Pdga has finally announced new rules on transgender competition

[moorent]

I can explain the concept, but I cannot make people understand.

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

Are you saying that you are unreasonably attached to the belief that people with differing opinions to your own must be bigots?



Concerning the topic, I am most fascinated by how the FPO responses aren't nearly as supportive as posters on this forum (and many others) claimed them to be. I wonder why they would be reluctant to speak freely on the subject?

 

[Skamanda]

Are you saying that you are unreasonably attached to the belief that people with differing opinions to your own must be bigots?

Way to ignore the second half of the definition. Protip: it's the important part.

Concerning the topic, I am most fascinated by how the FPO responses aren't nearly as supportive as posters on this forum (and many others) claimed them to be. I wonder why they would be reluctant to speak freely on the subject?

There has only been one FPO player that has been open about her stance against inclusion - Catrina Allen. There were rumors of more, and in one of Paige Pierce's Patreon Zoom calls I asked her about it. She said a group of players in FPO had come to her with a petition or something to sign, speaking out against inclusion - but that they'd excluded her from the discussion (if I had to venture a guess, it's probably because of her support for Chloe Alice early this year), and so they just wanted her signature. She didn't know how many there were involved with it though.

The prevailing theory (hinted at by posts from "unnamed" FPO players) is, the reason they remain quiet is they know their stance is hateful, and they didn't want their sponsors dropping them for supporting discrimination.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

Damn, can I get side action on post #42? I think I aimed too low. I was going to come in here and get myself banned but I procrastinated too long.

Beer doesn't open itself. And pot pie doesn't just Hop in the nuker

 

[ru4por]

Are you saying that you are unreasonably attached to the belief that people with differing opinions to your own must be bigots?

I can explain the concept, but I cannot make people understand.

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

I specifically provided YOU with a caveat. :doh:

 

[Skamanda]

An interesting side note that's been brought up on Reddit, about the survey respondents:

75 respondents claimed to be "DGPT women" but only 63 players participated in 3+ DGPT events last year (FPO).

It is dangerous to let people self-report things that are important factors in categorizing their responses to a survey used for scientific or regulatory purposes. How many of the "women" were self-reporting that, but actually men?

 

[Retrogamer]

So, if people think there are no advantages for transgenders over women, well then just take out the MPO and FPO divisions and everybody will compete in the same division. Problem solved!
I haven't followed the latest "studies", but maybe age is also a social construct, so maybe no more need for age divisions either.
100% inclusion, no more bigotry, everybody happy!

Do not hesitate, if you still have a problem, I am here for you

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Damn, can I get side action on post #42? I think I aimed too low. I was going to come in here and get myself banned but I procrastinated too long.

Beer doesn't open itself. And pot pie doesn't just Hop in the nuker

Actually impressed that there are so few replies here. And for the most part people have been relatively civil about it.

Friggen opcorn: is ice cold now......

 

[Shallows]

FPO field after Natalie wins event: "we are so proud of you, congratulations, this is huge!"

The apparent majority of touring FPO field (and the rest of the pdga membership… sad) behind a keyboard: "oh yeah, not proud of you, you don't deserve to do what you love [as a profession] as the person you are. Good luck in life. Not."

So if she doesn't get the win this year, we don't make it to now, right?

You may be frustrated that women often negotiate conflict through anonymity and cliques, rigorously policing in group/out group status behind a veil of politeness, but once one spends more time with women or raises a daughter through middle school, it will at least no longer surprise you.

 

[DavidSauls]

You may be frustrated that women often negotiate conflict through anonymity and cliques, rigorously policing in group/out group status behind a veil of politeness, but once one spends more time with women or raises a daughter through middle school, it will at least no longer surprise you.

Or people in general.

No surprise that people may choose civility over conflict -- I do it when around people whose politics or social behavior or disc selection I disagree with.

 

[deadbody]

Seems like the PDGA may need to add MA5 (800>), MA6 (750>) and even MA7 (700>) divisions to meet their stated goal of inclusiveness and also competitive fairness. Otherwise, what "fair" division do transgender women (and also men below 800 rating) enter who don't or haven't yet met the PDGA criteria for certain F divisions?

It's not yet clear how a new player presenting as female at their first and subsequent PDGA events will be discovered by TDs as transgender (if they don't self-declare) to where they need to submit proof they qualify for F division(s) they are entering.

Chuck, based on this survey and results, why would you think a trans person would have any desire to play in a tournament. Its clear from the survey responses that at least a majority of the players don't want them to be there.

Thats inclusive right? Kicking out the people we don't like so we can include more like minded folks?

As the parent to a trans kid my heart is breaking right now for all the women who are no longer able to participate at the level they choose for our sport due to lack of care at an early age.

Haven't been a PDGA member for a while, but this will remove it from me ever renewing, and I'm also going to unfollow Jomez and the like. Because they have the power to push change in a public manner that we as just players do not.

 

[Streets]

Well this ****ing sucks. I guess I can add another reason to my list of reasons to not renew my PDGA membership. Will also unsubscribe from most of the disc golf media I follow.

 

[Skamanda]

So, if people think there are no advantages for transgenders over women, well then just take out the MPO and FPO divisions and everybody will compete in the same division. Problem solved!
I haven't followed the latest "studies", but maybe age is also a social construct, so maybe no more need for age divisions either.
100% inclusion, no more bigotry, everybody happy!

Do not hesitate, if you still have a problem, I am here for you

Wow. A troll. Who knew they'd show up to this party? I am Jack's total lack of surprise...

Lest anyone think this conflagration of logical fallacies in comment from has any merit, allow me to address it.

Wait, for that I need coffee first. BRB.

Ok, back. No way was I deliberately feeding a troll, while nursing a hangover.

The reason there are no advantages in disc golf to transgender women (protip, if you don't want transphobic trolling to be immediately called out, try not using the blatant slur form of the word, and calling us "transgenders", while ignoring that trans men and trans women have two different sets of circumstances), is because after transitioning we have the same effective power output that cis women do.

The same is not true of cis men, who have not transitioned. This is why relegating us to the mixed divisons is a guarantee that none of us will ever cash, ever. Since no one anywhere other than trolls is suggesting that cis men be allowed to compete in the same division as cis women (who would suffer the same fate), it's a moot, and ridiculous point to argue.

Adding age into it is almost as over the top as making statements about people who identify as attack helicopters.

In other words: your bigotry is showing, and it's neither sly, nor interesting. Kindly move on.

 

[Skamanda]

Actually impressed that there are so few replies here. And for the most part people have been relatively civil about it.

Friggen opcorn: is ice cold now......

We've only had one actual troll, so far. The thread is new. Give it some time.

 

[Skamanda]

because after transitioning we have the same effective power output that cis women do.

Whoops! Post threshold hangover edit...

The same effective power output that cis women do for the purposes of disc golf

 

[seedlings]

Policy reads like the testosterone level was the primary consideration.

 

[deadbody]

Policy reads like the testosterone level was the primary consideration.

You spelled bigotry wrong there.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Getting in the weeds here, but there's plenty of evidence the whole process was a sham, including this, from the policy statement:

" The survey was reviewed by a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure adequate provisions to protect the privacy of participants and to maintain confidentiality of the data."

I submit my research designs to university IRBs for approval, so I know how they work. They are part of the legal-defense team of the university, ensuring that participants are protected, researchers act legally and ethically, and the university does not receive bad OR or gets sued.

Unless the researcher(s) or participants are from a given university, then the university and its IRB does not give a single flip about any research being conducted. It's not a review service. It does not review the soundness of the research design and methodology. It would not provide the "review" claimed unless somone conducting the survey for the PDGA has a university research interest (future academic publication of findings?) or if a researcher with an IRB-approved survey brought that survey to the PDGA and said, "here, use this." But, even then, that would not be IRB approved research because it would likely be a different research protocol/context/study than the own approved.

Did anyone take the survey? Did you have to sign an IRB consent form?

The PDGA is most likely misrepresenting processes and details to give the appearance that bad science is supported by a valid survey.

And I saw the survey. It would not have passed an academic surveying 101 class.

 

[biscoe]

Getting in the weeds here, but there's plenty of evidence the whole process was a sham, including this, from the policy statement:

" The survey was reviewed by a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure adequate provisions to protect the privacy of participants and to maintain confidentiality of the data."

I submit my research designs to university IRBs for approval, so I know how they work. They are part of the legal-defense team of the university, ensuring that participants are protected, researchers act legally and ethically, and the university does not receive bad OR or gets sued.

Unless the researcher(s) or participants are from a given university, then the university and its IRB does not give a single flip about any research being conducted. It's not a review service. It does not review the soundness of the research design and methodology. It would not provide the "review" claimed unless somone conducting the survey for the PDGA has a university research interest (future academic publication of findings?) or if a researcher with an IRB-approved survey brought that survey to the PDGA and said, "here, use this." But, even then, that would not be IRB approved research because it would likely be a different research protocol/context/study than the own approved.

Did anyone take the survey? Did you have to sign an IRB consent form?

The PDGA is most likely misrepresenting processes and details to give the appearance that bad science is supported by a valid survey.

And I saw the survey. It would not have passed an academic surveying 101 class.

I took the survey but have no recollection either way on whether I signed an IRB consent form.

Menickelli teaches at Western Carolina U. so I am fairly sure the survey was done under their watch.

Also fairly sure the process was a sham.

 

[Shallows]

Interesting that they published the results on political orientation but not the 75% of the survey that was full of other minutiae about one's support of military intervention or what to do when your kids mouth off.

 

[Shallows]

Getting in the weeds here, but there's plenty of evidence the whole process was a sham, including this, from the policy statement:

" The survey was reviewed by a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure adequate provisions to protect the privacy of participants and to maintain confidentiality of the data."
:|
Unless the researcher(s) or participants are from a given university, then the university and its IRB does not give a single flip about any research being conducted.

IRB obviously just checked the privacy and confidentiality protocols. They don't make any claims beyond that.