Laura Nagtegaal 2019 Amateur World Champion FA40

[DavidSauls]

Isn't that a bit like asking the PDGA's policy on suspension of play during an eclipse?

 

[DiscFifty]

But I guess you, instead, refer to mental well-being, which is indeed way too sensitive an area to even go there.

By far not just the mental aspect of it. I researched what the physical process is as well, this is not something you do on an impulse, hence my earlier comment.

 

[BrotherDave]

Trying to be sensitive here, but that particular person, I'm guessing, would have issues way more pressing in life than to worry about disc golf at that point.

Who doesn't? :| Look, I know I'm splitting hairs here, but we're already talking about like 2% of the gen pop so what's another hair splitting? I've seen folks on Twitter that purport to be detrans so I'm assuming they're out there.

If the person were to de-transition after surgery, they would remain eligible, unless they'd chemically add testosterone to their body.
If the person would de-transition by no longer taking testosterone blockers, the oerson would lose eligibility as soon as their testosterone levels, were above 10nmol/l again

Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere already but is there any policing of these testosterone levels or is it basically enforced as much as the disc stiffness or overweight rule? Basically not enforced unless a card mate protests? It's not likely that a trans player would let their hormone regiment lapse for a competitive advantage but if there's one thing I know about disc golfers, they're broke and/or cheap. I'm guessing these HRT meds aren't cheap and I can potentially see a player already having signed up for a tourney but falling on hard times and having to skip a round or two of meds maybe.

 

[Nova P]

I'm guessing these HRT meds aren't cheap and I can potentially see a player already having signed up for a tourney but falling on hard times and having to skip a round or two of meds maybe.

2mg generic estradiol once daily, which is a typical maintenance dose for transgender women without gonads, can be had for less than $15 a month, and even less with good discount pharmacies, insurance, 90-day supplies, mail-order refill discounts, etc. It's not free, but it's less than a monthly deluxe pizza.

 

[BrotherDave]

2mg generic estradiol once daily, which is a typical maintenance dose for transgender women without gonads, can be had for less than $15 a month, and even less with good discount pharmacies, insurance, 90-day supplies, mail-order refill discounts, etc. It's not free, but it's less than a monthly deluxe pizza.

That's out of pocket?

 

[Nova P]

That's out of pocket?

Right. I think it's closer to $30-ish a month without insurance, but good luck getting a firm figure on that in the US, right? (Nobody knows exactly how much anything costs until it's already been done, or is an emergency. . .)

 

[BrotherDave]

Right. I think it's closer to $30-ish a month without insurance, but good luck getting a firm figure on that in the US, right? (Nobody knows exactly how much anything costs until it's already been done, or is an emergency. . .)

That's still not too bad. Thanks.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Who doesn't? :| Look, I know I'm splitting hairs here, but we're already talking about like 2% of the gen pop so what's another hair splitting? I've seen folks on Twitter that purport to be detrans so I'm assuming they're out there.

Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere already but is there any policing of these testosterone levels or is it basically enforced as much as the disc stiffness or overweight rule? Basically not enforced unless a card mate protests? It's not likely that a trans player would let their hormone regiment lapse for a competitive advantage but if there's one thing I know about disc golfers, they're broke and/or cheap. I'm guessing these HRT meds aren't cheap and I can potentially see a player already having signed up for a tourney but falling on hard times and having to skip a round or two of meds maybe.

Blood works tests proving tesostereone needs to be below 10nmol/l is required before access to gender-protected divisions is granted.

It is almost a give that a transgender woman will want to upkeep their HRT regimen; as failing to do so will damage all they actually want most.
And what they want most will NOT be 'winning a disc golf event'.

Skipping testosterone blockers for a few days will NOT cause noticeable effects on the fairways, other than possibly a player becoming more irritable.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Right. I think it's closer to $30-ish a month without insurance, but good luck getting a firm figure on that in the US, right? (Nobody knows exactly how much anything costs until it's already been done, or is an emergency. . .)

In the US it might be out of pocket ; That is a result of the healthcare situation.
In almost all Western countries; HRT is covered by insurance, AND insurance is affordable (I pay 108eur/month on my basic premium (and get 96eur/month from the government, ie. I pay 12eur/month out of pocket for my health care.
I have yet to receive a bill (I will not) for my HRT, and I have had therapy , surgery , speech therapy, laser hair removal all covered by that same insurance.
Only durig the first days/weeks of the year, as I dont quite surpass my 350eur excess threshold, do I pay out of pocket.

 

[roblee]

Two of the most interesting statements I've read in this thread:

"... I pay 12eur/month out of pocket for my health care."

"... laser hair removal all covered by that same insurance."

Could you explain how your health care insurance premium rate is calculated?

Thanks for your candid input to this discussion.

 

[Darkgreen]

A lot of talk about muscle mass and testosterone levels but that is only part of the physical equation. Men and women have different shapes. Look at our hips. Also, proportionally men have longer arms than women. There are differences in how muscles are connected and differences in muscle tissue fibers. These are all differences that go down to the DNA level that don't go away with a change in hormones and these differences do give men a competitive advantage.

Should those facts matter to this discussion? I guess it depends on what you think are reasons for having separate divisions for females.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Two of the most interesting statements I've read in this thread:

Could you explain how your health care insurance premium rate is calculated?

Thanks for your candid input to this discussion.

Thank you for acknowledging my being candid. I have nothing to hide, and the more knowledge and first-hand experience I share, the more you (wider sense) can base your opinion on transgender people competing in gender-protected divisions based on something more than fear and accusations.
I am here to raise awareness and visibility, and hopefully that will result in more acceptance.

I pay about 108eur/month for my basic (mandatory) insurance premium.
Depending on each resident's income, the government provides a subsidy (in my case that is the max amount (96eur/month). That results in me going out of pocket 12eur/month on my basic health premium.
On top of that, I have some add-ons for another 40eur/month, like worldwide coverage, dental care, physiotherapy,

 

[gingerandhoney]

A lot of talk about muscle mass and testosterone levels but that is only part of the physical equation. Men and women have different shapes. Look at our hips. Also, proportionally men have longer arms than women. There are differences in how muscles are connected and differences in muscle tissue fibers. These are all differences that go down to the DNA level that don't go away with a change in hormones and these differences do give men a competitive advantage.

Should those facts matter to this discussion? I guess it depends on what you think are reasons for having separate divisions for females.

As long as you speak about "the average man" and "the average woman" your point would POSSIBLY hold true in a hypothetical comparison.
In individual cases, this most certainly DOES NOT.

I am - despite being tall (6'0") and skinny (160lb) - a bit more stocky build; due to my not having a feminine hip-to-waist ratio, and my thighs are big. I compensate my being stocky by having a low mucle mass, and an average fat mass.

My sister - she also plays - has already passed negative judgement on my arms' muscle tone/mass, stating I am too skinny for my frame since my transition, and that I should work on my arms.

I have mentioned this in the countless topics that were 'dedicated' to me, Paige Pierce and Val Jenkins are physiologically MUCH MORE different than Kerri French (she finished 2nd) and myself. Even Paige and Cat Allen are more different than Kerri and myself.

Kerri is slightly taller than I am, has broader shoulders, longer limbs, better muscle tone, and better athletic abilities than I do; she DOES have an athletic past. And on top of that, she's from a state where this kind of warm weather is normal; I constantly had to go out of my way to find shade and cooling, hydration, whereas she could simply carry on with her game. Perhaps, though, my having to focus on that, made me stay 'in the zone' more than I am used to, I recall visualising my shots prior to throwing them; something I have never done before....

Where and how I beat her is on my better in-circle putting (86% for the tournament for me), and having hit less trees than she had in our 'game-changing 4th round', I hit one tree, and that was a favourable kick, so I could still attack for birdie on most of my drives in the woods. Instead, she hit early trees on most of her wooded hole tee shots, giving her at best a par-look. Without that 15 hole swing in the 4th round, I'd most likely not have won the title.
And my rating was 883 (hers) 864 at tournament start; now we are 888 and 870.
I simply was the slightly better player than she was. At our ratings, I was expected to win by 15-16 strokes.

Her drives (and fairway shots) are on par with mine (typically we'd land within 15ft of each other on no-tree-hit drives, alternating longest-drive often). Her RHBH form is actually better and smoother than my LHBH form.
In my advantage, there were more LHBH favourable holes during the hole tournament than RHBH ones. And in the case we has to play unfavourable holes, I did actually have a side-arm in my bag, she didn't.
Both Kerri and I had a huge advantage over the rest of the field, because we could shoot 300-320ft drives, whereas the rest of the field would shoot about 250ft.
Many holes on the courses we played favoured 300ft drives/fairway shots; typically giving us a 1 stroke advantage over the rest of the field.

Especially when looking at the one event I played in FPO with a competitive field, you can see how incredibly true-to-rating I am. I started as 6th, and finished at 6th, within 1 stroke of where I was expected to finish.
The other 5 events I played in FPO were far from useful in any comparison, due to the huge disconnect in ratings between players. It should not be a surprise that I beat a player who is 140 rating points behind me.
I am simply that, an 888-rated female disc golfer.
It is likely I will beat an 870 rated player, as much as it is likely I will be beat by a 906-rated player.
If I had "male advantage", I'd be expected to also beat that 906-rated player consistently. And no matter how much I'd love for me to be able to consistently beat that 906-rated player, that just isn't going to happen.

 

[Darkgreen]

As long as you speak about "the average man" and "the average woman" your point would POSSIBLY hold true in a hypothetical comparison.
In individual cases, this most certainly DOES NOT.

These things are not hypothetical. They are facts.

As far as I know, the reasons for gender restricted divisions are not based off of individual cases. They are based off of the competitive advantage that men have over women on the average.

 

[gingerandhoney]

The discussion on male advantage is based on the notion that testosterone is the operative chemical is establishing or diminishing male advantage. The IOC being the leading authority sports worldwide acknowledges that in its guidelines, and has done so since 2003. This guideline has been established by the IOC's Medical Committee, following years and years of research. Pretty much all other sports organisations follow the IOC guidelines; and some (like the IAAF, even if only on 3 of their 30+ events) use stricter regulations, but they too, base their guidelines off of testosterone levels.

 

[SheJingPingCan'tPutt]

The discussion IS also based on physical differences between men and women as it was just brought up again. The discussion is not defined only by IOC, people who chose to transition, people close to those who chose to transition, or what the forum moderators will allow (at least not outside of a forum). The fact is in forums activist moderators certainly can and do define discussions using stealthy deletions. Hopefully that won't be the outcome here. As for the IOC being the leading authority, there are many many doctors and researchers that don't agree with IOCs medical committee. The problem often with committees like this is they can easily be staffed with advocates to produce a desired outcome. I'm not saying that certainly was the case here, I haven't been able to ask members of that committee any of the many questions that I have for them. But the fact that this IOC committee guideline, as has been pointed out, is the single guideline that pretty much all other sports organizations follow, isn't enough to convince me anything is settled on the discussion.

 

[gingerandhoney]

I am not stating the discussion doesn't, or shouldn't, exist.
I am stating that as far as the authorative organisations with regards to athletes in sports, state that testosterone is THE operative word.
The IOC have done years and years of research, and have updated their original 2003 guideline in 2015.
I am not pretending this is the final version. I am, however, of the opinion that the IOC will update their guideline once again if there is enough irrefutable proof and/or new evidence available. The IOC have no interest in upkeeping an 'unfair' situation if they know it is unfair.

The big difference lies in "what you think is unfair" is not necessarily "what the authorative organisation thinks is unfair"; that much is clear.
I have been called everything from "not a man" to "it" and "cheating" and "selfish", and other things that are PG/18+ rated, in posts that clearly state people find it unfair.

I CAN see your "advocates to produce a desired outcome", but then let me turn the question on you.. WHY would the IOC want to produce this outcome? I really can't find a logical and plausible answer to that question.

The fact that YOU (and the countless other haters) don't agree with the outcome, is your prerogative. That, however, doesn't make the guideline any less valuable or leading.

 

[SheJingPingCan'tPutt]

I am not stating the discussion doesn't, or shouldn't, exist.
I am stating that as far as the authorative organisations with regards to athletes in sports, state that testosterone is THE operative word.
The IOC have done years and years of research, and have updated their original 2003 guideline in 2015.
I am not pretending this is the final version. I am, however, of the opinion that the IOC will update their guideline once again if there is enough irrefutable proof and/or new evidence available. The IOC have no interest in upkeeping an 'unfair' situation if they know it is unfair.

The big difference lies in "what you think is unfair" is not necessarily "what the authorative organisation thinks is unfair"; that much is clear.
I have been called everything from "not a man" to "it" and "cheating" and "selfish", and other things that are PG/18+ rated, in posts that clearly state people find it unfair.

I CAN see your "advocates to produce a desired outcome", but then let me turn the question on you.. WHY would the IOC want to produce this outcome? I really can't find a logical and plausible answer to that question.

The fact that YOU (and the countless other haters) don't agree with the outcome, is your prerogative. That, however, doesn't make the guideline any less valuable or leading.

Maybe the IOC succumbed to pressure when they were immediately called haters for asking questions during discussions?

 

[Darkgreen]

"The IOC have no interest in upkeeping an 'unfair' situation if they know it is unfair."

Who the heck knows what the interest of the IOC is? It is a terribly corrupt organization. I hope that disc golf never becomes an olympic sport as I don't want the sport I love to be tainted by the association. I'm sure many fine people work for the IOC, but until that organization can get cleaned up I don't think they should be viewed as an "authorative organization" on anything.

The IOC can ignore things beyond testosterone levels that give men an advantage over women. Just because they ignore those things doesn't mean that those things don't exist. Men have proportionally longer arms which are longer levers which gives them a mechanical advantage in things like throwing discs.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Maybe the IOC succumbed to pressure when they were immediately called haters for asking questions during discussions?

That's too easy. And is based too much on your assumption that the IOC would be an organisation that succumbs to pressure.
Pressure by whom? How many of them?