Coming Together: DGPT Launches United Series

[Skamanda]

Can people that are ok with this statement from the dgpt paraphrase why it's ok?

Can people that are not ok with this statement from the dgpt paraphrase why it's not ok?

I have to admit my head is spinning and I don't understand who is and is not going to be allowed to play in fpo. Pardon my ignorance, I honestly just don't get it

I did paraphrase why it's not okay in the slides I shared, but here's the cliff's notes:

- It was done, by all the back patting in the announcement, with a lot of discussion among everyone. Everyone that is, except trans players.
- Women who score in United Series events will earn both the United Series points, and DGPT points. While cis women are allowed to win the unspecified "bonus payouts" in the United Series, trans women can't use the DGPT points they earn (if they even earn them, the announcement is a little unclear) to play in or win the DGPT championship.
- There is no United Series championship. The "bonus payouts" of unknown size and quantity are a consolation prize, at best.
- Notice how I mentioned twice that the "bonus payouts" are nebulous, at best? Could be ten grand, could be five bucks, and they'd still technically have delivered what's been promised in the announcement.
- This is all being done to sidestep repeated court cases that the DGPT has not been faring well in, so they can cherry pick where the "real" DGPT events happen, and not have to worry that elsewhere, judges are pointing out that their actions are likely to be seen as discrimination.
- This all inherently "others" trans women, and sets ANOTHER set of rules saying we're not women, while simultaneously claiming it's about fairness, and using WIDELY debunked studies as their "proof".

 

[Skamanda]

Rib, without saying if the statement is okay or not, what is happening is that Natalie Ryan will be allowed to play FPO at 5 DGPT events that were planned to be cancelled two weeks ago or moved, but now are back on.

Natalie won't be allowed to play at a few DGPT events in states with fair laws.

Fair laws don't allow discrimination.

 

[jenb]

Can people that are ok with this statement from the dgpt paraphrase why it's ok?

Can people that are not ok with this statement from the dgpt paraphrase why it's not ok?

I have to admit my head is spinning and I don't understand who is and is not going to be allowed to play in fpo. Pardon my ignorance, I honestly just don't get it

Short answer, instead of spending money to defend and lose against injunctions in those states where Nat would win in court, they've decided to let her play. Darth Tater or some other cis player is still likely to win everything.

 

[TheCatsAreInCharge]

My 5 year old's lego designs...which have previously included a McDonald's building with wings....are less convoluted that this DGPT series and point structure.

 

[MikeK]

Fair laws don't allow discrimination.

Agreed. Some states define discrimination differently however.

 

[jenb]

I did paraphrase why it's not okay in the slides I shared, but here's the cliff's notes:

- It was done, by all the back patting in the announcement, with a lot of discussion among everyone. Everyone that is, except trans players.
- Women who score in United Series events will earn both the United Series points, and DGPT points. While cis women are allowed to win the unspecified "bonus payouts" in the United Series, trans women can't use the DGPT points they earn (if they even earn them, the announcement is a little unclear) to play in or win the DGPT championship.
- There is no United Series championship. The "bonus payouts" of unknown size and quantity are a consolation prize, at best.
- Notice how I mentioned twice that the "bonus payouts" are nebulous, at best? Could be ten grand, could be five bucks, and they'd still technically have delivered what's been promised in the announcement.
- This is all being done to sidestep repeated court cases that the DGPT has not been faring well in, so they can cherry pick where the "real" DGPT events happen, and not have to worry that elsewhere, judges are pointing out that their actions are likely to be seen as discrimination.
- This all inherently "others" trans women, and sets ANOTHER set of rules saying we're not women, while simultaneously claiming it's about fairness, and using WIDELY debunked studies as their "proof".

It would seem to deprive Nat the opportunity to place the bias that went into to shopping the study under a microscope in favorable courts and/or generate legal precedent in favor of trans inclusion. A trans woman who doesn't meet the criteria, such as one who transitioned decades ago and can't produce hrt records and/or two years of T serum level test results, would likely still have standing though.

 

[Skamanda]

It would seem to deprive Nat the opportunity to place the bias that went into to shopping the study under a microscope in favorable courts and/or generate legal precedent in favor of trans inclusion. A trans woman who doesn't meet the criteria, such as one who transitioned decades ago and can't produce hrt records and/or two years of T serum level test results, would likely still have standing though.

That may be a fight yet to be had, but Nova may be the best candidate for it, and she handled it with her doctor's help (albeit, after being asked to provide information that was absolutely insane to require of her). It could well be a fight worth having, but it would mostly just get the process refined, not reversed.

 

[jenb]

That may be a fight yet to be had, but Nova may be the best candidate for it, and she handled it with her doctor's help (albeit, after being asked to provide information that was absolutely insane to require of her). It could well be a fight worth having, but it would mostly just get the process refined, not reversed.

Agreed. And it needs to be a pro player with sponsors and an established earning potential to have sufficient damages to get out of small claims court. The current criteria create a bar to any new players (that don't satisfy the criteria) establishing that potential and gaining those sponsors. Unless perhaps they compete in a mixed division to establish it.

 

[Nova P]

This is still an effective ban for trans women who had bottom surgery long ago, can't produce 25+ year old blood tests, did not get medically unnecessary tests before these criteria were set, and some of whom went off hrt due to age to enter menopause and avoid cancer risk.

That may be a fight yet to be had, but Nova may be the best candidate for it, and she handled it with her doctor's help (albeit, after being asked to provide information that was absolutely insane to require of her). It could well be a fight worth having, but it would mostly just get the process refined, not reversed.

Yah no I was not in a good position, jurisdiction-wise, to do jack ptooey about the new policy back in late 2022 early 2023. You see, I don't stray too far from home to play DGPT events: Jonesboro in Arkansas, DDO in Kansas, KCWO and MAO in Missouri, DMC in Iowa, etc.

These are not the sorts of jurisdictions where a trans woman really wants to roll into court talking about her rights.

Natalie, both because she travels to vastly trans-friendlier jurisdictions on the full tour, and because she lost her whole darn job as a "touring pro" from the policy change, as opposed to my part-time status, had a better legal leg to stand on than I did.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

I know this would require him to stop believing his own branded BS, but I just want Jeff Spring to quite touting how inclusive the DGPT is. Closer to a hate organization—but whatever gets you through the day, Jeff.

I didn't know that anyone in disc golf could be as repugnant as Nate Heinold but I've been proven wrong.

 

[Skamanda]

I know this would require him to stop believing his own branded BS, but I just want Jeff Spring to quite touting how inclusive the DGPT is. Closer to a hate organization—but whatever gets you through the day, Jeff.

I didn't know that anyone in disc golf could be as repugnant as Nate Heinold but I've been proven wrong.

That's precisely what I called him out for in that slide deck

 

[Rastnav]

That's precisely what I called him out for in that slide deck

Let me start with a kind of caveat.

When I slow down and look at it from a devil's advocate point of view, I would hate to be in Jeff Spring's position. What I mean is that if I, as a trans ally who has two trans kids, was the CEO of DGPT it would feel like I was in a highly precarious position without good options. The desire of conservatives to make trans persons into pariahs that they can conveniently scapegoat, and their success in doing so, puts the found success of professional disc golf as a spectator sport at risk given Natalie's debut into the spotlight. As CEO of the tour, I would be responsible for, among other things, the lives and well being of many employees and the pro tour players. That's not just a professional responsibility, but a moral one. I would necessarily be trying to balance those with the same responsibilities regarding preventing the dehumanization and segregation of trans persons. It wouldn't be as simple as taking the proper moral stance on the inclusion of trans women.

Which means I'd be inclined to be somewhat sympathetic to Spring, and less inclined to yell obscenities at my speakers, if he could manage to actually put an ounce of spine behind his talk of being inclusive and loving.

Instead of saying mealy mouthed phrases like "People, on both sides, need to stop dehumanizing people they don't agree with," he could call out people like Allen and Hokom for continually misgendering and dehumanizing Natalie. If he could bring himself to say "Natalie is a woman and I fully support her playing in womens' divisions, the only question is whether the advantage of male puberty can be appropriately addressed to allow for equitable competition," I'd be more inclined to believe the kumbaya rhetoric.

He could say, "We owe it to Natalie to reach out to her and to be in dialogue. Just saying we accept her won't lead to her feeling accepted, nor is it true acceptance."

As it is, I do yell at my speakers, especially when he gets softball interview questions or when isn't pressed on his circular answers to even slightly difficult questions.

 

[Skamanda]

Let me start with a kind of caveat.

When I slow down and look at it from a devil's advocate point of view, I would hate to be in Jeff Spring's position. What I mean is that if I, as a trans ally who has two trans kids, was the CEO of DGPT it would feel like I was in a highly precarious position without good options. The desire of conservatives to make trans persons into pariahs that they can conveniently scapegoat, and their success in doing so, puts the found success of professional disc golf as a spectator sport at risk given Natalie's debut into the spotlight. As CEO of the tour, I would be responsible for, among other things, the lives and well being of many employees and the pro tour players. That's not just a professional responsibility, but a moral one. I would necessarily be trying to balance those with the same responsibilities regarding preventing the dehumanization and segregation of trans persons. It wouldn't be as simple as taking the proper moral stance on the inclusion of trans women.

Which means I'd be inclined to be somewhat sympathetic to Spring, and less inclined to yell obscenities at my speakers, if he could manage to actually put an ounce of spine behind his talk of being inclusive and loving.

Instead of saying mealy mouthed phrases like "People, on both sides, need to stop dehumanizing people they don't agree with," he could call out people like Allen and Hokom for continually misgendering and dehumanizing Natalie. If he could bring himself to say "Natalie is a woman and I fully support her playing in womens' divisions, the only question is whether the advantage of male puberty can be appropriately addressed to allow for equitable competition," I'd be more inclined to believe the kumbaya rhetoric.

He could say, "We owe it to Natalie to reach out to her and to be in dialogue. Just saying we accept her won't lead to her feeling accepted, nor is it true acceptance."

As it is, I do yell at my speakers, especially when he gets softball interview questions or when isn't pressed on his circular answers to even slightly difficult questions.

It's the trolley problem, writ large. The problem isn't whether or not to throw the switch, the problem is that someone tied people to the tracks, and sent the train in motion.

The PDGA used widely debunked science, and someone who has made a career out of blatant hate speech and lies, to justify their rule changes. They had every opportunity to use the actual best science, and educate people about it, but they didn't want to. They wanted trans women gone. Jeff Spring and Todd Rainwater absolutely had a part in that, so I have zero sympathy for the position the DGPT is in.

The moral responsibility would be abated if they'd just, as Nova says, stop doing discrimination. Education is the only thing that is going to end this mess.

 

[Sewer bill]

See when you use phrases like best science it reveals something that's quite anti scientific about it and something that's become quite prolific in these discussions and that's choosing what study to justify the desired results. It's disgusting that advocacy science has slipped out of worthless grant writing busy work circles of academia and into the mainstream.

They did this bullsh** with green energy with things like solar roads, wave generators and non recycleable lithium battery tech and now it's full bore into the biological sciences. At a detriment to us all.

Both sides of the argument do it and it's legitimately insufferable how neither advocate of each is willing to make realistic concessions of what is or is not.

 

[ChrisWoj]

See when you use phrases like best science it reveals something that's quite anti scientific about it and something that's become quite prolific in these discussions and that's choosing what study to justify the desired results. It's disgusting that advocacy science has slipped out of worthless grant writing busy work circles of academia and into the mainstream.

They did this bullsh** with green energy with things like solar roads, wave generators and non recycleable lithium battery tech and now it's full bore into the biological sciences. At a detriment to us all.

Both sides of the argument do it and it's legitimately insufferable how neither advocate of each is willing to make realistic concessions of what is or is not.

Are you implying that there are not best practices in science, and that decision making shouldn't be in some way beholden to studies who adhere to rigorous and evidence based methods versus those that ignore best practices, and play fast and loose with sampling and analysis?

 

[Skamanda]

See when you use phrases like best science it reveals something that's quite anti scientific about it and something that's become quite prolific in these discussions and that's choosing what study to justify the desired results. It's disgusting that advocacy science has slipped out of worthless grant writing busy work circles of academia and into the mainstream.

They did this bullsh** with green energy with things like solar roads, wave generators and non recycleable lithium battery tech and now it's full bore into the biological sciences. At a detriment to us all.

Both sides of the argument do it and it's legitimately insufferable how neither advocate of each is willing to make realistic concessions of what is or is not.

I agree there is bad science on both sides of the issue. The study I've been passing around is pretty solid, but like most things in trans science it's a meta analysis of past works. It goes to great lengths to ensure it's as accurate and valid as possible, since it's basically an anaylsis of the past analyses. It's only as good as the evidence at the time of its writing though.

On the other side, there is a lot more fudgery going on. The Hilton & Lundberg study that the PDGA used to justify their rules changes, for example, is particularly flawed. It has 3 pages in the appendix of the CCES study I recommend, just dedicated to what they did wrong, but the most egregious sins are not analyzing trans women at all (they were comparing cis men to cis women, and assuming they were reasonable analogues for trans women), and ignoring or throwing out data or results that contradicted their assumption that trans women have an advantage.

Good science doesn't make assumptions that widely off-base, and it especially doesn't do the latter. That's what cost Wakefield his license.

 

[Sewer bill]

Are you implying that there are not best practices in science, and that decision making shouldn't be in some way beholden to studies who adhere to rigorous and evidence based methods versus those that ignore best practices, and play fast and loose with sampling and analysis?

Yes. Repeatability and methodology have become variables that aren't as important as the desired results when they were supposed to be constants to verify the results independently. There's 5th grade science fair projects with better methodology than some of these studies. It's all typical these days money drives the desired results and not the process.

 

[ru4por]

See when you use phrases like best science it reveals something that's quite anti scientific about it and something that's become quite prolific in these discussions and that's choosing what study to justify the desired results. It's disgusting that advocacy science has slipped out of worthless grant writing busy work circles of academia and into the mainstream.

They did this bullsh** with green energy with things like solar roads, wave generators and non recycleable lithium battery tech and now it's full bore into the biological sciences. At a detriment to us all.

Both sides of the argument do it and it's legitimately insufferable how neither advocate of each is willing to make realistic concessions of what is or is not.

Intellect, education and critical thought are needed to interpret and understand science. Determining what is legit, well researched, data driven, peer reviewed science is not that difficult. Science is not a belief.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Yes. Repeatability and methodology have become variables that aren't as important as the desired results when they were supposed to be constants to verify the results independently. There's 5th grade science fair projects with better methodology than some of these studies. It's all typical these days money drives the desired results and not the process.

Well, its a good thing I'm heavily focused on the methodology when I look over these studies and come to my conclusions on the topic.

 

[Sewer bill]

Intellect, education and critical thought are needed to interpret and understand science. Determining what is legit, well researched, data driven, peer reviewed science is not that difficult. Science is not a belief.

The problem is there is actually a belligerent amount of peer reviewed work that is absolute junk and non repeatable. It happened in my industry for a highly praised proprietary new technology that had all sorts of independent labs backing and peer reviewed studies used to map underground infastructure assets and it ended up wasting tens of millions in tax dollars and thousands of hours of downtime and millions of gallons of sewage spilled. My industry is pretty niche, I am positive this is more pervasive in anything involving biology because they're pushing trillions instead of billions.