PDGA survey

[gingerandhoney]

Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go?

Probably need to think that through.

Speak up, please!

Which disciplines of health care are worthy of receiving a portion of your $1000?
Which disciplines of health care are not worthy of receiving a portion of your $1000?

 

[foxdawg10]

It is not the small minority of the population that coined this term, it's the scientists and medics who look after the physical and mental well-being of said small minority of the population who did.

No one is forcing you to refer to yourself as cisgender, but that doesn't make you not-cisgender.
It is a scientific classification, to be able to distinguish between transgender and those not-transgender.
Put differently, what term would you use to describe not-transgender people?

Only coming out as transgender (and that includes the whole non-binary spectrum, as they too, perceive a mismatch between their experienced and assigned gender) makes one not-cisgender.

-

The way you write about it, and make the connectiong to Breeders, makes it appear as if it was a (sometimes to humour, sometimes to disparage) but probably ultimately derogatory term, coined by transgender people to label non-transgender people; it is not.

In fact the term was coined by Dana Leland Defosse, a biologist who coined the term in 1994; see https://www.historians.org/research...rminology-researching-early-uses-of-cisgender

Cis and trans are common terms in chemistry, biology, genetics, and even geography, to describe "on this side of" and "on the other side of".
For more details on that, LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

That people who, by that definition would now be called cisgender, don't see or label themselves as cisgender is irrelevant; it is a classification thing.
Pluto, the celestial body we used to refer to it as a planet, then it wasn't anymore, because it was classified a dwarf planet.
Did anyone ever bother to ask or tell Pluto?

Cisgender and transgender is simply a scientific way to describe the two scientifically opposite groups of people.

--

I am not sure at all of what your intention is with the paragraph that follows "cisgender don't have all the social or physical advantages you think they have."

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're talking about "privilege"; do correct me if I am wrong.
If so, here is how privilege works:

Yes, cisgender do explicitly experience privilege that transgender people don't have.
That is not something I have claimed until just now, writing that.
That does not mean all cisgender people have more privilege, but far more cisgender people do so than transgender people do.
Just like men have more privilege than women do.
Just like white people have more privilege than non-white people do.

I have far far less privilege nowadays, as a transgender woman, than I ever had as a - perceived as cisgender - man.
I still have a fair amount of priviliege because I am perceived to be white (I am far more mixed race than people assume I am).

And a physical representation of privilige is this oft-repeated experiment on white-privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZuucE4R65Q

I was referring to privilege compared to other trans folks who can not afford the procedures, not to the population as a whole. And the reference to any of Trump's policies gives me the willies, lol.

All I meant is everyone has a cross to bear. I sympathize, just like I sympathize with anyone born into bad circumstances.

 

[foxdawg10]

Speak up, please!

Which disciplines of health care are worthy of receiving a portion of your $1000?
Which disciplines of health care are not worthy of receiving a portion of your $1000?

American health care is a joke. In an ideal world everyone would be able to afford the care they need. Limited resources.

And btw, between my company and me, plus my deductibles, it costs $7,500 before I can use my insurance. Except for routine care. At least the govt throws us a bone and gives us pre tax HSA plans.

 

[foxdawg10]

It is not the small minority of the population that coined this term, it's the scientists and medics who look after the physical and mental well-being of said small minority of the population who did.

No one is forcing you to refer to yourself as cisgender, but that doesn't make you not-cisgender.
It is a scientific classification, to be able to distinguish between transgender and those not-transgender.
Put differently, what term would you use to describe not-transgender people?

Only coming out as transgender (and that includes the whole non-binary spectrum, as they too, perceive a mismatch between their experienced and assigned gender) makes one not-cisgender.

-

The way you write about it, and make the connectiong to Breeders, makes it appear as if it was a (sometimes to humour, sometimes to disparage) but probably ultimately derogatory term, coined by transgender people to label non-transgender people; it is not.

In fact the term was coined by Dana Leland Defosse, a biologist who coined the term in 1994; see https://www.historians.org/research...rminology-researching-early-uses-of-cisgender

Cis and trans are common terms in chemistry, biology, genetics, and even geography, to describe "on this side of" and "on the other side of".
For more details on that, LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

That people who, by that definition would now be called cisgender, don't see or label themselves as cisgender is irrelevant; it is a classification thing.
Pluto, the celestial body we used to refer to it as a planet, then it wasn't anymore, because it was classified a dwarf planet.
Did anyone ever bother to ask or tell Pluto?

Cisgender and transgender is simply a scientific way to describe the two scientifically opposite groups of people.

--

I am not sure at all of what your intention is with the paragraph that follows "cisgender don't have all the social or physical advantages you think they have."

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're talking about "privilege"; do correct me if I am wrong.
If so, here is how privilege works:

Yes, cisgender do explicitly experience privilege that transgender people don't have.
That is not something I have claimed until just now, writing that.
That does not mean all cisgender people have more privilege, but far more cisgender people do so than transgender people do.
Just like men have more privilege than women do.
Just like white people have more privilege than non-white people do.

I have far far less privilege nowadays, as a transgender woman, than I ever had as a - perceived as cisgender - man.
I still have a fair amount of priviliege because I am perceived to be white (I am far more mixed race than people assume I am).

And a physical representation of privilige is this oft-repeated experiment on white-privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZuucE4R65Q

This is a fair question. I am not a linguist or an academic so I don't think I can really coin a term that would stick. I think your definition is a good one, not transgender. Since gender isn't an issue in my life I really don't think about it much. But I don't really focus on what I am not, I focus on what I am, much as you do.

 

[gingerandhoney]

American health care is a joke. In an ideal world everyone would be able to afford the care they need. Limited resources.

And btw, between my company and me, plus my deductibles, it costs $7,500 before I can use my insurance. Except for routine care. At least the govt throws us a bone and gives us pre tax HSA plans.

That's not what we were discussing, you were argueing that you should be able to decide that your hard-earned money NOT go to people seeking gender-affirming healthcare.

 

[gingerandhoney]

This is a fair question. I am not a linguist or an academic so I don't think I can really coin a term that would stick. I think your definition is a good one, not transgender. Since gender isn't an issue in my life I really don't think about it much. But I don't really focus on what I am not, I focus on what I am, much as you do.

Science and linguistics found and applied the solution, by classifying me a transgender person, you are by definition classified as cisgender.
Whether you think or care about it or not.
Just like we all are classified as homo sapiens, which is the taxonomic binomial species name for humans.
Do you think about being classified homo sapiens, more, less, or equally little as being classified cisgender?

 

[DavidSauls]

This also seems like an issue of privilege and entitlement. It is very expensive to have this operations and procedures. How many can afford this? In a system of limited resources and costly medical insurance, where do you set the priorities? I know people who are on waiting lists for organ transplants who either can't afford it, have to struggle with insurance coverage, or just can not find a donor. Where do you draw the line on what is important and what is not? Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?

I and my employer pay a ton of money into a crappy insurance system that forces me to pay another ton of money just so I can utilize that insurance. Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go? This is a deeper issue than just who gets to play disc golf for a living. Real people are struggling every day with paying medical bills. What is more important? Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living, or someone who needs a treatment for themselves or their kids?

I've had surgery on one shoulder and both knees. They enable me to continue playing bad disc golf, and other activities that make my life better, but weren't life-saving. Insurance has to draw a line on what is pays for, but I'm not sure life-or-death is the place to draw it.

 

[foxdawg10]

Science and linguistics found and applied the solution, by classifying me a transgender person, you are by definition classified as cisgender.
Whether you think or care about it or not.
Just like we all are classified as homo sapiens, which is the taxonomic binomial species name for humans.
Do you think about being classified homo sapiens, more, less, or equally little as being classified cisgender?

Cisgender is a new word. It's a social construct. Not a species. You don't get to define others, just like they don't get to define you.

 

[foxdawg10]

That's not what we were discussing, you were argueing that you should be able to decide that your hard-earned money NOT go to people seeking gender-affirming healthcare.

Don't put words in my mouth, respect is a two way street.

You completely minimize the $$ hard working people pay into their insurance plans. Please tell me where I can find good insurance for $1,000. It sounds like you are out of touch with what every day people struggle with.

 

[biscoe]

Cisgender is a new word. It's a social construct.

Applicable to all language which is a constantly changing continuum. New words come in and old ones become archaic all the time. Just sayin'...

 

[DavidSauls]

Applicable to all language which is a constantly changing continuum. New words come in and old ones become archaic all the time. Just sayin'...

And old words get re-defined.

For better and worse.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Cisgender is a new word. It's a social construct. Not a species. You don't get to define others, just like they don't get to define you.

I don't define anyone.

Cisgender is a scientific classification term, and is not a social construct.
It is one of the two classes to describe people and their experienced gender.
Gender is a concept, and as such is a social construct.

Who experiences their gender how is divided in two classes:

One one hand:
people who do not experience (too much) disconnect between the gender that was assigned them at birth (exclusively based on the absence or presence of a penis).
You call them "not transgender"; science calls them "cisgender".

One the other hand hand:
people who do experience (too much) disconnect between the gender that was assigned them at birth (exclusively based on the absence or presence of a penis).
You call them "transgender"; science calls them "transgender".

Further clarification on transgender; that is a collective term for describing those who are binary transgender (ie. assigned as male at birth, but experiencing to be female and vv.) and non-binary refer, a term that refers to what gender actually is, a spectrum, not a binary system. Where anyone experiencing their identity as neither fully male or fully female, or at any given time, wuld be classified as non-binary.

 

[dmoore1998]

On the first piece I left, absolutely agree.
There is definitely a large enough sample of cisgender women in disc golf, 8,963 at this very moment.
There most definitely IS NOT a large enough transgender population (let alone a large enough population that can be identified as such, because they dared to come out in this harsh environment) of transgender women in disc golf.

Ergo. a scientifically satisfying number of data points to present for the transgender women in disc golf is absent, at which point, it can not be irrefutably be proven there is or is not a disproportionate advantage.
At which point the IOC Framework clearly states that the sports association in question should be deem these athletes to not having a disproportionate advantage, and as such, should not be withheld from competing in gender-based divisions.

second part.
Disproportionate is literally what the IOC Framework repeatedly and intentionall uses.
As such, it is not me argueing that a proper population/sample selection be made; it is the IOC mandating it.

and yes, we can not use a golden standard in this; I never claimed we should.
I mentioned it because people do tend to want to compare to player X.

Disproportionate is what the IOC uses, but it isn't what the PDGA or DGPT should use. It's there so that the IOC can just do whatever they want. Disproportionate isn't science, it's opinion. That's why they use the word, so they can simply label things disproportionate or not based on what they feel like doing in the first place.

 

[Arisugawa]

Disproportionate is what the IOC uses, but it isn't what the PDGA or DGPT should use. It's there so that the IOC can just do whatever they want. Disproportionate isn't science, it's opinion. That's why they use the word, so they can simply label things disproportionate or not based on what they feel like doing in the first place.

That's not entirely true.

Disproportionate is a label. Results can be looked at, examined, discussed, and a judgement rendered as impartially as possible. You may call that judgement an opinion if you like, but that is, for better or for worse, what a great deal of statistical analysis is. Coming to a conclusion based on the evidence and then deciding how that conclusion will affect the system going forward.

Again, this kind of thing isn't a zero-sum game. It isn't as simple as "has advantage, therefore cannot compete." Competition is not equal and never will be, outside of exceptionally-drastic and Harrison Bergeron style tyranny.

If the governing body of any sport doesn't come to a consensus on things as proportionate and disproportionate, fairness becomes even more of an opinion than it would otherwise be.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Don't put words in my mouth, respect is a two way street.

You completely minimize the $$ hard working people pay into their insurance plans. Please tell me where I can find good insurance for $1,000. It sounds like you are out of touch with what every day people struggle with.

Apologies, I meant no disrespect. I am engaging in an open discussion.
The "you" I used was not "you, foxdawg10", it was the generic use of "you"; I should have been clearer there, and probably use "one" instead.

You did start the topic when distinguishing between

"Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?"/QUOTE]
but it was txmxer who explicitly wrote:

Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go?

and I responded to that directly.
You then responded to that, and then I responded back again, using generic "you" instead of "you, foxdawg10". For that being unclear in who I was and wasn't addressing, I do apologise.


As for all the money that people put in their insurance plans, if they can even afford to...
Not for a single second did I assume or minimise anything about premiums being paid.
The $1000 I refer to is not related to what your monthly premium amount is (regardless of a monthly premium would be $100, $1,000, or $10,000, but is related to all the money that you paid in to your health plan, which is then part of your insurer's spending budget.

As for me being accused of being out of touch, no I am not.
Just a few hours ago, an Eastcoast friend told me about her $3600 crown replacement, and I myself pointed out that transgender people trying to get blood works done could easily be spending $1,000+.
I am fairly aware of how massively overpriced health-care is in the USA, and how premiums can only go up even more as a result, in order to afford anything, and keep things somewhat affordable. And then there's excess to deal with (is that the $7,500 you referred to? If so, excess goes against monthly premium paid. Lower excess? Higher monthly premium) despite paying our monthly premiums.

.

And during all of this, I am aware of it while not even being born in the USA, not living in the USA, and not being a US citizen.
I still try to keep up to date with things regardless.
That 90%+ of the forum members may be USA-based does not make it USA; there's international members, and I am one of them.

And yes, I totally sympathise with USA people being unable to afford health care. Working or unemployed. "Deserving" or not.
Health care is not something that should ever be weighed against cost-of-living spending.
"Shall I go get that life-saving surgery or shall I pay my rent/morgage and then quietly die in agony?" is a question no one should have have to ask themselves. Yet in the USA it is a common theme.

I live in The Netherlands, that free-for-all socialist smelling-of-cheese Sodom and Gomorrah where things that shouldn't be, are.

My monthly premium for my basic health insurance is 133.50eur per month. (about $130)
My federal government supports my low income by paying of 112.00eur per month against my health insurance premium. (about $110)
I go out of pocket 21.50eur per month. (about $20)
For that I have a once-a-year excess of 385eur. (about $380)
Almost all of my gender-related healthcare is paid for through my health insurance plan.
I would need to do the calculation, but I think I may have gone out of pocket on gender-affirming healthcare to the sum of maybe $200; over 5+ years.

Surprisingly perhaps, but the average cost of a night's stay in a hospital bed (2021 data) is more expensive in The Netherlands ($983, #10 most expensive in the world), compared to the USA ($888, #17th). The stark difference being in that I don't get presented the bill of my hospital stay, while a person in the USA does get presented their bill.

 

[jenb]

Apologies, I meant no disrespect. I am engaging in an open discussion.
The "you" I used was not "you, foxdawg10", it was the generic use of "you"; I should have been clearer there, and probably use "one" instead.

You did start the topic when distinguishing between

"Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?"/QUOTE]
but it was txmxer who explicitly wrote:
and I responded to that directly.
You then responded to that, and then I responded back again, using generic "you" instead of "you, foxdawg10". For that being unclear in who I was and wasn't addressing, I do apologise.


As for all the money that people put in their insurance plans, if they can even afford to...
Not for a single second did I assume or minimise anything about premiums being paid.
The $1000 I refer to is not related to what your monthly premium amount is (regardless of a monthly premium would be $100, $1,000, or $10,000, but is related to all the money that you paid in to your health plan, which is then part of your insurer's spending budget.

As for me being accused of being out of touch, no I am not.
Just a few hours ago, an Eastcoast friend told me about her $3600 crown replacement, and I myself pointed out that transgender people trying to get blood works done could easily be spending $1,000+.
I am fairly aware of how massively overpriced health-care is in the USA, and how premiums can only go up even more as a result, in order to afford anything, and keep things somewhat affordable. And then there's excess to deal with (is that the $7,500 you referred to? If so, excess goes against monthly premium paid. Lower excess? Higher monthly premium) despite paying our monthly premiums.

.

And during all of this, I am aware of it while not even being born in the USA, not living in the USA, and not being a US citizen.
I still try to keep up to date with things regardless.
That 90%+ of the forum members may be USA-based does not make it USA; there's international members, and I am one of them.

And yes, I totally sympathise with USA people being unable to afford health care. Working or unemployed. "Deserving" or not.
Health care is not something that should ever be weighed against cost-of-living spending.
"Shall I go get that life-saving surgery or shall I pay my rent/morgage and then quietly die in agony?" is a question no one should have have to ask themselves. Yet in the USA it is a common theme.

I live in The Netherlands, that free-for-all socialist smelling-of-cheese Sodom and Gomorrah where things that shouldn't be, are.

My monthly premium for my basic health insurance is 133.50eur per month. (about $130)
My federal government supports my low income by paying of 112.00eur per month against my health insurance premium. (about $110)
I go out of pocket 21.50eur per month. (about $20)
For that I have a once-a-year excess of 385eur. (about $380)
Almost all of my gender-related healthcare is paid for through my health insurance plan.
I would need to do the calculation, but I think I may have gone out of pocket on gender-affirming healthcare to the sum of maybe $200; over 5+ years.

Surprisingly perhaps, but the average cost of a night's stay in a hospital bed (2021 data) is more expensive in The Netherlands ($983, #10 most expensive in the world), compared to the USA ($888, #17th). The stark difference being in that I don't get presented the bill of my hospital stay, while a person in the USA does get presented their bill.

When txmxer wrote that he was quoting foxdawg

 

[jenb]

This also seems like an issue of privilege and entitlement. It is very expensive to have this operations and procedures. How many can afford this? In a system of limited resources and costly medical insurance, where do you set the priorities? I know people who are on waiting lists for organ transplants who either can't afford it, have to struggle with insurance coverage, or just can not find a donor. Where do you draw the line on what is important and what is not? Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?

I and my employer pay a ton of money into a crappy insurance system that forces me to pay another ton of money just so I can utilize that insurance. Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go? This is a deeper issue than just who gets to play disc golf for a living. Real people are struggling every day with paying medical bills. What is more important? Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living, or someone who needs a treatment for themselves or their kids?

Apologies, I meant no disrespect. I am engaging in an open discussion.
The "you" I used was not "you, foxdawg10", it was the generic use of "you"; I should have been clearer there, and probably use "one" instead.

You did start the topic when distinguishing between

"Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?"/QUOTE]
but it was txmxer who explicitly wrote:
and I responded to that directly.
You then responded to that, and then I responded back again, using generic "you" instead of "you, foxdawg10". For that being unclear in who I was and wasn't addressing, I do apologise.


As for all the money that people put in their insurance plans, if they can even afford to...
Not for a single second did I assume or minimise anything about premiums being paid.
The $1000 I refer to is not related to what your monthly premium amount is (regardless of a monthly premium would be $100, $1,000, or $10,000, but is related to all the money that you paid in to your health plan, which is then part of your insurer's spending budget.

As for me being accused of being out of touch, no I am not.
Just a few hours ago, an Eastcoast friend told me about her $3600 crown replacement, and I myself pointed out that transgender people trying to get blood works done could easily be spending $1,000+.
I am fairly aware of how massively overpriced health-care is in the USA, and how premiums can only go up even more as a result, in order to afford anything, and keep things somewhat affordable. And then there's excess to deal with (is that the $7,500 you referred to? If so, excess goes against monthly premium paid. Lower excess? Higher monthly premium) despite paying our monthly premiums.

.

And during all of this, I am aware of it while not even being born in the USA, not living in the USA, and not being a US citizen.
I still try to keep up to date with things regardless.
That 90%+ of the forum members may be USA-based does not make it USA; there's international members, and I am one of them.

And yes, I totally sympathise with USA people being unable to afford health care. Working or unemployed. "Deserving" or not.
Health care is not something that should ever be weighed against cost-of-living spending.
"Shall I go get that life-saving surgery or shall I pay my rent/morgage and then quietly die in agony?" is a question no one should have have to ask themselves. Yet in the USA it is a common theme.

I live in The Netherlands, that free-for-all socialist smelling-of-cheese Sodom and Gomorrah where things that shouldn't be, are.

My monthly premium for my basic health insurance is 133.50eur per month. (about $130)
My federal government supports my low income by paying of 112.00eur per month against my health insurance premium. (about $110)
I go out of pocket 21.50eur per month. (about $20)
For that I have a once-a-year excess of 385eur. (about $380)
Almost all of my gender-related healthcare is paid for through my health insurance plan.
I would need to do the calculation, but I think I may have gone out of pocket on gender-affirming healthcare to the sum of maybe $200; over 5+ years.

Surprisingly perhaps, but the average cost of a night's stay in a hospital bed (2021 data) is more expensive in The Netherlands ($983, #10 most expensive in the world), compared to the USA ($888, #17th). The stark difference being in that I don't get presented the bill of my hospital stay, while a person in the USA does get presented their bill.

I've bolded it above so you don't have to look for it. Txmxer did not paraphrase or anything. He was pointing out that foxdawg should really think about that. If we have a say in where our premiums go, we can discriminate against all kinds of classes of people. And when a class of people largely need a certain kind of healthcare … women, transgender, race, etc.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Disproportionate is what the IOC uses, but it isn't what the PDGA or DGPT should use. It's there so that the IOC can just do whatever they want. Disproportionate isn't science, it's opinion. That's why they use the word, so they can simply label things disproportionate or not based on what they feel like doing in the first place.

No, disproportionate in this case (and yes, the IOC uses it, and so should the PDGA and any other sports association or federation) is when data points between the two affected parties in this case (cisgender women and transgender women having met eligibility requirements) have a statistically significant disconnect where one group consistently outmatches the other.

That would be proof of a disproportinate advantage.

How would you want to see the PDGA and DGPT handle (not-calling-it-disproportionate) advantage? Based on what data?

 

[gingerandhoney]

Real people are struggling every day with paying medical bills. What is more important? Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living, or someone who needs a treatment for themselves or their kids?

Care to explain where "Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living" is coming from?
And does that assume that player X (do we want to fill in Natalie Ryan's name there?) did their transition IN ORDER TO BE playing a game for a living?

While the assumption of "transitioning to game the game" is definitely something that has been yelled from the top of people's lungs since 2019, it is absolutely preposterous to ridicule one's transition journey to "a way to win something they might not be entitled to".

I won AmWorlds FA40.
And of course, I totally transitioned to be able to win that title.
Even the thought of that being possibly true is beyond preposterous.

So, what did I win?
A DGA mini disc golf basket retail $84.99
A custom printed slate plaque, let's put that at $85 as well.
I'll throw in the roughly $150 players pack as earnings as well.

Now let's see what I spent, only to get to the event and sign up; that would be about $900 on airfare, $750 on hotel (low budget enough for a shooting literally taking place in the hallway outside my room, see https://www.wgal.com/article/man-sh...otel-manchester-township-york-county/28491321 I counted 14 bullet entries in the hallway, the nearest one about 4ft from my room), i think it was about $150 to sign up, and oh yeah, food. I did that low budget, insta noodles, fresh veg and granola bars; let's say $100 for the week.
That's about $1,900 spent for a return of about $320.
Good ROI, right? To transition in order to play this game for a living.
But I'm in a good mood, I'll also throw in my $183 career earnings (all earned since Amworlds in gender-based divisions, while assuming I had no expenses at all to earn those earnings; which I obviously did).
That still puts me at a balance of negative about $1,400, 3 years in!!!

But then I also get to add the roughly €31,000 of revenue not being earned in 2019 alone.
Until then, measuring 2004 through 2018, my work revenue averaged at €37,986.
Going from being contracted for an average of about 220 days a year for that period to just 37 in 2019!
In 2019, my revenue dropped for no other reason than being transgender. I had become 'difficult to hire' overnight in an industry that has as much trouble with dealing with accepting LGBTQIA+ people as disc golf has.

Still want to claim that people transition in order to making a living playing a game?

 

[dmoore1998]

It isn't as simple as "has advantage, therefore cannot compete."

Yes, it actually IS that simple. We have cisgender women...if transgender women as a population (however you define that population, presumably in this case medically transitioned trans women) have an advantage over cisgender women, they should not compete in FPO.

You keep saying "competition is never equal" but then keep using individual examples. We aren't talking individuals, we're talking populations.