I'm aware, and also of the situation as a whole in society. Again that isn't happening here.
I still object to what she said, and it was wise for her to take down that post. People need to be accountable for their words.
-
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
- Thread starter denny ritner
- Start date
- Status
I'm aware, and also of the situation as a whole in society. Again that isn't happening here.
I still object to what she said, and it was wise for her to take down that post. People need to be accountable for their words.
Satan can quote scripture for his purpose.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
Still waiting on someone to tell me at what point is the line drawn for biological males to compete against biological females when there are separate divisions for a reason in sporting events?
(Cue the calls of bigotry, transphobia, intolerance etc)
(Cue the calls of bigotry, transphobia, intolerance etc)
The categorizations are pejorative. "Biology" involves more than reproductive organs.
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
Allow me to answer your question in 3 ways, so you can choose the right one depending on your attention span:
First, the gold standard for studies on this is currently one published by CCES, the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport: https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/f...esandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf
If you want detailed information on the fairness of it, there is currently no better source.
If that's too dense and dry for you, I wrote an article that covers it in the section on the science, where I try to make the important bits more accessible: https://throwproud.com/pdga-gender/
If that's still too long for you, here's the most relevant quote:
"There is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression. While an advantage in terms of Lean Body Mass (LBM), Cross Section Area (CSA) and strength may persist statistically after 12 months, there is no evidence that this translates to any performance advantage as compared to elite cis-women athletes of similar size and height. This is contrasted with other changes, such as hemoglobin (HG), which normalize within the cis women range within four months of starting testosterone suppression. For pre-suppression trans women it is currently unknown when during the first 12 months of suppression that any advantage may persist. The duration of any such advantage is likely highly dependent on the individual's pre-suppression LBM which, in turn varies, greatly and is highly impacted by societal factors and individual circumstance."
But using terms like "biological males", you're not concerned with fairness - you're here to express your disdain for trans women. If you were here to talk about the fairness of trans women competing, you would call us what we are: trans women. If you're consistently getting called a transphobe and a bigot, it's because you're using hate speech when you talk about us. If that's a problem for you, change the way you speak; don't get mad that what you say has negative connotations.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
"You're a bigot because you don't agree with me"
Good legit argument… You can claim to be whatever you want and I have no qualms with that other than the fact that science does not support that claim… XX and XY and the random and extremely rare cases of having an extra or two x or Y chromosomes…
So let me ask you this, where do you draw the line at people claiming to be one thing and not the other? Would you be okay with someone reaping benefits claiming to be a disenfranchised race/ethnicity when they are not that but identify as that?
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/
https://answersresearchjournal.org/...xt=In each human cell, there,) and female (XX).
https://www.sexualdiversity.org/edu/1111.php
(My head is spinning from all the hilariousness of this article)
At present this "line" is a highway wide grey area that is negotiated by lawyers and courts on a case by case basis.
Within the next 1-3 years the SC will clarify and all private athletic organizations will be allowed to define the line as they believe is fair for their particular sport. These rules will likely vary by sport.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
You should learn to vet your sources.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...s-has-ties-to-christian-education-foundation/
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
You are using literal hate speech. That is why you are being treated like a bigot. People are allowed to disagree with me, but how you disagree is incredibly important. I've had hundreds of hours of debate and discourse about this with people who disagreed with me (many of whom agree with me now), and not called most of them bigots or transphobes.
Your angry attitude, use of hate speech, and doubling down with your own victim complex over people calling you what you present yourself as, is quite different from any of those people - and I will not pretend you deserve to be coddled into behaving like a respectful adult.
The fact that you linked to right wing hate groups as a source to back you up, and that your next recourse when your point was toppled was to dive down the same slippery slope fallacy as the people who say things like, "well I identify as an attack helicopter!", or the ones who said gay marriage would result in people marrying animals or babies, only serves to further illustrate that you have no interest in having this discussion in good faith.
The TRUTH is that science DOES support the fact that I am not a man, despite your revulsion at the thought of accepting that.
My brain has detectable differences from a cisgender male, in that several structures (and how they activate) more closely resemble those of a cisgender woman, than a man.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
That has since been confirmed by supplementary research:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
You're just parroting the same right wing talking points that are used by the people who say transgender people need to be eradicated from public life. If you had any desire to have an equitable conversation about this, you'd have talking points that were deeper than a puddle.
Last edited:
Vonbeezy1
Banned
What exactly am I vetting here? And what does CRT have to do with a transgender athlete breaking records?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...initely-controversy-victory-female-event.html
LoL, quote MLK or Gandhi on DGCR and you're compared to Satan. Perfectly twisted for this twisted forum.
Guess I'll just have to quote Jesus to quicken my descent to the fiery pit of DGCR, I mean Hell.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:3.
Guess I'll be burning with Natalie and the DGPT and PDGA soon.
I appreciate that you reference a legitimate study. There are significant flaws to your analysis, however.
At this point the research is the equivalent of dipping a big toe into a swimming pool. We need a much larger portion of the body of knowledge.
There have been ZERO studies on the extent to which mtf transitioning impacts disc golf performance. All we have is a handful of anecdotal accounts.
The foundational question put forth by trans-advocates is backwards. The burden of proof needs to be on trans-women to show that they do NOT violate fairness in sport, rather than for women to show that trans-women DO violate fairness in sport.
Of course there needs to be an allowable margin for error. How we quantify and where we draw the line will be negotiated and tweaked over time. The SC WILL grant competitive athletic organizations the right to determine these things for themselves.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
Don't lump me in a category with right wing nut jobs… just because I don't agree (and scientific evidence shows that transgender athletes have an advantage) doesn't mean I'm right wing. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a democrat, I don't even vote. I have posted numerous articles with research that show transgender athletes certainly have some advantage. And because I don't agree with you, you make claims I'm a bigot and post hate speech. What did I post that makes me a bigot? Which part is hate speech? I have no qualms with people claiming to be the opposite sex. I will respect that but I draw the line at claiming there is no biological advantage when people born as male compete against people born as female.
One other question I would like answered is this…
"Would you be okay with someone who has not transitioned or taken any suppressants compete against the opposite sex?"
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
You're not vetting anything - that much is obvious.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
Even being a ridiculous tabloid, the Daily Mail gets two things right in their article, which you didn't bother to read or you probably wouldn't have used it....
She won against a field of only one other woman
And that one other woman begged her to come back to racing against her, when she backed away from competing due to the hate she was receiving.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
Once again, are you disputing the facts that this individual broke several records held by a biological woman?
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
I was clear in my wording that the CCES study is the best we have SO FAR. It is, like all other modern science on the subject, a meta analysis of other research. I'm building a data set from trans disc golfers, specifically to see how their distance has changed through transition (both for estrogen and testosterone HRT), and I'm trying to reach the lab at the University of Waterloo that did measurements on Thoma Gilbert's throwing form, to see if we can build a specifically relevant data set. These things take time, and I've only been working at this since February - and as an unpaid, unfunded passion project, at that.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Since the results of competition don't support the assertion that trans women have an unfair advantage, proof needs to be supplied that we do, not that we don't. We are providing endless proof regardless, only to have the goal posts moved every time we counter the current points.
This week, the talking points of the anti-trans contingent have switched from the supposed physical prowice of trans women, to the fact that trans women don't have periods - which, much like their assertion of our dominance being turned on it's head by results and, well...Kristin Tattar, is also contradicted by the many reasons cisgender women may have no menstrual cycle or period, but are not seen as unfair competitors.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
You repeatedly use the term "biological male" to refer to trans women. That. Is. Hate. Speech. Full. Stop. That is the ONLY context it is used. There is ZERO use of the terms "biological male" and "biological female", that is not rooted in dehumanizing trans people, in the current climate.
You're a centrist, I get it, but you're using the far right to support your views. You will be judged by the company you keep, and whether or not you call them out for their failings.
As to your question at the end there?
No, I would not be okay with a trans feminine person who has not suppressed their testosterone competing in a protected divison. I have had heated arguments with two different trans women who ether thought self identification should be sufficient for competition, or thought providing proof of compliance with fair standards for hormone levels over time (and thus the muscular atrophy and composition changes that take a while to complete) were beneath them. One of them is no longer a part of my organization because of it.
Testosterone suppression over a period of 24 months, to levels within the range of cisgender women brings a trans woman's strength into parity with their peers. THAT is what makes inclusion in competition fair. Even though I'd transitioned many years longer than that when I came back to competitive disc golf, I still played my first event back in MA3, because I knew I didn't have the documentation available (it takes a surprisingly long time to get Quest to provide you multiple years of test results) to formally be reclassified for play in the protected divisons. The TD of that event would've let me play in FA1, and offered to do so, but I can't take a solid stance as someone trying to fix the rules, if I just break them willy nilly - even knowing I was in compliance with the testosterone levels required.
I perfectly twisted misreading of my post.
The proper interpretation of "Satan can quote scripture..." is not to equate someone to Satan. It's to say you can mislead with an accurate quote. A Democrat can quote Reagan for his own purposes would have the same meaning. Or A flat-Earther can quote a scientist..."
- Status
