It was a false dichotomy. We are unique but also have similarities, to varying degrees, both real and perceived.
It's the "perceived" that cause most of the problems.
-
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)
Laura Nagtegaal 2019 Amateur World Champion FA40
- Thread starter DiscFifty
- Start date
It was a false dichotomy. We are unique but also have similarities, to varying degrees, both real and perceived.
It's the "perceived" that cause most of the problems.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
I'll use another 50ct word here...
"confirmation bias".
That google search is full of it.
The only reason I even searched on it was because of this comment:
Could we talk disc golf?
It might help to ponder the reasons for protected divisions in the first place. Not just gender-protected, but age-protected (young and old) as well.
I'm just speculating here, since I wasn't in on the discussions to form them. It seems to me that they exist for a couple of reasons:
(1) Social---that people are more comfortable in these divisions. That many women would enjoy their experience being with, and competing against, other women, than being in divisions that are 90% men. Same thing with kids; better socially for them to be grouped together, than thrown in with the adults.
(2) Inherent limitations. Recognizing biological realities, that on average players in these groups don't have the same athletic tools as young men, and that there is a practical ceiling on how good they can be. It doesn't matter that that there is a wide variety of athleticism and body types within a division; that some women are better than some men, or some kids are better than some older players. Or, for that matter, so are some older men.
(But not) balanced competition, which the ratings system does much better. Protected divisions don't guarantee and competitiveness among all participants, and I don't think that's the primary goal.
*
The question of placement of transgendered women is where they fit. For #1, it's not a question at all. For #2, I'd think it's a matter of how the changes they've had are comparable to the inherent limitations of those born female---as to the average, and the ceiling.
There's no perfect answer, but to me the PDGA did the right thing in adopting the IOC standards. It's a pretty conservative line they've drawn, and it puts us in alignment with many other sports around the world.
That, and the relative rarity of the situation, and the fact that it's just disc golf tournaments we're talking about---not millions of dollars at stake---also leads me to feel it's a really minor matter on the PDGA's plate.
It might help to ponder the reasons for protected divisions in the first place. Not just gender-protected, but age-protected (young and old) as well.
I'm just speculating here, since I wasn't in on the discussions to form them. It seems to me that they exist for a couple of reasons:
(1) Social---that people are more comfortable in these divisions. That many women would enjoy their experience being with, and competing against, other women, than being in divisions that are 90% men. Same thing with kids; better socially for them to be grouped together, than thrown in with the adults.
(2) Inherent limitations. Recognizing biological realities, that on average players in these groups don't have the same athletic tools as young men, and that there is a practical ceiling on how good they can be. It doesn't matter that that there is a wide variety of athleticism and body types within a division; that some women are better than some men, or some kids are better than some older players. Or, for that matter, so are some older men.
(But not) balanced competition, which the ratings system does much better. Protected divisions don't guarantee and competitiveness among all participants, and I don't think that's the primary goal.
*
The question of placement of transgendered women is where they fit. For #1, it's not a question at all. For #2, I'd think it's a matter of how the changes they've had are comparable to the inherent limitations of those born female---as to the average, and the ceiling.
There's no perfect answer, but to me the PDGA did the right thing in adopting the IOC standards. It's a pretty conservative line they've drawn, and it puts us in alignment with many other sports around the world.
That, and the relative rarity of the situation, and the fact that it's just disc golf tournaments we're talking about---not millions of dollars at stake---also leads me to feel it's a really minor matter on the PDGA's plate.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
You are so right with making that distinction
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
And as for 'more major ussues',
By having ratiggs caps on Amateur divisions, but sign up procedures not accounting for them, or players improving on rating while TD's don't follow up (event hough it is player's responsibility) sandbagging in those divisions is real.
And here's one that no one talks about, but it happens...
Imagine this scenario:
38yo man, balding, grey hair, signs up for MA40 and wins, but because A.) PDGA don't need positive proof in ANYTHING they do (except for transgender women) that person can be signed up with PDGA (or not even sign up and just pay the $10 non-member fee) and walk away B.) no one will question that person's age. They say they're 39/40 already and (at least they're not claiming to be 48, right!?)
By having ratiggs caps on Amateur divisions, but sign up procedures not accounting for them, or players improving on rating while TD's don't follow up (event hough it is player's responsibility) sandbagging in those divisions is real.
And here's one that no one talks about, but it happens...
Imagine this scenario:
38yo man, balding, grey hair, signs up for MA40 and wins, but because A.) PDGA don't need positive proof in ANYTHING they do (except for transgender women) that person can be signed up with PDGA (or not even sign up and just pay the $10 non-member fee) and walk away B.) no one will question that person's age. They say they're 39/40 already and (at least they're not claiming to be 48, right!?)
biscoe
* Ace Member *
In theory yes but can you cite any examples of this actually occurring?
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
At https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/16552#MA3 i incorrectly, and ironically, got called a bagger by the 2nd place finisher. They had been over-max for that division since November of the previous year.
I have no hard data on the 38yo example. I would hope it is just theoretical, but the PDGA's system is set up to take advantage of it as per example.
I have no hard data on the 38yo example. I would hope it is just theoretical, but the PDGA's system is set up to take advantage of it as per example.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
Another, more glaring backdoor, for which I can not escape the notion of it being abused, Is that of a non-member consistently throwing 950+ round ratings, yet signs up for MA3, and that way support their plastic addiction.
Speaking of Night clubs not trans "lifestyle" clubs. :doh:
Anywho good discussion going on I like it. Havn't had the energy to participate as much as i'd like though.
TDs have the tools to verify rating/divisions for non members, but they won't do anything unless someone brings it to their attention.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
They have those tools available for members, not for non-members.
They only have tools available for current and non-current members.
Non-members are ghosts in the system without a paper trail of any sort.
PDGA does not store round rating, or even something like a temporary profile, for non-members.
The only data that is stored, is connected to a PDGA#. Non-members have none.
There is not even a way to distinguish between non-member Michael Jones, Appling, GA, and non-member Michael Jones, Augusta, GA.
Let alone check in their non-existent ratings history.
The onus of verification of eligibility for a division lies with the player themselves (comp. Man. 2.01 B ), but the TD is not exempt from doing due diligence.
Last edited:
Nor is there a system for TDs to check the gender of non-members.
For that matter, when players sign up for their initial membership, there is no proof of age or gender required. A parent could shave a couple of years off their junior player, or an adult could add a few years for future, premature movement to older divisions.
For that matter, when players sign up for their initial membership, there is no proof of age or gender required. A parent could shave a couple of years off their junior player, or an adult could add a few years for future, premature movement to older divisions.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
Amen.
I have been advocating for this for a few years now, starting with when I still was a Board member in 2015-17. I'd love for that to be implied ASAP, but I realise the world isn't ready for that yet. In Europe, though, most sports already work this way. In order to be a member, your proof of ID is required.
To date, everything the PDGA does with regards to membership, is self-identification, and unverified, at that.
Explicitly the only thing that is NOT done that way, and is actively enforced, and monitored, is gender-reclassification.
The only PDGA members who submitted any proof of ID, are transgender players who requested gender reclassification, and me being the first in that line.
None of the other regular members have submitted their ID copy.
I can't remember, but I think I volunteered, despite not being asked to, my pass copy when I was installed as a Board member.
I'd assume that staff DID supply proof of ID. Otherwise there'd be no way to file taxes, etc.
Last edited:
I'm not sure it's worth the effort to require proof of ID for membership---especially since that gets into data security issues. It's just disc golf tournaments, after all. Perhaps it will become worth the effort at top levels, as more money is involved. A lot is taken on faith.
Yours is a rare and extraordinary circumstance; I'm not sure if it can be equated with any other situations. Nobody's re-classifying their age; though I wonder if someone claimed that the age they initially gave was in error, and requested a change that would benefit them competitively, would the PDGA ask for documentation? The only other reclassification I can think of is pro-to-amateur; it does require submission and approval, but the PDGA has documentation already, in tournament results. Perhaps if a pro claimed that, due to injuries or illness, he or she should be an amateur, the PDGA might require something?
Also, like everything else taken on good faith, a trans-female who initially obtained a membership as a female, might never have to prove anything. The question might never arise.
Yours is a rare and extraordinary circumstance; I'm not sure if it can be equated with any other situations. Nobody's re-classifying their age; though I wonder if someone claimed that the age they initially gave was in error, and requested a change that would benefit them competitively, would the PDGA ask for documentation? The only other reclassification I can think of is pro-to-amateur; it does require submission and approval, but the PDGA has documentation already, in tournament results. Perhaps if a pro claimed that, due to injuries or illness, he or she should be an amateur, the PDGA might require something?
Also, like everything else taken on good faith, a trans-female who initially obtained a membership as a female, might never have to prove anything. The question might never arise.
I've been told differently by the PDGA (via email) and some tds. This was 2 years ago when some bs happened. I was told they can look up history for anyone just based on a player name. Has this changed recently to just members and expired members only?
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
There is hardcore access to database results, so, assuming the player would have unique identifiers (ie. not called Michael Jones) and player would predominantly play in one region only, things ARE possible to be verified, but not unequivocally so.
gingerandhoney
Birdie Member
I hear you. It IS possbily not worth the effort, unless proof of ID is immediately deleted upon verification. Data retention policies and privacy laws would make it troubled one way or another. That is as far as the "making cheating harder" arguments go.
For insurance purposes, it might actually be or become a necessity.
Imagine non-member player X hurting someone with a disc they threw, and this player just walks away, unidentified.
Yes, my situation is remarkable indeed, and I assume that the number of transgender people seeking gender-reclassification may ultimately go from single to double digits. Whether it ever gets to triple digits remains to be seen.
Let it be noted that I am not in this from the "I need to show proof of ID, so others must too".
I had brought up this proof of ID issue before I even learned to accept myself as a transgender woman. It was ultimately triggered by the notion that in Europe many sports require proof of ID when signing up.
FYI: in Finland, any * national association's disc golf member with a players license (which incudes PDGA membership), will have supplied their ID copy.
* A players license is required to compete in Finnish sanctioned events. That leads to the assumption that "all" members have supplied their ID copy, but rogue members do exist.
My passport change however (M to F change, first name change), caused me to look into the proof of ID issue more in depth.
For Pro-Am reclassifications, a simple player profile check is enough (rating low enough, when last cashed (must be 12+ months), already reclassified in most recent 5 years - I have performed dozens of these as PDGA Europe Interim Administrator between 10/16 and 11/18) to perform that, without any positive proof supplied by member being required.
For Pro to Am reclassifications where rating is too high, but other conditions ar met, a written statement and doctor's attest would be asked, if "injury" is used as reason for reclassification. See https://www.pdga.com/faq/pdga-tour/reclassification
ScottyLove
Double Eagle Member
Not exactly correct.
Michael Kobella (#77622, but not current) won the 2016 Am40 Worlds as a new PDGA member... but had played PRO for many years before in Germany and accepted cash. This was quite controversial of course. The PDGA eventually ruled that anything prior to joining couldn't count because there was "no way to confirm" if this was indeed the right person.
BUT... a huge BUT... as the PDGA team continues to go back through the pages of manual results and enters them into the online system/database, all of a sudden this guy with a NEW PDGA number has all these wins as a PRO in years past.
I thought we didn't know if it was really the same guy? Someone with no real close knowledge of all of this would look at the entire body of work of this person and be very confused as to why the same person who once accepted cash was crowned an AMATEUR World Champion (twice).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
HOD 6/1/2024: North Shore Channel Trail DGC Hole #4 Lincolnwood, IL- Latest: BuiltTooLong
-
-
-