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.