For what it is worth trans women have been competing in gender protected divisions for years in disc golf to no apparent ill effect.
They are a fraction of the population for starters and those that do play disc golf in a female protected division will have ill effect on any biological female that places below the transgender woman. Marginal effect? Probably. It's highly unlikely that anyone will pursue fame or riches by transitioning to dominate the FPO. Maybe Climo will attempt to put some more world champ notches on his belt by pulling a Bruce Jenner. It's extremely doubtful but a lot of people were probably surprised by Jenner transitioning also. The major point is that this policy runs afoul of the principle of having a female protected division.
I do find it amusing that the only people who are fulminantly against this are males. How does this affect you? Why, in your heart of hearts, is this really bothering you this much?
This question is irrelevant and dripping with appeal to authority fallacy. I'll answer it anyway. Males have wives, sisters, girlfriends, mothers, and daughters that will be adversely affected by this policy. Regardless of relation, the principle of the division is invalidated.
Well, you know, we males always have the instinct to defend the helpless females from other males.
Well you see, the patriarchy is so powerful and suppressive that women can't be heard. So we're being good feminists by giving the voiceless a voice.
:|
:|
They estimate 1.7% of people are born intersex, which is more people than are born with red hair. That leans toward this being a little more complicated than the XY sex-determination system can account for. Or at least something to think about. I mean I don't have any answers and my opinion on this matter is just my opinion.
This estimate is highly disputed:
There are few firm estimates of the number of intersex people. The now-defunct Intersex Society of North America stated that:
If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births [0.07–0.05%]. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won't show up until later in life.[135]
Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., said in two articles in 2000 that 1.7 percent of human births (1 in 60) might be intersex, including variations that may not become apparent until, for example, puberty, or until attempting to conceive.[136][137] Their publications have been widely quoted,[53][138][139] though aspects are now considered outdated, such as use of the now scientifically incorrect term hermaphrodite.[140] Eric Vilain et al. highlighted in 2007 that the term disorders of sex development (DSD) had replaced "hermaphrodite" and improper medical terms based on it.[141]
The figure of 1.7% is still maintained by Intersex Human Rights Australia "despite its flaws".[142] "This estimate relates to any "individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels" and thus it encapsulates the entire population of people who are stigmatized – or risk stigmatization – due to innate sex characteristics."
Cast a wider net, catch more fish.
ThreePutt said:
But we do this stuff. There was a thing going 'round a few years ago saying men were going to dress like women so that they could get into women's bathrooms. And? What would that get them? A view of women washing their hands? I mean stalls are still things. They would have to do something illegal for there to be anything worth worrying about, and if they were going to do something illegal like that what advantage would being in the woman's room in drag get them? I mean it's a great way to get people all worked up..."Dudes are going to be in the bathroom with your daughters!" The reality is that it's a non-issue. Kinda like the idea that a dude would pretend to be a woman to win disc golf events.
But this has happened and is happening with more frequency since these policies have been implemented. They're just not nationally reported because journalists are bad people. You'll roll your eyes at this
source but it's just a convenient compilation of links to 25 "non-issues.". But just because something isn't likely to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't take precautions. It's not likely that I'll be murdered in my sleep if I leave my door unlocked at night but I still lock my doors because I don't want to enable that possibility. Simply saying, "nothing will happen probably b/c murder and stuff is illegal anyway" is a really naive way to regard people.
To the people that are strongly oppose to this: What are your thoughts on hormone doping, like men taking hgh? Should this not be at least as big of a concern to you? If fairness above all is the main concern, why not lobby for doping tests?
Fairness is not above all my main concern. My concern is having something specifically for certain people, a female protected division, and then blurring the meanings of words so much thanks to junk science and politics that the division becomes pointless. Yes, I'm arguing semantics. :|
Now I assume that the reason behind the division is fairness so you're not wrong there. Since biologically male developed people have almost always physical advantages (regardless of hormone treatments) than biologically female developed people then yes it wouldn't be a terribly level playing field for the former to compete in a division exclusive for the latter. Doping is a bit different though in that it's an issue regardless of specific divisions.
I can just as easily say that although I'm a 25 year old I identify as a 60 year old because my telomere health indicates that my cells are as aged and unhealthy as a 60 year old due to my drinking, smoking, poor diet, and sedentary lifestyle. I feel like a 60 year old, I have a note from a random doctor saying I need these testosterone shots, and I have cutting edge science to back me up so let me play MPO60 division or you're an ageist, science denying, bigot.
A division for those with XX chromosomes, plus a very limited number of exceptions to the XX.
How about the limited number of exceptions to the XX just play in any of the open divisions? Or make them all open divisions? An XX chromosome only division isn't much of an XX chromosome only division if you allow exceptions to XX chromosomes.
