Laura Nagtegaal 2019 Amateur World Champion FA40

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by dorseymatt

The statement that nobody is unique if everyone is unique is patently ridiculous. Words such as "diversity," "equality," and "inclusion" exist because they are useful terms that describe things. The Fortune Cookie Guild is offended.

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]

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

For fun I just did a google search on "transgender lifestyle clubs". I won't get into details about the results, but I could see people (mistakenly or not) thinking of that as a "lifestyle".

I'll use another 50ct word here...
"confirmation bias".

That google search is full of it.

[DiscFifty]

Originally Posted by gingerandhoney

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:

Originally Posted by Jsmithey

After all I am very different from other trans people that hit up clubs every night etc..

[DavidSauls]

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.

[gingerandhoney]

Originally Posted by gingerandhoney

I'll use another 50ct word here...
"confirmation bias".

That google search is full of it.

There was no judgement in my observation 😉

[gingerandhoney]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

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.

You are so right with making that distinction

[gingerandhoney]

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!?)

[biscoe]

Originally Posted by gingerandhoney

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!?)

In theory yes but can you cite any examples of this actually occurring?

[gingerandhoney]

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.

[gingerandhoney]

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.