PDGA Board of Director Elections

[Nova P]

It is physically impossible to transition from one sex to the other, regardless of medication or surgeries performed.

This statement exists in a state of tension with what lay people refer to as "reality." As such, it would be reckless for serious people to accommodate it when making decisions that affect reality.

Edit: I picked up a warning for calling someone "delusional" this morning, so I hope this kinder wording of my response to an utterly inhumane and dangerous statement of callous disregard for the reality of the existence of transgender people and the disregard for the well-being of transgender people is civil enough not to ruffle any delicate feels.

 

[roblee]

Seeking some consistency of terms. I've learned that a persons sex is determined by a particular pair of chromosomes we inherit from our parents. These chromosomes are in virtually every cell in our body. I'm not aware of a circumstance where this pair of chromosomes ever changes after fertilization. Maybe that is what Brother Dave is referencing?

 

[txmxer]

Your response to this:

And of course, the existence of both intersex and trans persons is incontrovertible.

is

This isn't incontrovertible at all.

Followed by this:

Intersex people exist, yes…

Then there is this assertion

Actual intersex people are so few that statistically they are insignificant as far as any major policy-making (non-medical) should be concerned.

Evidence? And an explanation as to why you are willing to dismiss individuals as irrelevant.

The scientific basis for "trans people" is far from settled science and much of what is being touted as "science" is scandalously unacademic "research" that is bankrolled by pharmaceutical companies and others with nefarious agendas.

I'll agree that we don't know nearly everything there is to know about "trans people". The rest is more unproven assertions. Please provide evidence of the scandalously unacademic "research" being bankrolled by big pharma and others with "nefarious agendas". Also, provide a definition of "nefarious agendas".

However, whether "trans people" are scientifically proven or not, how a person "feels" inside is irrelevant to their biological reality. It is physically impossible to transition from one sex to the other, regardless of medication or surgeries performed. This is an immutable condition

Link provided above to 46XY mother of two. And you can rattle on about how this is an anomaly, it's not the natural order of things…blah, blah, blah. Human beings are all genetic anomalies. We are continually evolving and mutations occur.
My point is this is about people. Individuals. They exist. They didn't ask to be unique as none of us have control or get to choose their sex nor their gender (two different things). But you think they should only be allowed to exist as something less than equal. They are inferior.
The whole fairness debate is a red herring because nobody wants to open that can of worms beyond the minimal and incorrect binary statement that people are either XX or XY. You admit that neither sex nor gender are binary, then say those individuals don't matter.

 

[txmxer]

Seeking some consistency of terms. I've learned that a persons sex is determined by a particular pair of chromosomes we inherit from our parents. These chromosomes are in virtually every cell in our body. I'm not aware of a circumstance where this pair of chromosomes ever changes after fertilization. Maybe that is what Brother Dave is referencing?

In other species it is possible for animals to spontaneously change their sex. That's not just a line from Jurassic Park.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Lot more in the article, but this is somewhat relevant.

According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. "That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally," says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.

Now they are discussing mice, but it goes to the concept of biology is complex. The simple binary way of looking at this issue is a social construct and nothing more.

As far as humans go, humans generally exist as a spectrum in virtually every way. That makes some people uncomfortable. Rather than accepting the uncomfortable they lash out at others to satisfy their own insecurities.

 

[DavidSauls]

Human beings are all genetic anomalies. .

Perhaps the best line in this entire thread.

I always believed the simple XX / XY story, and was surprised to learn of all the variations and inconsistencies that occur. But I probably shouldn't be, considering how complex the entire mechanism is.

 

[Arisugawa]

Perhaps the best line in this entire thread.

I always believed the simple XX / XY story, and was surprised to learn of all the variations and inconsistencies that occur. But I probably shouldn't be, considering how complex the entire mechanism is.

I agree.

For most of us, this was something taught to us in middle school science and if one never bothers to look further into biology, this is a misconception that endures well into adulthood. Similar to historical shorthand, like the assumption that the American Civil War ended when the Army of Virginia surrendered to Grant at Appomattox when in reality it actually raged on for quite some time in other areas of the country.

This is one of the reasons I use the expression nature doesn't make cookie-cutter people. This is true, even chromosomally. The further one digs into the mess that is our biology, the more one begins to see the fallacy that is gender and sex as things that are immutable, determined, or destined.

For example, This. We're learning more and more about this kind of condition every day.

There is a terrible misconception that being transgender is something these men and women choose, as though it is profession or which side they prefer with dinner. And the more we dig into it, the more we find, at least by the current available evidence, that when they tell us that their biology is telling them what their physical sex is supposed to be, they aren't suffering a delusion or engaging a fantasy. The parts of the brain responsible for identity very much are telling them this.

And it's difficult for cisgender people to wrap our heads around it. Because that isn't how we see ourselves. We don't have that incongruence. So the way we typically rationalize it is this something they feel in some poetic way that has no basis in biology. And that's apparently not the case at all, at least by the evidence we have.

But that evidence complicates the simple XX or XY framework we grow up not questioning, and as a people, we tend to discard it and fall back on what is familiar and uncomplicated.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yeah, that, and the fact that our brains like to look for patterns, and it's easy for them to sort out the world into Men and Women. There's a lot of re-enforcement for that, not just societal, but just the sheer number of examples we see.

I was in that camp until about 5 years ago, when I came across the actual science. Including things like your link on brains.

 

[Hampstead]

In other species it is possible for animals to spontaneously change their sex. That's not just a line from Jurassic Park.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Lot more in the article, but this is somewhat relevant.



Now they are discussing mice, but it goes to the concept of biology is complex. The simple binary way of looking at this issue is a social construct and nothing more.

As far as humans go, humans generally exist as a spectrum in virtually every way. That makes some people uncomfortable. Rather than accepting the uncomfortable they lash out at others to satisfy their own insecurities.

Common for some fish to naturally change sex

Some species exhibit sequential hermaphroditism. In these species, such as many species of coral reef fishes, sex change is a normal anatomical process.[1] Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies[2] and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.[3] In the wrasses (the family Labridae), sex change is from female to male, with the largest female of the harem changing into a male and taking over the harem upon the disappearance of the previous dominant male.

 

[foxdawg10]

Perhaps the best line in this entire thread.

I always believed the simple XX / XY story, and was surprised to learn of all the variations and inconsistencies that occur. But I probably shouldn't be, considering how complex the entire mechanism is.

Statistical definition of anomaly: Anomalies are instances or collections of data that occur very rarely in the data set and whose features differ significantly from most of the data.


I believe we are all different, but not necessarily anomalies. Anomaly refers to being significantly different from a standard or a norm. Being different doesn't doesn't necessarily mean being an anomaly, although anomalies do exist. This definition seems to say that the difference has to be significant enough to differ from most data. So to say we are ALL anomalies isn't true, I don't believe.

 

[txmxer]

Statistical definition of anomaly: Anomalies are instances or collections of data that occur very rarely in the data set and whose features differ significantly from most of the data.


I believe we are all different, but not necessarily anomalies. Anomaly refers to being significantly different from a standard or a norm. Being different doesn't doesn't necessarily mean being an anomaly, although anomalies do exist. This definition seems to say that the difference has to be significant enough to differ from most data. So to say we are ALL anomalies isn't true, I don't believe.

I was speaking in more of a universal manner. Evolution is based on mutation or anomaly. All living things are culmination of beneficial mutations or anomalies. We owe existence to anomalies.

Now when we pull that back down to this moment, you find anomalies within the gene pool--a completely natural process.

I'm open to correction if what I'm saying is wrong.

 

[foxdawg10]

I was speaking in more of a universal manner. Evolution is based on mutation or anomaly. All living things are culmination of beneficial mutations or anomalies. We owe existence to anomalies.

Now when we pull that back down to this moment, you find anomalies within the gene pool--a completely natural process.

I'm open to correction if what I'm saying is wrong.

I think it is a matter of definition and interpretation of words, and I can definitely see your point. But I think maybe there is a different word that can be used, since anomaly can be synonymous with abnormality (such as Down's syndrome, etc.) But I can see that wasn't your intent, and can agree to a point. Although I believe the process is longer and more stretched out over time.

 

[DanJon]

Sorry BroD.

I guess my comments on your signature are only somewhat related.

As in, if you can proudly support that line of thinking and advertise it in public, then I'm not sure you can be seen as a rational voice in this discussion.

 

[Hampstead]

One thing to keep in mind. BroD is a fairly intelligent and angry troll who is disappointed with his lot in life so he lashes out in all directions.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

There are two things I want to see changed, now that tens of thousands of people join the PDGA every (few?) months and pour cash into the organization like never before.

(1) Signing up for tournaments should go by rating first. How much would it cost to pay a computer programmer to make this happen? I have no idea, but it seems likely that all those membership dues coming in should be able to cover this. I plead ignorance on the cost of such a thing so forgive me if I'm way off here. But something needs to be done.

When I signed my then 12-year-old for MJ-15 worlds, I was shocked, flabbergasted by the damned thing filling up in about 90 seconds and several big names (such as Uriyah Kelley) not getting in. It's awful, and from what I understand, this has been going on for some time and the prevailing attitude seems to be, "Oh well."

Seriously. Start with everybody over 900 getting first dibs in MJ-15. (And whatever is deemed a good cutoff for a specific division). Any spots left go to those who aren't there yet and plan to attend the event for the experience (like my kid who will be one of the youngest in MJ-15 and is playing like 890 golf right now, obviously not going to contend for the championship but is a great kid player and deserves to be there if spots are open).

Now nobody can say, "This really isn't a world championship." There were a few 1000+ rated kids in MJ-18 who didn't get in because they were in the second minute instead of the first minute. I can't really argue with that line of thinking. They should call it "The Very Large Juniors Gathering" this year instead of "world championship" if some of your best players aren't there because their parents weren't lightning quick enough on the computer.

(2) Also as mentioned elsewhere, especially by Biscoe if memory serves, is that all player statistics should be visible to everybody, right now, no excuses. I've always thought it was a crock I couldn't look up all of Al Schack's results in one easy list from the 1990's because he's not current anymore. It's so dumb.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think it is a matter of definition and interpretation of words, and I can definitely see your point. But I think maybe there is a different word that can be used, since anomaly can be synonymous with abnormality (such as Down's syndrome, etc.) But I can see that wasn't your intent, and can agree to a point. Although I believe the process is longer and more stretched out over time.

Yes. I took it as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek phrasing of how varied we are, resulting from the unique combinations and interactions of our genes.

 

[DavidSauls]

There are two things I want to see changed, now that tens of thousands of people join the PDGA every (few?) months and pour cash into the organization like never before.

(1) Signing up for tournaments should go by rating first. How much would it cost to pay a computer programmer to make this happen? I have no idea, but it seems likely that all those membership dues coming in should be able to cover this. I plead ignorance on the cost of such a thing so forgive me if I'm way off here. But something needs to be done.

When I signed my then 12-year-old for MJ-15 worlds, I was shocked, flabbergasted by the damned thing filling up in about 90 seconds and several big names (such as Uriyah Kelley) not getting in. It's awful, and from what I understand, this has been going on for some time and the prevailing attitude seems to be, "Oh well."

Seriously. Start with everybody over 900 getting first dibs in MJ-15. (And whatever is deemed a good cutoff for a specific division). Any spots left go to those who aren't there yet and plan to attend the event for the experience (like my kid who will be one of the youngest in MJ-15 and is playing like 890 golf right now, obviously not going to contend for the championship but is a great kid player and deserves to be there if spots are open).

Now nobody can say, "This really isn't a world championship." There were a few 1000+ rated kids in MJ-18 who didn't get in because they were in the second minute instead of the first minute. I can't really argue with that line of thinking. They should call it "The Very Large Juniors Gathering" this year instead of "world championship" if some of your best players aren't there because their parents weren't lightning quick enough on the computer.

(2) Also as mentioned elsewhere, especially by Biscoe if memory serves, is that all player statistics should be visible to everybody, right now, no excuses. I've always thought it was a crock I couldn't look up all of Al Schack's results in one easy list from the 1990's because he's not current anymore. It's so dumb.

Is that for World Championships, or all tournaments?

Personally, I think the "first come" registration rule is one whose time has passed. It made sense when there were few tournaments, to prevent players from being left out at a TD's whims. Now, at least around here, there are so many tournaments that players have options, and who-can-type-fastest strikes me as a poor criteria for tournament entry.

 

[txmxer]

I would support saving slots for top Ams at worlds. There should be an invite system that insures a right of first refusal.

Same goes for DGPT pro events.

 

[Rastnav]

Ideally, tournaments should have a preregistration period. Once the pre-registration period is over, then available tournament slots are filled based on whatever system makes sense for that tournament. For most tournaments that would be a lottery/random choice among entrants, but for some it could be ratings, points, etc.

A TD might also choose to have certain preferences within that system. For example, a minimum number of slots for particular tiers, depending on the emphasis of the tournament. That prevents less serious participants, say in rec, who don't currently go after registration super hard, eat up all of the slots thus preventing open and a1 participation.

You might also choose to prefer that if someone gets in for a tier, that at least one other person does for the same tier (if available).

The payment method should be pre-validated and charged as the lottery is held, to prevent people from gumming up the works by then failing to pay.

 

[ThrowBot]

Also as mentioned elsewhere, especially by Biscoe if memory serves, is that all player statistics should be visible to everybody, right now, no excuses. I've always thought it was a crock I couldn't look up all of Al Schack's results in one easy list from the 1990's because he's not current anymore. It's so dumb.

This travesty is, sadly, not shocking. The entire PDGA is predicated on shaking us down a for few dozen dollars in membership fee every year. So it's unsurprising that individual stats are held hostage until one ponies up the cash.

It's the same as the Board election structure. You have to pay to be an Active Member of the organization in order to vote for the Board. Then you get to see who makes it onto the Board, and what they do with the organization... that you've already paid to be a member of.

The cart is squarely ahead of the horse.

 

[DavidSauls]

With all due respect, having non-members participate in governing a membership organization would be a cart-leading-the-horse arrangement.

If it's not important enough to someone to be a member, why should they have a say in running the organization?

Perhaps there are other private membership organizations that operate that way -- but I can't recall ever being in one, or outside one with a vote in its governance.