lines
Double Eagle Member
this feels slightly hyperbolic. I don't think 'cheating' is the issue. i believe 'fairness' is the issue.
-
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 Updates Gender Policy
- Thread starter brutalbrutus
- Start date
- Status
this feels slightly hyperbolic. I don't think 'cheating' is the issue. i believe 'fairness' is the issue.
SD86
Banned
Doping/PED use is a totally different issue.
Putt for D'oh
Double Eagle Member
I don't think Teemkey's example is well put, but it highlights a large grey area that I see in this. That is what to say about a competitor who comes in with a naturally occurring level of testosterone that all of the other athletes could only achieve through PED abuse?
This is where the picture you posted earlier about equality vs equity gets pretty mixed up. Where do they fit?
I don't want to be on the side of exclusion, and certainly don't agree with most of the statements in this thread or the examples and language being used in support of exclusion but the topic is about physical competition and I am honestly curious how one would approach this part of the topic.
To the general populace: I'm adding dorseymatt next to Nova P on my DGCR Forum Hero's Wall.
Also, the nerd in me has been activated and I just want to talk about an earlier statement I made for a sec: that almost all members of the animal Kingdom are default female until the male genes are activated during development. It's the "almost" that gets super interesting.
There are a handful of asexual members of the animal kingdom (I can offhand think of a few across several phyla). They would all be considered female, because each member of the species can reproduce an offspring. There are also several hermaphroditic tended species which can fertilize themselves (the difference being true asexual species effectively clone themselves). But ANY sexually reproducing species can produce instances of gynandromorphic or hermaphroditic or any other blend of genders as well.
BUT the crazy part is, there are a TON of species which, in the absence of a male or female necessary to reproduce, can change genders. In the absence of a male or female in the population, one of the more suitable members of the population will start activating or suppressing the male/female traits and- get this- transition into the other gender. In every way. They can then begin reproducing as if they were that gender from birth. This happens in tons of species of fish, but also in reptiles, amphibians, birds (which technically are reptiles now, but I still have to remind myself because I would not have thought of peacocks when I said reptiles first), mollusks, whatever. All over the animal Kingdom, gender isn't just a spectrum determined at birth, but it can also change along a spectrum during life. THAT is crazy to me and why I love science.
Bonus genetic funny thing: Reptiles like lizards, snakes, tuatara, and even turtles and crocodilians (which are in a different subclass) have their gender determined by an environmental factor as trivial as temperature. No matter what hormones are present. How wild is that?
Also, the nerd in me has been activated and I just want to talk about an earlier statement I made for a sec: that almost all members of the animal Kingdom are default female until the male genes are activated during development. It's the "almost" that gets super interesting.
There are a handful of asexual members of the animal kingdom (I can offhand think of a few across several phyla). They would all be considered female, because each member of the species can reproduce an offspring. There are also several hermaphroditic tended species which can fertilize themselves (the difference being true asexual species effectively clone themselves). But ANY sexually reproducing species can produce instances of gynandromorphic or hermaphroditic or any other blend of genders as well.
BUT the crazy part is, there are a TON of species which, in the absence of a male or female necessary to reproduce, can change genders. In the absence of a male or female in the population, one of the more suitable members of the population will start activating or suppressing the male/female traits and- get this- transition into the other gender. In every way. They can then begin reproducing as if they were that gender from birth. This happens in tons of species of fish, but also in reptiles, amphibians, birds (which technically are reptiles now, but I still have to remind myself because I would not have thought of peacocks when I said reptiles first), mollusks, whatever. All over the animal Kingdom, gender isn't just a spectrum determined at birth, but it can also change along a spectrum during life. THAT is crazy to me and why I love science.
Bonus genetic funny thing: Reptiles like lizards, snakes, tuatara, and even turtles and crocodilians (which are in a different subclass) have their gender determined by an environmental factor as trivial as temperature. No matter what hormones are present. How wild is that?
The impression I get is that the PDGA has not yet crossed that bridge, and may be waiting to reach it first.
There's been a couple of high-profile cases like this in world-class-tier sprinting events, and the way the governing body of track and field handled it was a little bit of a (bleep)-show. I think what they finally did was to make great reams of data to pore over, looking at the percentages to see which specific track and field events were or were not affected by the presence of extra-high levels of endogenous (occurring within the body, as opposed to supplements) testosterone and create a patchwork of some events which were strictly monitored, and others which were not.
Now mind, this kind of performance-enhancing drug monitoring is extremely costly, time-intensive, and creates tremendous reporting and presence burdens on the athletes, as they have to log all the things they put in their bodies, be in specific venues at specific times (and log that too), take blood tests randomly or immediately after high-profile wins, etc. For a world-class athlete making a living at the sport, it's a hassle to endure. In our little sport? It's prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and likely to be gross overkill.
Wild and alarming. Aren't some reptiles threatened with extinction by temperature-induced sausage party due to climate change? I thought I'd read that recently.
So we're a couple hundred responses in, I've seen posted evidence for the complexities of gender in this very thread, but have you provided any evidence for your claim?
I'm asking because your (outdated) understanding of anatomy and physiology was commonly held scientific belief, until new evidence came to light, and new studies were undertaken, where results showed us that things we previously believed to be true actually were not.
Funny enough, Statistics has this concept too, it's called a "lurking variable". Things that you want to say are correlated (such as chromosome expression and the cultural construct of binary gender) may in fact not be at all, or not nearly as strongly as previously believed.
So are you saying you don't believe science in general? Or did you just unilaterally decide that science was correct up until you no longer believe it to be because it doesn't fit your worldview?
As humans, we naturally try to categorize and organize (hence the very concept of "rules" in the first place), and we encounter great cognitive dissonance in our worldviews when things don't fall neatly into those boxes we've created. Many times however, we forget to ask ourselves if those box labels were created arbitrarily, or after the result of investigation and critical reasoning.
My point sir, is that you need to check the labels on your boxes. They expired decades ago.
So a female started taking PED's and spent time practicing seriously...what does this have to do with transgender people?
Not trolling, trying to follow the train of thought.
Last edited:
teemkey
* Ace Member *
But isn't hormones what the gender issue is about? At least insofar as gender-based performance differences.
And isn't a test for hormones essential to the new PDGA policy.
The player's gender ID isn't the core issue here, nor the player's genitalia, nor the player's chromosomes; it's physical performance enabled by the levels of specific hormones in the player's body.
That's one of the only good Rush songs because Geddy Lee doesn't sing.WHat this thread needs, is a bit of levity to calm everyone down...
I have YYZ chromosomes...
Yes.
There's two directions for transition: female to male, and male to female.
In the first case, the introduction of masculinizing hormones (testosterone) immediately disqualifies the player from further participation in the gender-protected divisions, because testosterone enhances performance.
In the latter case, there are two paths for a male to female transgender player to become eligible to play in the gender-protected divisions, and both of those paths are focused around changes to the body's chemistry to eliminate or suppress testosterone. In one case, surgical removal of the testes, which ironically gives the player even less endogenous testosterone than cis (lit.: not trans-) females. The other is constant and monitored suppression of testosterone via hormone therapy. This latter case has strict requirements for ongoing use of the hormones to continue to maintain eligibility, as well as reports from a doctor, lab blood tests, etc.
It has been shown* scientifically that a prolonged period (like, a couple of years) of either (a) not possessing testicles at all or (b) taking a lot of estrogen and anti-androgens annihilates the athlete's former muscle bulk, o2 capacity, etc, and their performance levels become similar to those of their new peers.
----------
(*: Here comes that S word! =D )
Pretty much. I don't know if I've seen anything about it in a while, but I wouldn't doubt it for a second. It's a pretty specific temperature window, given that it has to be a middle-area to produce both male and female. For example, sea turtles hatched farther from the ocean in warmer sand I believe tend to be more male. Even just a few feet from eggs that turn out mostly females.
I used to teach a basic herpetology class to kids, and since then the theories of how we classify "reptiles" has changed, or at least more nuanced theories are becoming more popular. It's now generally accepted that birds belong in the reptile classification, but there's a lot of different taxonomic breakdowns beyond the standard categories we think about, mainly on whether things like, do their scales overlap like armor, or is it more skin-like? But even then snakes are categorized as more related to lizards, and turtles more with crocodilians. Since I'm out of the game now, I haven't kept up with it too closely. All I know for sure is dinosaurs are birds now.
As an academic hypothetical, I understand your point, but I think it goes beyond the scope of the PDGA policy, which is to effectively govern based on the latest science (well presumably anyway, I don't want to put words into their mouth).
Pulling the thread a bit further on your concept - maybe one day we will have "hormone based" divisions or something along those lines that don't differentiate by gender at all. It's not an impossible scenario, and who knows, maybe it would be more "fair".
The problem I see with this is that you're taking away agency from the human behind the statistic. I refer to Nova's post previously and say apply Occam's razor to it. Transgender people don't go through permanently life altering procedures and protocol for something as trivial as a sports title. It's hard enough to be the best in any sport when trying to do it with the physiology that you were born with, much less to fundamentally alter it and then climb that ladder.
Orioles_Lefty
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 597
Philosophies that influence rules would be a whole 'nother DGCR class. Can we form a MOOC? We could also have one on fairness as a concept/goal.
Rules exist for the sake of allowing for collaborative, yet competitive engagement in a purpose-based activity. I don't think rules exist for solely good or bad people but instead to acknowledge that situations in need of advisement will arise in competitive situations along with the purpose of stating basic gameplay principles.
Policing is secondary for me, when it comes to rules. Agreement on rules (guiding principles) facilitates the activity itself.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
Actually, I think we, as a society, are over-generalizing and at risk of creating policies that don't address the problem the policies attempt to solve.
The PDGA Gender Policy is a case in point. The problem is maintaining gender protections instituted because of performance factors related to, but NOT defined by gender. That's where Lulu came in.
I think most people who want to change their gender are doing so because of social rather than physical norms. That is, when the genders are expected to behave in different ways, treat me as an X, rather than a Y. (pre-surgery)
I don't think the PDGA rule was written as social normative guidance. Unless of course it was to help distinguish which dress codes apply to which players.
texasissouth
Double Eagle Member
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
It could be selection bias, too. This forum is kind of a sausage party.
Only if by sausage you meant Vienna sausage...
I'm sure everyone at this point realizes that if you present a well thought out argument, including academic studies, that SD will just say that you are viciously attacking him.
Just let the old man sit at home alone and clutch his pearls.
Maybe he will move onto a Chess Forum eventually.
Just let the old man sit at home alone and clutch his pearls.
Maybe he will move onto a Chess Forum eventually.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
This is the most outrageous claim in this entire thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
