Pdga has finally announced new rules on transgender competition

[shakatak]

I scanned this thread and didn't see where any death threats were made.

If you find a post questionable, report it, and move on. The volunteer moderator team doesn't have the bandwidth to read every post.

I never said a death threat was made, only that he's wishing death on people, which "I hope you live short lives" definitely does. I didn't report it because I don't want or need it removed. I just wanted to bring attention to that comment.

 

[Nova P]

Stuff

Hey GMc, saw you doing ha-ha reactions to heartfelt comments over on my pro athlete FB page. I banned you. Have a nice day somewhere else.

 

[Shallows]

You can support Natalie and her efforts to fight back against "fellow competitors [who] decided they wouldn't work on their games and improve themselves" here.

 

[DiscgolfStu]

The problem with this whole debate is that it's based on the notion that women are so biologically inferior to men that they could never compete against one, let alone win against one. I think that's bunk. Greg Barsby is 5'9, 145 lbs. and a disc golf World Champion. Paul McBeth is 5'7, 160 lbs...6 time world disc golf champion. Who exactly are these men physically superior to, again? And how come Big Jerm doesn't win every event?

Call me crazy, but maybe there's more to athletic performance than simple biology?

 

[dmoore1998]

I suspect this may make both sides mad, but this seems like the least genuine/intelligent decision that could have happened from the PDGA. Trans women, on whole, either have an advantage over cis women or they don't. This decision seems like a total punt on using science to determine that...and instead seems aimed primarily at viewing audiences of the DGPT and what they want to see in the FPO division.

Maybe others have some rationale I'm missing...but if the PDGA decided that trans women have an advantage over cis women...then why in the world is the decision "it's fine for trans women and cis women to participate in the same field...except for at 4 majors that we've specified"?

Maybe this is just a conspiracy theory...but it seems like the thing that makes sense is that the DGPT wanted to stop FPO players who were transgender, and worked with the PDGA to help specify the policy for majors only...so that the DGPT could adopt the same policy. Absent that, I simply don't understand a decision that says "they have an advantage, but it's fine if they compete in FPO for 99% of the tournaments, just not in these 4".

Ignoring what the actual decision is or could have been...the entire logic of "finding" an advantage exists...but then applying that finding to 1% of tournaments seems crazy to me.

I would at least understand logic that said "there's an advantage, so trans women cannot compete in gender protected divisions" or "there's no advantage, so trans women can compete in gender protected divisions". THIS just feels like a PR move related more to DGPT and their viewership than anything else.

 

[chevis]

unfair advantage
transitioning is tough, so someone that has gone through that has developed a mental toughness that the cis people will never know.

 

[Shallows]

I suspect this may make both sides mad, but this seems like the least genuine/intelligent decision that could have happened from the PDGA. Trans women, on whole, either have an advantage over cis women or they don't. This decision seems like a total punt on using science to determine that...and instead seems aimed primarily at viewing audiences of the DGPT and what they want to see in the FPO division.

Maybe others have some rationale I'm missing...but if the PDGA decided that trans women have an advantage over cis women...then why in the world is the decision "it's fine for trans women and cis women to participate in the same field...except for at 4 majors that we've specified"?

Maybe this is just a conspiracy theory...but it seems like the thing that makes sense is that the DGPT wanted to stop FPO players who were transgender, and worked with the PDGA to help specify the policy for majors only...so that the DGPT could adopt the same policy. Absent that, I simply don't understand a decision that says "they have an advantage, but it's fine if they compete in FPO for 99% of the tournaments, just not in these 4".

Ignoring what the actual decision is or could have been...the entire logic of "finding" an advantage exists...but then applying that finding to 1% of tournaments seems crazy to me.

I would at least understand logic that said "there's an advantage, so trans women cannot compete in gender protected divisions" or "there's no advantage, so trans women can compete in gender protected divisions". THIS just feels like a PR move related more to DGPT and their viewership than anything else.

I agree with this except that I think it had more to do with angry FPO DGPT players than public viewership.

Public viewers according to the survey were more accepting of transwomen competing than their fellow competitors. Kristen Tattar's voice matters a lot more than your average Chainbanger69 DGN viewer.

 

[DanJon]

This conversation is long on speculation about the survey and short on discussion of policy, which is pretty well fleshed out in the PDGA statement.

Transwomen can compete if they meet certain criteria. Full stop.

Are those criteria fair? Are they enforceable? That might actually be an interesting discussion; I hope someone with a clue can weigh in.

It effectively bans all current trans players and any future players will most likely not be able to meet requirements, especially considering that many states are passing anti-trans bills (which ban part of the requirements from even being able to happen).

At least that's how I read it.

 

[dmoore1998]

I agree with this except that I think it had more to do with angry FPO DGPT players than public viewership.

Public viewers according to the survey were more accepting of transwomen competing than their fellow competitors. Kristen Tattar's voice matters a lot more than your average Chainbanger69 DGN viewer.

I disagree that KT's voice matters...at all really. What choice does she have? There's no competing tour she's going to jump to...and if she did...the only impact that makes is if viewers follow her there.

Do we know what DGPT subscribers said though? We know what the general public who responded said, but did they break that down into DGPT viewers and non-viewers?

I think it's a bit altruistic to think that the DGPT cares that much about their players (I mean I'm sure they care...but not the point of the money taking a nosedive). If 90% of players were fine with it, but 90% of viewers were ready to walk...I think there's no chance transgender women get to compete. Likewise if 90% of viewers say transgender women need to compete, but 90% of players don't like it...they're competing.

Just because a higher % of players didn't want transgender women competing, I don't think that means they had the biggest impact. Particularly when we have no idea whether people who claimed to be DGPT pro players actually were given the self-identification of the survey.

 

[dmoore1998]

It effectively bans all current trans players and any future players will most likely not be able to meet requirements, especially considering that many states are passing anti-trans bills (which ban part of the requirements from even being able to happen).

At least that's how I read it.

It bans them from what though? My understanding is the PDGA ruling bans them from 4 tournaments a year. The DGPT went further, but the actual PDGA ruling doesn't.

 

[Shallows]

I disagree that KT's voice matters...at all really. What choice does she have? There's no competing tour she's going to jump to...and if she did...the only impact that makes is if viewers follow her there.

Regardless of her impact on their bottom line, in a small field like disc golf, popular players can make DGPT staffers lives miserable or great in a way that does matter.

Particularly when we have no idea whether people who claimed to be DGPT pro players actually were given the self-identification of the survey.

Self-identified but easy to verify since every respondent provided their PDGA #. Just do an xlookup.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

I've returned to say that while some people are happy with the decison and some people are not pleased, the real takeaway seems to be that the PDGA is a fairly comical organization, one that regularly mishandles all kinds of decisions, none of them all that super important, but then is unsurprisingly very ill-prepared to manage anything of real seriousness.

I don't like the decision. But as I've thought more about it this morning, what I really don't like is the process and how that process aligns with what I would expect from the PDGA, unfortunately.

 

[shakatak]

The problem with this whole debate is that it's based on the notion that women are so biologically inferior to men that they could never compete against one, let alone win against one. I think that's bunk.

I agree that a woman could win against one man. However, there is no chance that a woman will win a DGPT event playing in MPO anytime soon. The same can be said for a female-to-male transgender athlete being in the mix for a win in the top levels of MPO.

 

[Shallows]

The problem with this whole debate is that it's based on the notion that women are so biologically inferior to men

Nobody has said women are biologically inferior to men. Eliding "distinct" to "inferior" is misogynistic IMO.

 

[dmoore1998]

Regardless of her impact on their bottom line, in a small field like disc golf, popular players can make DGPT staffers lives miserable or great in a way that does matter.

I think it matters, I just think that it doesn't matter nearly as much as money. The DGPT exists without KT, it doesn't exist without money. I think saying "look, our players support this" is a great PR thing. It certainly helps sell the change more than having them protest would.

 

[DanJon]

It bans them from what though? My understanding is the PDGA ruling bans them from 4 tournaments a year. The DGPT went further, but the actual PDGA ruling doesn't.

As I read it, Natalie can play in two year's time under this new ruling (if she's keeps her testosterone levels up to date) at A Tiers or lower.

She can't and potentially won't be able to ever play in PDGA Majors or DGPT events as she didn't transition as a child (feel free to correct me if my thoughts are wrong here).

Many states are outlawing that last part (which is extremely rare to begin with), so as I said, this basically effectively bans current trans players for at least two years and they can only play lower level events if they meet testosterone levels during that time period.

Basically it's punting the issue.

"Yeah, we still technically allow trans women to play, but there's probably not going to be anyone who is able to meet our requirements."

Should be interesting to see the lawsuits and what it ends up costing the PDGA and DGPT.

 

[DiscgolfStu]

Nobody has said women are biologically inferior to men. Eliding "distinct" to "inferior" is misogynistic IMO.

Um...yes, they have. Read the internet. And if you're saying that a man's "distinct" biology puts him at advantage over a woman, then you're inferring that a women's biology is indeed, "inferior". Not sure how you twisted what I was saying into me being misogynistic. Unless I'm reading what you wrote incorrectly.

 

[dmoore1998]

As I read it, Natalie can play in two year's time under this new ruling (if she's keeps her testosterone levels up to date) at A Tiers or lower.

She can't and potentially won't be able to ever play in PDGA Majors or DGPT events as she didn't transition as a child (feel free to correct me if my thoughts are wrong here).

Many states are outlawing that last part (which is extremely rare to begin with), so as I said, this basically effectively bans current trans players for at least two years and they can only play lower level events if they meet testosterone levels during that time period.

Basically it's punting the issue.

"Yeah, we still technically allow trans women to play, but there's probably not going to be anyone who is able to meet our requirements."

Should be interesting to see the lawsuits and what it ends up costing the PDGA and DGPT.

Pretty sure Natalie can play A-tiers or lower now if she meets the hormone therapy requirements already (and those requirements existed in part prior to this, so I'm guessing she's likely fine to compete at those events now).

My point was really twofold:

1. Let's not equate the DGPT with "disc golf". In Natalie's case...they're pretty much the same...for the vast majority of disc golfers though, they are not the same thing. The impact of this on the vast majority of disc golf events should be rather minimal.

2. Let's not equate DGPT with PDGA. The PDGA is stopping Natalie from competing in 4 events. The DGPT is choosing to stop her from competing at the other pro tour events.

In a time where headlines seem to be ruling things...I think it's important to keep straight what the rules are, and who is making those rules. I've already seen headlines like "PDGA prohibits Natalie Ryan from playing FPO"...which is not actually true. It's also important to know WHO is making the rules, because people who dislike the ruling may have more impact with the DGPT changing their ruling than the PDGA potentially.

 

[Nova P]

The Champion's Cup, a Major, is coming up in April. Should I (the current FP50 World Champion) wish to enter, I cannot. Natalie Ryan earned an invitation by winning the DGPT Great Lakes, but is ineligible to play. Because we're trans and the Champion's Cup is an FPO major.

Step on a Lego, PDGA.

 

[Three Putt]

As I read it, Natalie can play in two year's time under this new ruling (if she's keeps her testosterone levels up to date) at A Tiers or lower.

She can't and potentially won't be able to ever play in PDGA Majors or DGPT events as she didn't transition as a child (feel free to correct me if my thoughts are wrong here).

Many states are outlawing that last part (which is extremely rare to begin with), so as I said, this basically effectively bans current trans players for at least two years and they can only play lower level events if they meet testosterone levels during that time period.

Basically it's punting the issue.

"Yeah, we still technically allow trans women to play, but there's probably not going to be anyone who is able to meet our requirements."

Should be interesting to see the lawsuits and what it ends up costing the PDGA and DGPT.

It's a weird ruling. To me it looks like a fix to the problem of trolls attacking DGPT livestream comments and PDGA social media posts since it only applies to those sorts of events. It's really targeted right at Natalie Ryan, which I would think (which is a lot different from knowing since I don't) would help her in a legal case.

In theory it leaves open for females who are transgender to play at lower levels of the sport, but if it was me and I knew I was banned from the highest levels of the sport I'd be gone. Why hang around a sport that wants to hide you? I'd never give an org like the PDGA a dime if I was transgender.