These tournaments will still be using the C3 requirement (transition prior to age 12), which excludes all currently playing trans women: Mid America Open, LWS Open, and DGPT Championship.

DGLO and I think at least one other (MVP? The playoff events, if I remember right) will still be invite-only, for anyone who isn't a tour card holder, so at the very least ever trans player who isn't Natalie isn't allowed to play, because it's too late for any of us to get invited.

It wouldn't seem likely to happen, but I believe many of the United Series events should have sponsor invite slots? That would be an avenue by which non tour card holders could still play in those events, assuming I'm right.

 

[Skamanda]

It wouldn't seem likely to happen, but I believe many of the United Series events should have sponsor invite slots? That would be an avenue by which non tour card holders could still play in those events, assuming I'm right.

I doubt they'll function any differently than the DGPT events, in that regard. Easier logistics to run them the same, with just that one rule change and separate points system.

That said, there are only 2 trans players with major sponsorships, and Nova doesn't tend to travel much, so it's still basically the same thing in the end. Natalie is the only trans woman playing these events.

 

[dmoore1998]

Without judging whether trans women should be allowed to play in female divisions or not, is there anyone who actually thinks the DGPT/PDGA decisions on this are intelligent and well thought-out? I know the 2 groups are "different", but really they're functioning in pretty close tandem.

First we have trans women allowed to compete in nearly all events, just as long as they aren't the important events. For important events the criteria is severely limiting to the vast majority of trans women. So trans women belong in female divisions as long as they aren't prestigious. Trans women don't have an advantage over cis women essentially as long as the event isn't televised...

Then they're going to cancel or reschedule DGPT events to keep trans women from competing in states where laws likely allow trans women to compete (probably worth pointing out as I criticize their logical steps that this step at least made some logical sense given their prior stance)

Then they decide not go to through with cancelling or rescheduling at all, and instead to allow trans women to compete sometimes and other times not. Because the fairness of trans women competing now hinges on both whether an event is televised/prestigious, but also the state borders.

Also now the World Championship, the most prestigious event, will allow for trans women even though it was pretty clear the initial ban was centered solely on keeping trans women out of the prestigious/televised events.

It feels like no foresight at all is being given to decisions. Feels like there's just a spinning wheel somewhere at the office and every time something comes up they spin the wheel to decide on the best course of action. Nothing that has happened is unforeseeable.

I'll be interested to see what happens next year...whether the "united series" continues, they revisit the policy completely, or they revisit which states they're going to do business in. My prediction is that the policy will change and all trans women will be banned from female division competition at all levels, with the exception of any cities or courses in the United States which start with the letters, l, b, g, t, q, or a...in order to show solidarity and support for those communities which the PDGA and DGPT welcome with open arms.

 

[Skamanda]

Without judging whether trans women should be allowed to play in female divisions or not, is there anyone who actually thinks the DGPT/PDGA decisions on this are intelligent and well thought-out? I know the 2 groups are "different", but really they're functioning in pretty close tandem.

First we have trans women allowed to compete in nearly all events, just as long as they aren't the important events. For important events the criteria is severely limiting to the vast majority of trans women. So trans women belong in female divisions as long as they aren't prestigious. Trans women don't have an advantage over cis women essentially as long as the event isn't televised...

It's that last bit, that seems to have been the trigger. Nova is a two time world champion in FP50. There were rumblings in the community after her wins, but no rules changes. Natalie won twice on paid live streams, and suddenly it was important enough to take action.

Then they're going to cancel or reschedule DGPT events to keep trans women from competing in states where laws likely allow trans women to compete (probably worth pointing out as I criticize their logical steps that this step at least made some logical sense given their prior stance)

Cue angry backlash from pretty much everyone in the disc golf community that wasn't a Stockton Declaration signer, including a great many people who were otherwise against trans inclusion.

Then they decide not go to through with cancelling or rescheduling at all, and instead to allow trans women to compete sometimes and other times not. Because the fairness of trans women competing now hinges on both whether an event is televised/prestigious, but also the state borders.

PR damage control, attempting to please everyone

Also now the World Championship, the most prestigious event, will allow for trans women even though it was pretty clear the initial ban was centered solely on keeping trans women out of the prestigious/televised events.

This was, at least as far as been publicly acknowledged, because the LOC (Local Organizing Committee) for Worlds had signed on to run it under the rules in place in 2021, and has no desire to be forced to exclude on the PDGA's behalf, or potentially be dragged into court for decisions they had no part in.

It feels like no foresight at all is being given to decisions. Feels like there's just a spinning wheel somewhere at the office and every time something comes up they spin the wheel to decide on the best course of action. Nothing that has happened is unforeseeable.

The odd part about their decisions, to me, is that you're totally right - nothing that has happened is unforeseeable. The DGPT, however, has assumed everyone will either love, or at least be OK enough to not speak out against their decisions, at every step of the way. They need to get out more...

I'll be interested to see what happens next year...whether the "united series" continues, they revisit the policy completely, or they revisit which states they're going to do business in. My prediction is that the policy will change and all trans women will be banned from female division competition at all levels, with the exception of any cities or courses in the United States which start with the letters, l, b, g, t, q, or a...in order to show solidarity and support for those communities which the PDGA and DGPT welcome with open arms.

 

[Brychanus]

I'd actually love to see this discussion, and I don't want to sound like I don't, but we've been having a lot of productive conversations about the trans inclusion issue here lately, and they've pretty much all ended up with locked threads, because the conversation gets derailed into other things. A new water cooler thread about science, and the practice thereof?


I can't speak for Nova, though Natalie and I were both sitting on my couch cringing at the DGPT's announcement.

Spring's words are utterly bogus, when it comes to speaking for the trans players. Trans players were told what was going to happen, not asked if that was okay, or for any input, and the input given when it was made clear what the plan would be, was unwelcome. All of this talk about this being a collaborative process between all parties is a lie. I was privy to the single conversation that was had with Natalie about it - a 10 minute phone call from Paige, asking her to be okay with it. She said, rightly, that there was no world in which a trans player should ever be expected to be okay with that. That was it. That was the only time there was interaction. When Natalie tried to voice opposition to the idea, or when I offered suggestions for alternatives to the few people who I know how to contact, our words fell on deaf ears. No other trans player has, to my knowledge, ever been consulted about the issue. Judging from the responses, Laura may be the only one who would've - but I wouldn't imagine so.

When he talks about "DGPT Tour Card players on both ends of the issue", he's speaking exclusively of cisgender women. His "glass half full" attitude ignores what exactly the glass is full of... His hope is that the trans players will be okay enough with some scraps, that we'll all just give up fighting against the ongoing discrimination in our sport, or at least on the tour. He's adorably naïve...

As far as the "separate but equal" comparison - I'm actually trying to walk people away from that specific phrase. It's a phrase with a history, and a lot of the trans community doesn't feel right about using something from the struggles of black people, for our own fight. There is a long and brutal history that black people were forced to endure, that trans people weren't. No matter how brutal our history is (and to be sure, there have been shameful things done to trans people individually, and as a group), we were never stolen from our homelands, and forcibly enslaved. What you're inquiring about, though? It's no more palatable to the trans community, than what came before it. In many ways, it's even worse, because of the manipulative actions Jeff Spring, Todd Rainwater, and the DGPT took in trying to sell it to the cisgender community as such a big win for everyone. They're acting like narcissistic abusers, in a very real sense. Withholding opportunities from the cisgender players, so that what comes after, even though it's still discrimination, will seem like a big win to them. The self-congratulatory pats on the back from not just the DGPT staff, but several FPO players, have been incredibly saddening to the trans players - and, frankly, insulting.

That said, I would like people to keep pointing out that the same words being used to advocate for the exclusion of trans women from sports are the same ones that were used to keep black players out, and women in general, in the past.

When the players like Hokom and Allen speak against our inclusion, they're speaking hate. They don't see us as women, they see us as men trying to steal from them. They see us as diminishing their femininity and womanhood, by appropriating it. They jump through ridiculous hoops semantically, to come up with more and more outlandish ways of addressing us that don't include the word "woman" or "women", because they refuse to believe we are women, no matter what the studies on our brains and other physical makeup pre and post transition say. My favorite so far is "chemically and or medically altered biological males". It's truly the most over the top one they've come up with, and even after a very long and honestly polite discussion of the realities of trans physiology, the person who said it (Discraft team member Sarah DeMar) still refuses to accept even the possibility that I might be a woman.

When it comes to the issues people like that have with my presence, I will educate where I can, and shrug off anyone who refuses to be taught. I will not engage in debate with someone who refuses to even acknowledge the basic truth of my existence. I've been able to successfully show many players first hand that what gives me the edge in play is 21 years of experience, not male puberty. That is a far better use of my time, than arguing with people who don't come to the table in good faith, in the first place.

Thank you for all of these words, and your frankness about every part of it.

I like the idea about a science thread. I had one at some point a while ago about more general disc golf science data and it took an interesting turn. It might be worth reviving the idea and be inclusive of this or other areas of science.

The IOC's rules were 10nmol/L of testosterone or less for trans women to be allowed to compete. Like any sport that isn't some backwater, the testing is handled by WADA, at the sport's expense. They changed the rules last year, to allow the governing bodies for sports to set their own rules banning trans women.

There's no reason whatsoever the PDGA and DGPT can't foot the bill for testing everyone. Instead, the trans players have to do it at their own expense ($260 per test, out of pocket because insurance almost never covers gender affirming care, or the maintenance thereof), and the cis players don't ever have to provide a test for anything.

This is an area I'm pretty naive about and have a lot to learn. I have a decent grasp on some of the measures that get invoked, but not their interaction with a few topics (from a science-meets policy perspective).

I'm wondering if you could say more about whether you think there is any role of medical testing for any biological quantity (and I mean that as broadly as possible), and if so, what it should be in disc golf (and here I mean broadly to cisgender, transgender, men, women, etc).

Much of the processes I'm learning about from PDGA/DGPT or the Olympics etc. do appear to use these threshold heuristics of one form or another and put the onus on the participant and require a significant amount of medical information.

This is one area that I perceive to be loosely connected to biological science and other sports science, but it is not always clear to me even how the basic science is connected to what you would think would be required applied science involving actual disc golfers to inform policies.

 

[biscoe]

This was, at least as far as been publicly acknowledged, because the LOC (Local Organizing Committee) for Worlds had signed on to run it under the rules in place in 2021, and has no desire to be forced to exclude on the PDGA's behalf, or potentially be dragged into court for decisions they had no part in.

I don't think this is the case. TD for Worlds and leader of all things at Smuggs is...wait for it... Jeff Spring.

 

[Skamanda]

I don't think this is the case. TD for Worlds and leader of all things at Smuggs is...wait for it... Jeff Spring.

That was directly from the PDGA's website: Update to FPO Eligibility Criteria for 2023 Pro Worlds

 

[Skamanda]

Again, deliberately inflammatory language. Why do I have the sense you are in no way arguing in good faith?

Assuming you accept that there are persons who have permanent gender dysphoria, whose internal sense of gender does not match the secondary sexual characteristics that have developed, undergoing medical treatment to rectify this is not, in the common definition of the word, castration. This is in much the same way that removing a skin cancer on your scalp wouldn't be referred to as "scalping", etc.

To the extent that one can identify and treat people who are trans before puberty, and achieve appropriate medical intervention, this is all for the good. The failure in the PDGA and DGPT policy is not that it recognizes that trans people exist and may transition before puberty, but rather that it fails to grapple with the reality that this is not at all the most common experience of those who are trans and seeks to make invisible those who have undergone a puberty that doesn't match their gender identity.

More importantly, and to serve as the proof that this is not truly about equity in competition, but rather visibility, those who are trans women and good enough to play at the highest level are explicitly and exclusively forced to play only against less skilled competition.

I've always found the biggest failure in the C1 policy is that in something like 29 states it is illegal to comply with it, presently. Definitely the second biggest failure to not take into account that the majority of current trans players are too old to meet C1, but the group that can is likely to grow significantly over time. It's only been in the last few years that medical transition at that age has become widespread enough to become noteworthy.

 

[Shallows]

Again, deliberately inflammatory language. Why do I have the sense you are in no way arguing in good faith?

Assuming you accept that there are persons who have permanent gender dysphoria, whose internal sense of gender does not match the secondary sexual characteristics that have developed, undergoing medical treatment to rectify this is not, in the common definition of the word, castration. This is in much the same way that removing a skin cancer on your scalp wouldn't be referred to as "scalping", etc.

To the extent that one can identify and treat people who are trans before puberty, and achieve appropriate medical intervention, this is all for the good. The failure in the PDGA and DGPT policy is not that it recognizes that trans people exist and may transition before puberty, but rather that it fails to grapple with the reality that this is not at all the most common experience of those who are trans and seeks to make invisible those who have undergone a puberty that doesn't match their gender identity.

You're making a semantic distinction but I'll bite: If someone lost their hair as a result of chemo, it would be inappropriate to say they were balding, however it would be accurate to say they were bald.

Similarly, it would be inappropriate to describe the barbarous treatments that the DGPT requires for AMAB participation in FPO as castrating, however it would be accurate to describe such a person as castrated.

Perhaps the language is inflammatory but I think it's meaningful to draw attention to the extreme nonconsensual interventions the DGPT is demanding trans kids undergo. As you suggest it would be much simpler if the DGPT would recognize the more common experience of those children who are trans and understand that the trans experience isn't solely or even primarily about sterilizing treatment but is just as much about wearing a pretty skirt or having a buzz cut etc.

More importantly, and to serve as the proof that this is not truly about equity in competition, but rather visibility, those who are trans women and good enough to play at the highest level are explicitly and exclusively forced to play only against less skilled competition.

I agree with your general point though technically the highest level is MPO which trans women (and all woman) are welcome to play in.

 

[biscoe]

That was directly from the PDGA's website: Update to FPO Eligibility Criteria for 2023 Pro Worlds

Wowzers... 1+1=3 again.

 

[BionicRib]

Wowzers... 1+1=3 again.

So they basically went back to the last policy right? How does this one differ from the original? Anybody out there want to be my assistant to help me keep up with this?

 

[jenb]

I'd actually love to see this discussion, and I don't want to sound like I don't, but we've been having a lot of productive conversations about the trans inclusion issue here lately, and they've pretty much all ended up with locked threads, because the conversation gets derailed into other things. A new water cooler thread about science, and the practice thereof?


I can't speak for Nova, though Natalie and I were both sitting on my couch cringing at the DGPT's announcement.

Spring's words are utterly bogus, when it comes to speaking for the trans players. Trans players were told what was going to happen, not asked if that was okay, or for any input, and the input given when it was made clear what the plan would be, was unwelcome. All of this talk about this being a collaborative process between all parties is a lie. I was privy to the single conversation that was had with Natalie about it - a 10 minute phone call from Paige, asking her to be okay with it. She said, rightly, that there was no world in which a trans player should ever be expected to be okay with that. That was it. That was the only time there was interaction. When Natalie tried to voice opposition to the idea, or when I offered suggestions for alternatives to the few people who I know how to contact, our words fell on deaf ears. No other trans player has, to my knowledge, ever been consulted about the issue. Judging from the responses, Laura may be the only one who would've - but I wouldn't imagine so.

When he talks about "DGPT Tour Card players on both ends of the issue", he's speaking exclusively of cisgender women. His "glass half full" attitude ignores what exactly the glass is full of... His hope is that the trans players will be okay enough with some scraps, that we'll all just give up fighting against the ongoing discrimination in our sport, or at least on the tour. He's adorably naïve...

As far as the "separate but equal" comparison - I'm actually trying to walk people away from that specific phrase. It's a phrase with a history, and a lot of the trans community doesn't feel right about using something from the struggles of black people, for our own fight. There is a long and brutal history that black people were forced to endure, that trans people weren't. No matter how brutal our history is (and to be sure, there have been shameful things done to trans people individually, and as a group), we were never stolen from our homelands, and forcibly enslaved. What you're inquiring about, though? It's no more palatable to the trans community, than what came before it. In many ways, it's even worse, because of the manipulative actions Jeff Spring, Todd Rainwater, and the DGPT took in trying to sell it to the cisgender community as such a big win for everyone. They're acting like narcissistic abusers, in a very real sense. Withholding opportunities from the cisgender players, so that what comes after, even though it's still discrimination, will seem like a big win to them. The self-congratulatory pats on the back from not just the DGPT staff, but several FPO players, have been incredibly saddening to the trans players - and, frankly, insulting.

That said, I would like people to keep pointing out that the same words being used to advocate for the exclusion of trans women from sports are the same ones that were used to keep black players out, and women in general, in the past.

When the players like Hokom and Allen speak against our inclusion, they're speaking hate. They don't see us as women, they see us as men trying to steal from them. They see us as diminishing their femininity and womanhood, by appropriating it. They jump through ridiculous hoops semantically, to come up with more and more outlandish ways of addressing us that don't include the word "woman" or "women", because they refuse to believe we are women, no matter what the studies on our brains and other physical makeup pre and post transition say. My favorite so far is "chemically and or medically altered biological males". It's truly the most over the top one they've come up with, and even after a very long and honestly polite discussion of the realities of trans physiology, the person who said it (Discraft team member Sarah DeMar) still refuses to accept even the possibility that I might be a woman.

When it comes to the issues people like that have with my presence, I will educate where I can, and shrug off anyone who refuses to be taught. I will not engage in debate with someone who refuses to even acknowledge the basic truth of my existence. I've been able to successfully show many players first hand that what gives me the edge in play is 21 years of experience, not male puberty. That is a far better use of my time, than arguing with people who don't come to the table in good faith, in the first place.

With litigation ongoing, I'm not at all surprised if the lawyers told them not to talk to Natalie, only lawyer to lawyer. And these don't appear to be settlement negotiations, so why would they even do that? I'm saying that, as much as I sympathize, I think it's wholly unrealistic to expect them to involve Nat in any discussions. For legal reasons.

 

[Rastnav]

With litigation ongoing, I'm not at all surprised if the lawyers told them not to talk to Natalie, only lawyer to lawyer. And these don't appear to be settlement negotiations, so why would they even do that? I'm saying that, as much as I sympathize, I think it's wholly unrealistic to expect them to involve Nat in any discussions. For legal reasons.

Because it rings very hollow to say that they have the agreement of "all the stakeholders" when they have talked to literally zero trans people, and especially not Natalie, when she is the most important one.

After all, if one of their aims is to prevent costly litigation, not satisfying Natalie, and implementing a solution that still appears to be potentially subject to litigation, doesn't seem like a strategy that ensures they get to their goals.

 

[DanJon]

IS there a way to solve this? Does not feel that way.
If you dont "draw a line" than any male 1000rated player can say they identifies as woman and play FPO.
Kristin makes over $100 000 a year just in tornament. . "easy money" for a +1000 rated male, and if one does that many will follw and soon FPO will have only male players that says they identifies as woman to make money.
So a line has to be drawn and i dont see a solution here. ..how do we agree were that line is drawn?

Ah yes, the old, "what if McBeth puts on a dress and wig and says he's a girl now?" argument.

Classic.

 

[DanJon]

Wowzers... 1+1=3 again.

So the CEO of the DGPT is also the TD of this year's Worlds and wants to use the 2021 eligibility standards, but as the CEO of the DGPT wants to use the current standards for the rest of the tour?

Am I getting that right?

One would think this might come up in lawsuits.

 

[Rastnav]

So the CEO of the DGPT is also the TD of this year's Worlds and wants to use the 2021 eligibility standards, but as the CEO of the DGPT wants to use the current standards for the rest of the tour?

Am I getting that right?

One would think this might come up in lawsuits.

Eh. The local organizing committee and the TD aren't the same thing, afaik. The LOC exists to make the bid, I think? Spring was named TD after the 2021 Worlds ended up with a fair amount of bad press for not quite meeting the standard of organization that people on tour had grown used to, IIRC. I might be wrong about the timing, but the reasoning is, I believe, correct.

 

[TantricFrolfer]

So the CEO of the DGPT is also the TD of this year's Worlds and wants to use the 2021 eligibility standards, but as the CEO of the DGPT wants to use the current standards for the rest of the tour?

Am I getting that right?

One would think this might come up in lawsuits.

Spring has a lot of masters to serve. I don't think he has a strong want here other than to please his bosses and clients.

 

[Jolt]

Ah yes, the old, "what if McBeth puts on a dress and wig and says he's a girl now?" argument.

Classic.

Sure it´s a stupid argument. i get that.
But we need rules on who can play i which division, and to set those rules might not be that easy

And as a foreigner i must ask a stupid question.
To me it seem crazy to have different laws in different states, dont you have a "US law" that decides over ALL states? And why does this case fall under state law?