Not sure I agree about "disproportionate"...disproportionate to what? We have 2 groups. Cisgender women in disc golf, and post-transition transgender women in disc golf. To be disproportionate you'd need 2 things:
1. Another comparison, typically a 3rd group to compare to the control group of cisgender women...that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
2. A measure of disproportionate-ness which is more opinion than science (no doubt you could attach some level of science to it, but the term disproportionate tends towards measuring the DEGREE of difference when we know we have 2 different levels of difference within multiple comparisons.)
Maybe you can elaborate on what you think the other comparison is in order to make this potential competitive advantage disproportionate in comparison?
Purely speaking from a physical perspective (not even from an athletic performance potential perspective; which at least has a very large social component that is gendered - think: boy gets ball for birthday and goes and throws with dad to get better, girl gets doll for birthday and gets to play family in her pretend kitchen);
can we all agree that Eveliina Salonen has a different body than Henna Blomroos does?
That Sarah Hokom doesn't physically resemble Vaness Van Dyken?
That Paige Pierce doesn't resemble Valarie Doss?
That Hailey King doesn't resemble Catrina Allen?
That Kristin Tattar doesn't resemble Keide Tätte?
And that Juliana Korver doesn't resemble Jennifer Allen?
Within the cisgender population, the variance in body shapes, forms, and characteristics (that all COULD but not necessarily DO matter in their athletic performance potential) makes it a homogenously varied selection of bodies. And THAT is what matters.
Because THAT is the group a transgender women needs to be compared with.
Singular outliers can not and should not be used at the golden standard.
Paige Pierce shouldn't be the golden standard, nor should Juliana Korver, nor Vanessa Van Dyken.. Nor should Natalie Ryan.
Now, transgender women are said to be taller, wider shouldered, more wingspan-ey, more fast twitch muscle-y, and the list goes on.
Clearly physical traits are being attributed to assumed athletic performance potential.
But.... Doe Juliana Korver throw father because of being taller and more wingspan-ey than Jennifer allen? No, quite the contrary, actually. Most of the drives, Jennifer is expected to out-throw Juliana. Because reducing disc golf distance to a factor of body height and wingspan-iness is reducing what it takes to throw (far) to seemingly inconsequential bodily characteristics. Otherwise anyone with those characteristics would throw far.
Sidenote: Yes, almost all basketball players are (well) taller than the average person in their respective gender group. Does being tall make a person a good, or even a better basketballer? Absolutely not!
:Sidenote
And like that, for each physical attribute that we claim or assume it beneficial to being a better disc golfer, actual disc golfers disprove those assumptions day after day.
Which part of Paige Pierce's (with all respect) diminutive stature and build is where she hides the ability to throw 450ft???
Not in her height, not in her broad shoulders, not in her bone density, not in her wingspan, not in her inertia-creating mass. So, where in her body is it decided that she is to throw far?
She throws that far because of the (this is a social aspect, not a physical one) thousands hours of practice she will have dedicated to improving her skill, and the fact that (once again, this is a social aspect, not a physical one) she started being introduced to honing her athletic performance potential from a young age.
So, on to the actual question on how to establish a disproportionate advantage that - in the sport of disc golf AND in gender-based divisions - transgender women would have over cisgender women.
Please have an explicit look at sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the IOC Framework (which is why & how the PDGA Medical Subcommittee on eligibility for gender-based divisions are reviewing the current policy):
https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf
Section 6, on the actual scientific research, states:
Any restrictions arising from eligibility criteria should be based on robust and peer reviewed research that:
* demonstrates a consistent, unfair, disproportionate competitive advantagein performance and/or an unpreventable risk to the physical safety of other athletes;
* is largely based on data collected from a demographic group that is consistent in gender and athletic engagement with the group that the eligibility criteria aim to regulate; and
* demonstrates that such disproportionate competitive advantage and/or unpreventable risk exists for the specific sport, discipline and the event that the eligibility criteria aim to regulate.
That quoted section clearly mandates that transgender women (seeking access to gender-based divisions in disc golf) need to be compared to cisgender women in disc golf in gender-based divisions.
What should that science look like?
We collected data from cisgender women in gender based divisions in disc golf and made a normal distribution of the data points.
We collected data from transgender women in gender based divisions in disc golf and made a normal distribution of the data points.
If those data points largely overlap it is proven there is NO disproportionate advantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) MAY NOT NEED TO BE put/kept in place, because the transgender women - statistically - fit within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.
If those data points largely do NOT overlap AND they consistently show to be mismatching on the larger/better side of the graph, then it is proven there IS disproportionate advantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) DO NEED TO BE put/kept in place, to help lower and limit the disproportionate advantage to be - statistically - within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.
If those data points largely do NOT overlap AND they consistently show to be mismatching on the smaller/lower/worse side of the graph, then it is proven there IS - in fact - disproportionate DISadvantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) DO NOT NEED TO be put in place, to help lower and limit the disproportionate advantage to be - statistically - within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.