PDGA survey

[dmoore1998]

Your comments on there not being enough data points (I agree), leaves this salient million dollar question though:
While we can not know whether there actually is statistically significant advantage to be had by transgender women in competing with/against cisgender women in gender-based divisions (in our case, disc golf as governed by the PDGA), should we then:
1. err on the side of inclusion
2. err on the side of exclusion

Personally, I think the right way to run things is err on the side of exclusion. You have a group, the group who wants to come in needs to prove they don't have a real advantage over the incumbent.

BUT...that group has already been included. So NOW...you have to err on the side of inclusion because that group has now been integrated into that group.

Personally I just think there's a significant difference between "we haven't let you in" and "we let you in and now we're kicking you out"

 

[zenbot]

Yes i have seen the attacks toward trans folks which are completely ignorant and uncalled for. But yes it is in both sides. For the most part you are level headed and try to be informative. But you do tend to get on a soap box when what is being said doesn't fit into your neatly packaged narrative.

I wouldn't call it being on a soapbox when you're struggling to be accepted as a person. That's just asking for common dignity.

 

[robdeforge]

They are not being treated differently.

My understanding of the situation:
If Person A starts playing disc golf and registers as a male player before undergoing hormone therapy or gender assignment, they will have to:

• Take continuous hormone therapy under medical supervision for a period of at least 12 months before competing in a gender-restricted division
• Verify that total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to the PDGA event, demonstrated by at least three blood tests throughout this time interval
• Keep their total testosterone level in serum below 10 nmol/L in the future
• Submit a completed PDGA Gender Reclassification Form
• Inform the PDGA if hormone treatment is suspended.

OR

• Obtain a successful completed male-to-female gender reassignment surgery declaration from a physician
• Verify that the total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for 12 months prior to the PDGA event
• Submit a completed PDGA Gender Reclassification Form

If Person B starts playing disc golf and has not registered as a male player before undergoing hormone therapy or gender assignment, they will have to:
Do nothing other than sign up for their desired division

If that is not the current setup, then I am obviously confused and would love some clarificatoin.

Because you or I won't know if person X is transgender (before they tell us they are), we can not force them to profess they are transgender.
The only way to catch them, is to force ALL women (cis- and transgender) to prove their eligibility. Which is highly undesireable on many grounds.

Much of the disc golf registration system seems to rely on the individual being honest and forthright with their information. They wouldn't be asked to *prove* anything, I was thinking they could simply check off a box that says "I was not assigned male gender at birth" (because that is what the PDGA policy seems to be trying to address).

 

[BionicRib]

Not disagreeing here.

Except for on the common ground, there IS a common ground; humane interaction with another.

Your comments on there not being enough data points (I agree), leaves this salient million dollar question though:
While we can not know whether there actually is statistically significant advantage to be had by transgender women in competing with/against cisgender women in gender-based divisions (in our case, disc golf as governed by the PDGA), should we then:
1. err on the side of inclusion
2. err on the side of exclusion

Lacking proof that there *is* a statistically significant advantage (and lack of data points constitutes "no proven advantage", but may leave "assumed advantage").
The IOC Framework specifically addresses assumed advantage in point 5 (https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf)

Now look at criminal court; and place the discussion we're having on the stand.
Should a suspect be convicted on just the assumption they committed a crime, or should they only be convicted of a crime if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt they committeed said crime?

How do you (generic you) answer:
1. Convict only if proven beyond reasonable doubt
2. Convict on just the assumption

Transgender women are the "suspect" in the court case analogy.
And people yelling left and right to convict the suspect on the mere assumption a crime was committed. (the crime, in this case, being having gained access to gender-based divisisions)

I'm saying the pdga is screwed no matter what they consider because their isn't enough evidence to support either side.

As far as how a judge would handle it, I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine they would look to any sort of past precedent that was set in any other cases. I have no idea if any sort of precedent has been sent so my answer would be the same for the court. They are screwed either way.

I wish I had a better answer than that, but sadly I do not. I understand where you are coming from this, and I do appreciate your candor. As far as a common ground being set I just don't think it's there and I truly don't think people that are on the fence about all this are not considering being humane.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Personally, I think the right way to run things is err on the side of exclusion. You have a group, the group who wants to come in needs to prove they don't have a real advantage over the incumbent.

BUT...that group has already been included. So NOW...you have to err on the side of inclusion because that group has now been integrated into that group.

Personally I just think there's a significant difference between "we haven't let you in" and "we let you in and now we're kicking you out"

There is a significant difference indeed.
Kicking someone out after they've been let in, must be done so on vey very solid grounds, lest it be defined as discrimination.

 

[foxdawg10]

I wouldn't call it being on a soapbox when you're struggling to be accepted as a person. That's just asking for common dignity.

At no point did any of my comments not accept anyone as a person. There are plenty of people everywhere struggling to be accepted for who they are or who they want to be.

Not fair to throw out a blanket statement instead of simply trying to understand. This is what I meant by no middle ground.

 

[gingerandhoney]

<snip>

If that is not the current setup, then I am obviously confused and would love some clarificatoin.

Much of the disc golf registration system seems to rely on the individual being honest and forthright with their information. They wouldn't be asked to *prove* anything, I was thinking they could simply check off a box that says "I was not assigned male gender at birth" (because that is what the PDGA policy seems to be trying to address).

You are not confused.

Yes, the registration system (both for membership as well as for sanctioned events) relies completely on the honour system.
We had Hillary Clinton as a member at some point, and how many people have a PDGA# for their pet?

A transgender woman not sharing she is in fact transgender is no more or less not-forthcoming than a married cisgender man with a lovely wife and 2 kids not sharing they are gay, or a racist not sharing they are a racist.
Each of these situations are allowed, and in fact, protected by laws.

Obviously, there is a situation when a transgender woman enters a gender-based place that is called gender-based division in disc golf.

For that, eligibility requirements are in place.

Just like there are for people pretending to be age-based division elegible.
(Yes, I am looking at you, Joe Bogey, 37yo who plays in MA40 because of your leathery skin and grey hair)
I don't hear anyone shoulting about these people needing to be forced to be forthcoming about their real age?!!?
There's most likely more Joe Bogey's than there are transgender women.

I understand and accept you are confused/upset about not every transgender woman needing to share that upfront.
But anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent that, no doubt.

There is no way to force a transgender woman from sharing that information upfront. Because her cisgender peer is not being forced to prove her eligibility.

If either disgender woman (let's use the example of Ella Hansen, current hot topic, cisgender but accused of being transgender, for chucking discs very far and not looking like the 1950's Hallmark depiction of the Perfect Housewife) or transgender woman (let's use everyone's other favourite topic, Natalie Ryan) have their eligibility questioned (and proof of debatable eligibility be provided), both women will need to prove they are eligible.

At that junction, a transgender woman needing to prove her eligibility, is the same process as the person - like myself - who registered as "M" previously.

And again, I totally understand you are confused or upset about why transgender women may sign up without first declaring they are transgender.
But that's just the way it is, see above...

Do you see any other way to make sure transgender women need to share that upfront, whilst not breaking anti-discrimination laws?!?!?

And no, that tick box you suggest will not do, because transgender people may not be forced to out themselves (even if it is a tickbox stating the opposite) as such anymore than employees may be forced to share whether or not they are heterosexual.

As for transgender women being allowed to "just sign up", they are allowed to do so, like Paige Pierce was allowed to, like Juliana Korver was allowed to. Removing that right is, again, discrimination.

 

[gingerandhoney]

I'm saying the pdga is screwed no matter what they consider because their isn't enough evidence to support either side.

The IOC Framework (https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf) prescribes that erring on the side of inclsuion then be enacted.

As far as how a judge would handle it, I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine they would look to any sort of past precedent that was set in any other cases. I have no idea if any sort of precedent has been sent so my answer would be the same for the court. They are screwed either way.

That is a different court case
Nevertheless, suspect X may not be convicted of an unproven crime B, even if suspect X was convicted of crime A previously. Crime B needs to be proven in order to result in a conviction for crime B.

I wish I had a better answer than that, but sadly I do not. I understand where you are coming from this, and I do appreciate your candor. As far as a common ground being set I just don't think it's there and I truly don't think people that are on the fence about all this are not considering being humane.

It is important to see that the USA social and polticial reality is VERY different from that of the rest of the world. In Europe and Canada, this is mostly considered to be a non-issue. I have hardly received any explicit input from Australia or Asia.
The people on the fence you mention are most likely on the fence BECAUSE of considering being humane.

Point in case, almost all of the women who commented - in either direction - to my winning AmWorlds, were along the lines of: "I am not sure I like or understand it, but hey, if she played by the rules set, congrats. You go, girl!"
There were a few women who outright said: "it is unfair, you need to return your title!"
But more women than that said: "Wow, looking forward to playing with rounds with you, may the best woman win!
That larger group; whilst potentially not liking it, or potentially think it's unfair CHOSE ACTIVELY to show their humanity, and choose to err on the side of inclusion.

 

[HB2017]

Why don't they just get rid of the FA/FPO divisions and have all competitors play in mixed divisions? If being born a man confers no competitive advantage against female players then why do we need gender-specific divisions? Cis and trans men and women should be all be playing in the same division, may the best player win.

 

[dmoore1998]

You are not confused.

Yes, the registration system (both for membership as well as for sanctioned events) relies completely on the honour system.
We had Hillary Clinton as a member at some point, and how many people have a PDGA# for their pet?

A transgender woman not sharing she is in fact transgender is no more or less not-forthcoming than a married cisgender man with a lovely wife and 2 kids not sharing they are gay, or a racist not sharing they are a racist.
Each of these situations are allowed, and in fact, protected by laws.

Obviously, there is a situation when a transgender woman enters a gender-based place that is called gender-based division in disc golf.

For that, eligibility requirements are in place.

Just like there are for people pretending to be age-based division elegible.
(Yes, I am looking at you, Joe Bogey, 37yo who plays in MA40 because of your leathery skin and grey hair)
I don't hear anyone shoulting about these people needing to be forced to be forthcoming about their real age?!!?
There's most likely more Joe Bogey's than there are transgender women.

I understand and accept you are confused/upset about not every transgender woman needing to share that upfront.
But anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent that, no doubt.

There is no way to force a transgender woman from sharing that information upfront. Because her cisgender peer is not being forced to prove her eligibility.

If either disgender woman (let's use the example of Ella Hansen, current hot topic, cisgender but accused of being transgender, for chucking discs very far and not looking like the 1950's Hallmark depiction of the Perfect Housewife) or transgender woman (let's use everyone's other favourite topic, Natalie Ryan) have their eligibility questioned (and proof of debatable eligibility be provided), both women will need to prove they are eligible.

At that junction, a transgender woman needing to prove her eligibility, is the same process as the person - like myself - who registered as "M" previously.

And again, I totally understand you are confused or upset about why transgender women may sign up without first declaring they are transgender.
But that's just the way it is, see above...

Do you see any other way to make sure transgender women need to share that upfront, whilst not breaking anti-discrimination laws?!?!?

And no, that tick box you suggest will not do, because transgender people may not be forced to out themselves (even if it is a tickbox stating the opposite) as such anymore than employees may be forced to share whether or not they are heterosexual.

As for transgender women being allowed to "just sign up", they are allowed to do so, like Paige Pierce was allowed to, like Juliana Korver was allowed to. Removing that right is, again, discrimination.

1. Things that you are saying are protected by law are not actually protected by law in some of the examples you're using. Particularly your comparison to things like heterosexuals or homosexuals...because those groups cannot be treated differently. Cisgender women and transgender women ARE treated differently by the PDGA, there's an entire section about the requirements of transgender women and what requirements they are subject to that cisgender women are not. I would love to see the discrimination law that says "You can treat transgender people differently, but you can't ask them to identify themselves as transgender". You're actually closer to discrimination laws by treating them differently than you are in asking them to identify.

2. Ignoring that, it's actually a big problem in my opinion that anyone playing in any protected division isn't required to submit some form of proof to the PDGA.

 

[dmoore1998]

There is a significant difference indeed.
Kicking someone out after they've been let in, must be done so on vey very solid grounds, lest it be defined as discrimination.

Discrimination is irrelevant here. Neither kicking someone out, nor forbidding them from entering in the first place is any more or less discriminatory from the other. The difference is really just action vs inaction. It makes more sense logically to pause and examine the issue from the current state moreso than it does to reverse a prior action in the interim while you consider the final outcome. Action either way disrupts the status quo, better to act once decisively than once rashly and then potentially again to reverse course.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'll speculate a little on the distinction between the player who previously competed as a male, and the player who never did:

The Bad Actor.

If there are no barriers to simply changing classification, sooner or later a few jerks among the hundred thousand male players will decide to jump classifications, just to be jerks. Probably just temporarily, just for kicks. If all that's required is their claiming to be trans, the door's open.

It seems far less likely that any males will start off, lying that they're females.

Sadly, a lot of rulemaking is done with the Bad Actor in mind -- do we really need a rule about intentional interference or playing under a false name? -- and this may be one more.

Or maybe not.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Why don't they just get rid of the FA/FPO divisions and have all competitors play in mixed divisions? If being born a man confers no competitive advantage against female players then why do we need gender-specific divisions? Cis and trans men and women should be all be playing in the same division, may the best player win.

The comparison is not cisgender women v cisgender men.
The comparison is cisgender women v transgender women.

Cisgender man ≠ transgender woman

 

[gingerandhoney]

1. Things that you are saying are protected by law are not actually protected by law in some of the examples you're using. Particularly your comparison to things like heterosexuals or homosexuals...because those groups cannot be treated differently. <snip>

2. Ignoring that, it's actually a big problem in my opinion that anyone playing in any protected division isn't required to submit some form of proof to the PDGA.

1. "scope" is probably the distinguishing factor here.

2. We are in partial agreement there. I have been advocating for anyone signing up for PDGA as a member has their ID verified.
It would extend to no more non(-current) members competing in sanctioned events.

 

[HB2017]

The comparison is not cisgender women v cisgender men.
The comparison is cisgender women v transgender women.

Cisgender man ≠ transgender woman

That's fine but you didn't answer my question. Why do we need a female division? Why can't everyone just play mixed? Why is there a need to separate male and female players?

 

[gingerandhoney]

Because player, both cisgender and transgender don't like that suggestion. Regardless of whether they are men or women.
See the staggeringly low number of events that are ratings-based.

Would you prefer it that way when you yourself sign up for an event?

 

[jenb]

It just seems really strange for me to draw a line between somebody who transitioned before they started playing disc golf competitively vs. after. Presumably the same physical advantages and disadvantages would exist in both groups of transgender players. Why treat them differently?

I am wondering if I am missing something obvious....

Besides the practical issues others gave mentioned, one possible factor may be the likelihood of the medical transition occurring long ago, whereas recent transitioners are marking time for a year. Of course, that wouldn't address a purely social transitioner going undetected, but if they can do that then what's the point? They're undetected, so any rule wouldn't be applied to them regardless without testing all FPO, so it's a moot point.

 

[txmxer]

I'll speculate a little on the distinction between the player who previously competed as a male, and the player who never did:

The Bad Actor.

If there are no barriers to simply changing classification, sooner or later a few jerks among the hundred thousand male players will decide to jump classifications, just to be jerks. Probably just temporarily, just for kicks. If all that's required is their claiming to be trans, the door's open.

It seems far less likely that any males will start off, lying that they're females.

Sadly, a lot of rulemaking is done with the Bad Actor in mind -- do we really need a rule about intentional interference or playing under a false name? -- and this may be one more.

Or maybe not.

Well said

I believe this to be true. Some rules are written because there is always someone that's primed to be a jerk.

Edit: the one bad apple rule

 

[robdeforge]

snip

I was going to respond to this in full, but I decided that if you are going to paint me as somebody who's "upset" about this then you may not be engaging in good faith discourse. It's been great to learn more about the issue from this thread, thanks for the info everyone

 

[gingerandhoney]

I said I could understand if you were/are.
That's a conditional.
Anyway, in writing, without hearing a person's intonation or seeing their body language; it's damn hard to distinguish sometimes what is meant, implied, underpinned, intended.

With all of my posts here in these 3 years on the transgender discourse, I should have hoped I am not seen as "not engaging in good faith discourse", or even questioned about whether I am.
Guess I was wrong then.