Coming Together: DGPT Launches United Series

[Rastnav]

Ah yes, the both sides ism is strong with that one...

Let me ask you all a question. I want you to understand that this isn't a hypothetical - this is the reality of the trans experience in disc golf right now...

As trans women, we all understand that we are being discriminated against. Whether state laws do or do not favor us in court, objectively, we are being treated differently than other women, in a way that excludes us specifically because of who we are, for something we didn't choose, and cannot change.

Having said that, my question is this: Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?

Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation".

I think it's important to engage with Chris Clark, because he is a rather prominent contributor in disc golf media circles. I left the following comment on the video:

I imagine this comment may get buried, as so many are here to push on a specific wedge issue rather than engage with the analysis, but maybe @DiscGolfdotLaw will see it.

Referring to this as a "negotiated" solution is, at best, highly misleading. Your experience as a lawyer with negotiated settlements is with the two sides of a legal dispute negotiating a legally binding settlement. This is not that in any way.

This is especially the case because only one side of the actual legal dispute was in said "negotiations". All of the trans allies who were attempting to help Natalie? They are actually part of the DGPT. Natalie was not represented or consulted in any way during said internal conversations. No trans persons were involved, and definitely not any of the trans disc golfers who have been affected by the PDGA or DGPT policies.


This was presented as a fait-accompli to Natalie and she was asked to support it ex post facto. Surely you see the difference between this and a negotiation? You should see this as a strategy which carries certain ongoing risks for the pro tour. For one, there wouldn't seem to be anything preventing Natalie from filing suit in those friendly states because DGPT is still not treating her as an equal competitor. I don't know that she would do so, or do I know what chance she would have of winning, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Brychanus]

Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation".

I think it's important to engage with Chris Clark, because he is a rather prominent contributor in disc golf media circles. I left the following comment on the video:

I imagine this comment may get buried, as so many are here to push on a specific wedge issue rather than engage with the analysis, but maybe @DiscGolfdotLaw will see it.

Referring to this as a "negotiated" solution is, at best, highly misleading. Your experience as a lawyer with negotiated settlements is with the two sides of a legal dispute negotiating a legally binding settlement. This is not that in any way.

This is especially the case because only one side of the actual legal dispute was in said "negotiations". All of the trans allies who were attempting to help Natalie? They are actually part of the DGPT. Natalie was not represented or consulted in any way during said internal conversations. No trans persons were involved, and definitely not any of the trans disc golfers who have been affected by the PDGA or DGPT policies.


This was presented as a fait-accompli to Natalie and she was asked to support it ex post facto. Surely you see the difference between this and a negotiation? You should see this as a strategy which carries certain ongoing risks for the pro tour. For one, there wouldn't seem to be anything preventing Natalie from filing suit in those friendly states because DGPT is still not treating her as an equal competitor. I don't know that she would do so, or do I know what chance she would have of winning, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Sounds like you might have insight in how some of these proceedings work more generally, is that true? IANAL and have no clue what most of the current decision making implies legally in the long run.

Basically I am trying to understand if the PDGA and DGPT are getting themselves into even hotter water in the long run if they are not extending efforts to negotiate/discuss the issues directly with trans players more generally, if that is what is happening as is described in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[denny ritner]

Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation".

The negotiation was within the legitimate ranks of DGPT FPO players.

 

[BionicRib]

Ah yes, the both sides ism is strong with that one...

Let me ask you all a question. I want you to understand that this isn't a hypothetical - this is the reality of the trans experience in disc golf right now...

As trans women, we all understand that we are being discriminated against. Whether state laws do or do not favor us in court, objectively, we are being treated differently than other women, in a way that excludes us specifically because of who we are, for something we didn't choose, and cannot change.

Having said that, my question is this: Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?

The way I see it is that the disc golf world is torn. No matter what the dgpt/pdga does there will be a lot of unhappy people. In the end it will boil down to $.

I think they created this united series to make it look like they are trying to appease everyone. Instead I think they are just doing it to feel out the reaction of the masses while they adjust future plans.

I do see a real scenario where next year there is no fpo division offered. As crappy as it sounds. Financially that might be the best decision.

 

[Rastnav]

The negotiation was within the legitimate ranks of DGPT FPO players.

This is what is known as "begging the question" or "assuming the conclusion" given that the question of who should be allowed to participate is precisely the point of contention.

 

[Rastnav]

Sounds like you might have insight in how some of these proceedings work more generally, is that true? IANAL and have no clue what most of the current decision making implies legally in the long run.

Basically I am trying to understand if the PDGA and DGPT are getting themselves into even hotter water in the long run if they are not extending efforts to negotiate/discuss the issues directly with trans players more generally, if that is what is happening as is described in this thread and elsewhere.

IANAL either. I do pay careful attention to legal cases that have broader effects on society. That includes liking to read or listen to expert legal analysis on constitutional cases or ones that may result in changes to federal or state legal precedent. I also have a group of friends that includes quite a number of lawyers (defense, prosecution, judges, civil litigators, etc.) That means that, when they come up, our conversations about the law are much more informed than average.

 

[Rastnav]

The way I see it is that the disc golf world is torn. No matter what the dgpt/pdga does there will be a lot of unhappy people. In the end it will boil down to $.

I think they created this united series to make it look like they are trying to appease everyone. Instead I think they are just doing it to feel out the reaction of the masses while they adjust future plans.

I do see a real scenario where next year there is no fpo division offered. As crappy as it sounds. Financially that might be the best decision.

I very much doubt that elite level FPO tournaments will cease to exist. I could see a scenario where the DGPT attempts to legally separate FPO and MPO, potentially resulting in multiple legal entities, say MDGPT, FDGPT and UDGPT (just as a placeholder). Steve Dodge said outright on the Nick and Matt show that there was zero chance the FPO tour wouldn't exist in 2024. I doubt he says it so confidently if there isn't a commitment to continue. Although people do sometimes lie, shockingly.

The three entities could still all contract with DGN for coverage, so on the surface not much would look different. It would seem to present issues when attempting to organize sponsorships and figure out how to make an overall season and championship. You also run into the issue that when the 3 still end up being very tightly coupled. Discovery in the ultimate lawsuit could end up being highly disadvantageous for what might actually be a legal split where the entities continue to act as if they are one. If the same people actually call the shots in all three that might ultimately be a bigger problem than the original one, but IDK.

 

[BionicRib]

I very much doubt that elite level FPO tournaments will cease to exist. I could see a scenario where the DGPT attempts to legally separate FPO and MPO, potentially resulting in multiple legal entities, say MDGPT, FDGPT and UDGPT (just as a placeholder). Steve Dodge said outright on the Nick and Matt show that there was zero chance the FPO tour wouldn't exist in 2024. I doubt he says it so confidently if there isn't a commitment to continue. Although people do sometimes lie, shockingly.

The three entities could still all contract with DGN for coverage, so on the surface not much would look different. It would seem to present issues when attempting to organize sponsorships and figure out how to make an overall season and championship. You also run into the issue that when the 3 still end up being very tightly coupled. Discovery in the ultimate lawsuit could end up being highly disadvantageous for what might actually be a legal split where the entities continue to act as if they are one. If the same people actually call the shots in all three that might ultimately be a bigger problem than the original one, but IDK.

I should have clarified in my post. What I meant to say is that I can see a real scenario where the dgpt does not offer an fpo division.

 

[denny ritner]

This is what is known as "begging the question" or "assuming the conclusion" given that the question of who should be allowed to participate is precisely the point of contention.

Actually, it's not. DGPT has stated it's policy and is only deviating because one person is attempting to burn it down. The point of contention is how to maintain their product with the least amount of sacrifice.

 

[Jolt]

I wonder what will happen if NR wins worlds? I guess if that happens that will be BIG news and talked about way out of the small discgolf comunity

 

[denny ritner]

I very much doubt that elite level FPO tournaments will cease to exist. I could see a scenario where the DGPT attempts to legally separate FPO and MPO, potentially resulting in multiple legal entities, say MDGPT, FDGPT and UDGPT (just as a placeholder). Steve Dodge said outright on the Nick and Matt show that there was zero chance the FPO tour wouldn't exist in 2024. I doubt he says it so confidently if there isn't a commitment to continue. Although people do sometimes lie, shockingly.

The three entities could still all contract with DGN for coverage, so on the surface not much would look different. It would seem to present issues when attempting to organize sponsorships and figure out how to make an overall season and championship. You also run into the issue that when the 3 still end up being very tightly coupled. Discovery in the ultimate lawsuit could end up being highly disadvantageous for what might actually be a legal split where the entities continue to act as if they are one. If the same people actually call the shots in all three that might ultimately be a bigger problem than the original one, but IDK.

I wonder what will happen if NR wins worlds? I guess if that happens that will be BIG news and talked about way out of the small discgolf comunity

LOL, that will NEVER happen.

 

[Brychanus]

Ah yes, the both sides ism is strong with that one...

Let me ask you all a question. I want you to understand that this isn't a hypothetical - this is the reality of the trans experience in disc golf right now...

As trans women, we all understand that we are being discriminated against. Whether state laws do or do not favor us in court, objectively, we are being treated differently than other women, in a way that excludes us specifically because of who we are, for something we didn't choose, and cannot change.

Having said that, my question is this: Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?

Even if you were being rhetorical or presenting a hypothetical, I would say to your last question:

"We should not be supportive of discrimination (in any case of e.g. discrimination 1a 1b and related meanings)."

 

[roblee]

IANAL either. I do pay careful attention to legal cases that have broader effects on society. That includes liking to read or listen to expert legal analysis on constitutional cases or ones that may result in changes to federal or state legal precedent. I also have a group of friends that includes quite a number of lawyers (defense, prosecution, judges, civil litigators, etc.) That means that, when they come up, our conversations about the law are much more informed than average.

Ah, then you would know that DGPT is under litigation and an action to reach an out of court agreement would likely include negotiations with the complainant.

 

[Rastnav]

Ah, then you would know that DGPT is under litigation and an action to reach an out of court agreement would likely include negotiations with the complainant.

Yes? Wasn't that precisely my objection to the video by DiscGolfdotLaw?

I think I might be missing whatever point you are making.

 

[roblee]

From you #121:
"Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation"."

I thought you questioned Chris Clark's analysis because he concluded there was a negotiation between NR & DGPT. I agree w/ CC that a negotiation (or at least communication) was likely. A consensus was developing on this thread that there was only Paige's phone call & no other communication between complainant or her lawyers & DGPT regarding the new format. No one here is privileged to that.

 

[denny ritner]

From you #121:
"Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation"."

I thought you questioned Chris Clark's analysis because he concluded there was a negotiation between NR & DGPT. I agree w/ CC that a negotiation (or at least communication) was likely. A consensus was developing on this thread that there was only Paige's phone call & no other communication between complainant or her lawyers & DGPT regarding the new format. No one here is privileged to that.

The tour is not going to negotiate with Natalie. Natalie is openly hostile to the tour's policy. The tour is going to fight for their policy.

 

[roblee]

That's why lawyers talk, no?

 

[Rastnav]

From you #121:
"Yeah, I found that analysis to be lacking, specifically because he referred to a "negotiation"."

I thought you questioned Chris Clark's analysis because he concluded there was a negotiation between NR & DGPT. I agree w/ CC that a negotiation (or at least communication) was likely. A consensus was developing on this thread that there was only Paige's phone call & no other communication between complainant or her lawyers & DGPT regarding the new format. No one here is privileged to that.

I mean, unless you are saying Natalie is lying, she has said she received no communication about this other than PP presenting it to her afterwards.

Regardless, there was no legal agreement between Natalie and DGPT that resulted in the creation of the United Series. So, again, I'm not understanding the thrust of your statement.

 

[RAHfrolfer]

A lot of this discussion has revolved around legal arguments and "scientific" evidence but isn't this really a sociological issue? let me start by saying that I am not well versed in the issue of trans athletes competing in women's sport so I will try to ask more questions here than give opinion. Please do not be offended by my questions as they are honest. I find the backlash in these discussions is so profound that many people do not voice their opinions simply to limit the amount of vitriol that they endure.

My first question is - shouldn't it be up to the women if they want to compete with Trans athletes? I know that trans athletes have been fighting for their right to participate but I can tell you that women have been fighting for the right to participate much much longer and in every single venue in society (the right to vote, work, be educated etc etc). I really don't think "science" has much to do with it." It is my understanding that many of the women in the FPO do not feel it is fair to compete against trans athletes. I know when I see a 6'4" 190lb trans athlete competing against a 5'2" 125lb female athlete - it doesn't seem fair to me. It has been a profoundly difficult fight for female athletes to be able to earn a living at sport. Just look at the Canadian Women's Soccer team as an example. They out perform the men's team in every competition yet they still fight to be paid the same. It's embarrassing and wrong, but it goes to show you how difficult it is for women to make a living at sport while male athletes take it for granted that they are paid to play.

My next question is - aren't trans athletes men genetically who are taking durgs for cosmetic reasons that have a side effect of being perfermance de-enhancing drugs? If a male athlete did not take any drugs but wanted to wear their hair long, wear a sports bra and take on a female gender performance (I realize this is a very traditional female sterertype but I simply use it as an example), would they not still be welcome to compete in the men's field? I don't understand why men who take drugs to change their appearance think it is fair to women who did not have the advantage of building muscle and stature through puberty with male hormones, to force them to compete with them. I certainly don't understand how taking women to court to force them to compete with them is supposed to be seen as inclusive behaviour. Remember, women are also continuously fighting for their rights. Do women get paid the same as men in disc golf? Or any other sport for that matter? The gains women have made for themselves have been hard fought. Do the women have a say in this? What do the women athletes say?

 

[Skamanda]

The plan changed to better accommodate female disc golfers.

If they changed to accommodate female (by which I'm assuming you mean cis women, because that's the trendy distinction that excludes trans women this week) disc golfers by including trans women, that would suggest there are enough cis women who want inclusion to make most of the rest of the season inclusive.

By all means though, answer the question I asked. Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?