Arisugawa
Par Member
No. It is not.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
PDGA survey
- Thread starter BionicRib
- Start date
- Status
No. It is not.
Brychanus
* Ace Member *
I don't have any personal reason to have an opinion on the nature and inclusiveness of FPO. I do, however, find something very strange going on in this carousel discussion, which is not really any different than any other social media outlet I've seen.
I am sincerely by conversations like this. They appear to run in circles making use of false analogies, presumptions about biology from non-experts in biological sciences, and people on either side bandying notions of fairness that seem to only become seriously inflamed only when certain people win.
I am not an expert in biology. People seem to have very strongly held beliefs about the advantages of being "biologically male" without any consideration of the variation within and between groups on any biological or performance dimension.
I am, however, somewhat more educated on a related area and in several academic research methods. The current discussions are very similar to the kinds of arguments that comes up frequently in conversations about sex and gender. They are often conspicuously and disproportionately express opinions and conclusions. They do not appear to aim to soberly evaluate the entirety of the data from people who are thoroughly trained in collecting and evaluating such data - or to defer to such persons in reasonable doubt. These conversations also contain a lack of clarity and few debates in good faith about the most relevant data outcomes, include circumstantial data, and exhibit strong tendencies to rush for data that support rather than refute their point. I am not saying that is all of what we observe in the current conversation, of course, but the similarity was striking to me. Among many things written on the topic, Ben Barres had a provocative and compelling read close to my field before his passing. I encourage you to read it.
In the current disc golf conversation, it's genuinely peculiar to me (though not at all surprising) when people point obliquely to variables that may or may not correlate directly with on-course performance, much less cause it. There are N = 1 trends with respect to data outcomes that are available and more face and descriptively valid - actual performance indicators from the PDGA. Even now at a casual glance, (so far) the most prominent transgendered player in the most competitive FPO division has a rising but middling PDGA rating, very good but not top distance (caveat: controlled distance), and sometimes good but more often not very good results in the FPO field. Perhaps that will change, but I find it interesting. Yes, I chose to focus on the person in the most competitive division as context for a reason. And like any data analyst, I note that these are essentially just anecdotes in any case and raise it for the rhetorical point, which is mostly what we see in these conversations anyway.
People also appear to pull the "move the goalpost" maneuver very liberally even in the context of anecdotal data. "X player throws so far. Yeah, I get that it's not the farthest, but look how bad that form is." Fine, you hypothesize that there is another mediating variable. I would be curious to evaluate the critic's mechanical knowledge of a DG throw and really if they understand how player X or others throw so far and the sources of variance. I am aware of informed speculation and crosswise references to other sports (many of them collected on this forum). However, I see very few controlled studies on that front regardless of the composition of the player or their presence in division. My personal view is that the shared principles in elite form are likely the same as in other throwing sports and are identifiable, but we still do not have the "ideal" model and how much of the variation in MPO or FPO or anywhere else is accounted for by exactly what. And I am not an expert in that either, so maybe that view doesn't matter. That is not a trivial point if you are using distance as your favorite outcome measure. And so it goes for the others.
Not entirely unrelated, I spoke a close colleague & then-head of the diversity office of a very visible university and asked him point-blank what he (notice, "he") thought about gender-protected divisions and transgendered inclusion in sports. He responded by saying (paraphrasing) that we all seem very fond of making divisions under the guise of fairness, but that's never really what it's about, and perhaps we should stop doing that at all in sports too. I also can't help but his self-identified male status, despite being a member of multiple other non-dominant groups, colored his opinion with a dash of privilege. Though it should be said that it was a much longer conversation than that.
I am sincerely by conversations like this. They appear to run in circles making use of false analogies, presumptions about biology from non-experts in biological sciences, and people on either side bandying notions of fairness that seem to only become seriously inflamed only when certain people win.
I am not an expert in biology. People seem to have very strongly held beliefs about the advantages of being "biologically male" without any consideration of the variation within and between groups on any biological or performance dimension.
I am, however, somewhat more educated on a related area and in several academic research methods. The current discussions are very similar to the kinds of arguments that comes up frequently in conversations about sex and gender. They are often conspicuously and disproportionately express opinions and conclusions. They do not appear to aim to soberly evaluate the entirety of the data from people who are thoroughly trained in collecting and evaluating such data - or to defer to such persons in reasonable doubt. These conversations also contain a lack of clarity and few debates in good faith about the most relevant data outcomes, include circumstantial data, and exhibit strong tendencies to rush for data that support rather than refute their point. I am not saying that is all of what we observe in the current conversation, of course, but the similarity was striking to me. Among many things written on the topic, Ben Barres had a provocative and compelling read close to my field before his passing. I encourage you to read it.
In the current disc golf conversation, it's genuinely peculiar to me (though not at all surprising) when people point obliquely to variables that may or may not correlate directly with on-course performance, much less cause it. There are N = 1 trends with respect to data outcomes that are available and more face and descriptively valid - actual performance indicators from the PDGA. Even now at a casual glance, (so far) the most prominent transgendered player in the most competitive FPO division has a rising but middling PDGA rating, very good but not top distance (caveat: controlled distance), and sometimes good but more often not very good results in the FPO field. Perhaps that will change, but I find it interesting. Yes, I chose to focus on the person in the most competitive division as context for a reason. And like any data analyst, I note that these are essentially just anecdotes in any case and raise it for the rhetorical point, which is mostly what we see in these conversations anyway.
People also appear to pull the "move the goalpost" maneuver very liberally even in the context of anecdotal data. "X player throws so far. Yeah, I get that it's not the farthest, but look how bad that form is." Fine, you hypothesize that there is another mediating variable. I would be curious to evaluate the critic's mechanical knowledge of a DG throw and really if they understand how player X or others throw so far and the sources of variance. I am aware of informed speculation and crosswise references to other sports (many of them collected on this forum). However, I see very few controlled studies on that front regardless of the composition of the player or their presence in division. My personal view is that the shared principles in elite form are likely the same as in other throwing sports and are identifiable, but we still do not have the "ideal" model and how much of the variation in MPO or FPO or anywhere else is accounted for by exactly what. And I am not an expert in that either, so maybe that view doesn't matter. That is not a trivial point if you are using distance as your favorite outcome measure. And so it goes for the others.
Not entirely unrelated, I spoke a close colleague & then-head of the diversity office of a very visible university and asked him point-blank what he (notice, "he") thought about gender-protected divisions and transgendered inclusion in sports. He responded by saying (paraphrasing) that we all seem very fond of making divisions under the guise of fairness, but that's never really what it's about, and perhaps we should stop doing that at all in sports too. I also can't help but his self-identified male status, despite being a member of multiple other non-dominant groups, colored his opinion with a dash of privilege. Though it should be said that it was a much longer conversation than that.
Last edited:
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
New people can't see it until they reached a certain number of posts.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
New people can't see it until they reached a certain number of posts. It's a feature to help keep the alt account trolls from clogging up the threads.
I need a cliff notes version of this thread.
I thought I had a lot of keyboard time on my hands. Jeebus.
I thought I had a lot of keyboard time on my hands. Jeebus.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
And I'm sure that many people have changed their minds after reading all these thoughtful posts.
One time on Facebook...
I posted something (and I cannot remember what exactly) a hot take I knew was going to ruffle A LOT of progressive feathers. I also knew one of my progressive buddies would post a 5 paragraph tirade in response. True to form he did and within 5 minutes of him putting that on my timeline I deleted my comment and his response. All that time/effort into that well thought out response of his and *poof* it was gone and no one got to see it.
Sometimes Imma troll.
What a neat story.
What can I say? I'm easily amused.
Clearly.
Just pick a dozen posts. Any dozen. The rest is just the same thing, over and over.
jenb
* Ace Member *
The PDGA's October Surprise.
TLDR we need a PhD protected division?
Brychanus
* Ace Member *
I lurk among you
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
Guess what the IOC Framework mandated sports federations with to research?
Whether there is a disproportionate advantage for transgender women in gender-based divisions in the disciplines they govern. (Ie. FPO, FA1, FA3, et cetera in disc golf).
Absent such proof, the governing body is recommended to err on the side of inclsuion.
See https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
It's sadly already happening in disc golf.
worse, it's happening in our public schools.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
Many feared it was, back then. And back then isn't even that long ago.
And as such, they should either be banned from white sports venues, or be allowed to compete among themselves.
Look up Jimmy the Greek, and why he was fired. And then look at the year that happened.
Here's the actual coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZWr49UmjAA
And yes, that was 1988.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
FTFY: I would like to see this science that determined that post-transition women have a [sic: disproportionate] competitive advantage [sic: over cisgender women in gender-based divisions] in disc golf.
Which is the only science that would justify curbing or banning transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions in disc golf.
Anything that is not that; ie.
* Cisgender men have a disproportionate advantage over cisgender women in disc golf is NOT sufficient proof. Transgender women are not cisgender men.
* Transgender women have a disproportionate advantage over cisgender women in sports X, Y, Z is NOT sufficient proof. Sports X,Y,Z are not disc golf.
Is not sufficient proof to ban transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions in disc golf.
See See https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf
- Status
