Laura Nagtegaal 2019 Amateur World Champion FA40

[bwgort]

It had been approved in 2017 for the 2018 new rules book & competition manual, but was 'suspended' before the rule being activated, to be precise.
https://www.pdga.com/2018-pdga-competition-manual-updates-explanations

Yes, it was never active because there were large problems with the ability for a TD to collect payment for the PDGA after an event. It was not well thought out.

 

[robdeforge]

Just think of other sports...
How many sports even allow non-members & non-current members to compete in sanctioned events?!?!?
Fill in your idolised pro football team, and your local am football team's name, and then see if they would allow you to walk up to their game and say you wanted to join for their upcoming game whilst being a non-member.

"other sports aren't like this" is not a very convincing argument IMO. disc golf is different in so many ways, which is often a good thing.

the $10 fee for non members playing in sanctioned events seems like a perfectly fine compromise

 

[Three Putt]

It goes back to the "all things are not the same" situation.

Back in the 90's you couldn't expect to have any sort of PDGA event without non-members because there were not enough members to pull it off. The scene I was part of then has grown and now can hold an A Tier that requires membership because there are enough members to do that now. I don't live there anymore, though. Where I live we have had a course for less than 10 years. It's back to the "not enough members to pull it off" scenario. To hold any sort of PDGA event we HAVE to have non-members sign up. Give us another 20 years and maybe we won't, but there will be some other place that just put in a course and will be trying to build a scene. So long as "PDGA" is the overall sport umbrella governing both Pro and Am events, it's going to have to allow non-members to play in order for new amateur scenes to grow.

 

[Arisugawa]

It goes back to the "all things are not the same" situation.

Back in the 90's you couldn't expect to have any sort of PDGA event without non-members because there were not enough members to pull it off. The scene I was part of then has grown and now can hold an A Tier that requires membership because there are enough members to do that now. I don't live there anymore, though. Where I live we have had a course for less than 10 years. It's back to the "not enough members to pull it off" scenario. To hold any sort of PDGA event we HAVE to have non-members sign up. Give us another 20 years and maybe we won't, but there will be some other place that just put in a course and will be trying to build a scene. So long as "PDGA" is the overall sport umbrella governing both Pro and Am events, it's going to have to allow non-members to play in order for new amateur scenes to grow.

It is an interesting dilemma to have. The need to grow the sport vs. the integrity of the competition.

In my long line of athletics, disc golf is the first organized competition where the sanctioned events I attend sometimes begin with a meeting where the individual in charge says, "This is a sanctioned event. You are responsible for knowing and playing by the rules. If you don't know them, don't be surprised if someone who does know them gives you a penalty if you failed to follow them."

I've had players on my card fail to mark their lie, hole out correctly, jump putt within 8 feet of the target, etc, not out of malice, but because they were honestly never educated on what the proper rule or etiquette was. It puts the experienced players in a very awkward position to have to enforce situations that should not have to be addressed.

This is a bit off topic, obviously, and probably should be in a different thread, but again, it's an interesting dilemma.

 

[BrotherDave]

45 pages later and here's the fact:

Laura is still the Fa40 world champ.
Laura and other transgenders who meet the minimum requirements to play Female still can if approved by the PDGA Medical Committee.

You know, right where we all started.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the facts. Here is mine:

1. Laura is not female and cannot be female. Even if one assumes that Laura is female, she hasn't been female for 40 plus years and therefor arguably doesn't qualify for the Fa40 division still. (kinda joking or am I? )

2. There is no point to a female-only division if males are permitted to play. Why is there a female-only division? Because:

3. Advantages in sports cannot be reduced to hormone levels and muscle mass alone. Other factors borne of sexual dimorphism contribute to males having advantages, such as more robust skeletons, stronger ligaments, increased coordination, about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, and thus greater oxygen-carrying capacity. Males also heal faster and have higher pain tolerance due to higher clotting ability.

4. But most related to our sport, the biggest advantage males have over women is the ability to throw objects: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/throw-like-a-girl-with-some-practice-you-can-do-better/2012/09/10/9ffc8bc8-dc09-11e1-9974-5c975ae4810f_story.html?noredirect=on

Haspel cites research by University of North Texas professor Jerry Thomas that found "the overhand throwing gap, beginning at 4 years of age, is three times the difference of any other motor task." And the gap just gets bigger as girls and boys become women and men. By age 15, Thomas says, nearly every boy "throws better than the best girl." His research shows that nurture does play a role—in many cultures, boys are more likely to be trained in throwing than girls are, essentially from birth. But among "aboriginal Australian children, who grow up in a culture where both men and women hunt, and both sexes throw from childhood," while the gap in both throwing technique and projectile velocity might be smaller, it's still significant.

The power in an overhand throw — and in a golf swing, a tennis serve or a baseball swing — comes from the separate turning of hips and shoulders. The hips rotate forward and the body opens, and then the shoulders snap around. Women tend to rotate their hips and shoulders together, and even expert women throwers don't get the differential that men get. "The one-piece rotation is the biggest difference," says Thomas. "It keeps women from creating speed at the hand." Even when women learn to rotate hips and shoulders separately, they don't do it as fast as men.

Throwing objects well is unique to the human condition due to evolutionary biology and natural selection. Humans evolved to become bipedal and large brained, freeing their arms for increased tool making and implementation. As the stronger, faster, and more enduring between the two sexes, men evolved as the hunters and killed their prey using projectiles for the vast majority of the species' existence. From stones, to spears, to atlatls, men have specifically evolved to be exponentially better at hitting a target with objects than women. Hormone replacement therapy and cosmetic surgery cannot undo millions of years of evolution and the inheritance of our hominid ancestors.

For an in-depth understanding why transwomen have an unfair advantage with biological women: https://www.usapowerlifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/USA-Powerllifting-TUE-Committee-Report-2019.pdf

But the IOC has the same policy! Yes and no.

The current World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidelines for transgender athletes clearly state, "It is not the purpose of this medical information to define the criteria for the eligibility of these athletes to participate in competitive sport, which is entirely left to the different sporting federations and organizations" (WADA, 2017) [emphasis added]. Additionally, the IOC guidelines clearly state, "Nothing in these guidelines is intended to undermine in any way the requirement to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code and the WADA International Standards" (IOC, 2015)

It is my understanding that where a transgender athlete can compete is ultimately up to the sporting federation or organization, in this case the PDGA, not the IOC. So the IOC simply shifted jurisprudence to the individual organizations to decide the fairness of transgendered athletes competing in their respective sport. The IOC has a blanket policy that can be overruled if the organization deems that being male confers too great an advantage that HRT can't nullify. If this understanding is correct, than using the IOC policy as a defense amounts to nothing more than a thinly veiled appeal to authority fallacy. Furthermore, the IOC apparently has no idea what they're doing anyway and appear to be altering their vague guidelines already from a 10nmol/L of testosterone limit to anywhere from 3 to 5nmol/L.

Genel suggests 5 nmol/L, but concedes the number is somewhat arbitrary. Genel says he's sure that having more testosterone gives an athlete some advantage, but he says no one knows how much. [emphasis added]

There's the issue of not knowing how many nanomoles of testosterone enhance performance, or by how much. There's no evidence about whether the difference is greater in some sports than in others. Testosterone levels vary during the day and after athletic performance, so when should tests be done? And what is a standard testosterone level for trans women undergoing hormone therapy?

"We're really handicapped by is how little data there is," Genel said.

So the strongest argument that it's fair for transwomen to compete in female divisions because their hormone levels are similar is admittedly dubious at best according to one of the IOC medical commission's members.

I fully understand that in today's politically charged climate that this stance is tantamount to making me literally Hitler. Those of you that disagree with my stance are permitted to ad hominem away at me and call me everything from bigot, homophobe, etc as you like. It's a free country, kind of. However I will not respond or entertain any such responses so I wouldn't bother. That being said, I have no quarrel with transgenders playing disc golf nor am I attacking their lifestyle at large. They can identify however they see fit as long as it doesn't come to the detriment of others (in this case, female disc golfers). I mean no offense in asserting that transwomen are not and cannot be real aka biological women. It's the foundation of this argument and cannot be ignored in favor of protecting anyone's feelings. This is a position based in biology, not politics. For future replies, I also don't mean any offense if I use disfavored pronouns. I don't believe any individual is entitled to a particular pronoun and that pronoun usage is the speaker's prerogative, based on societal norms. I'll use "she/her" for the transwomen in this thread to be civil but if I slip up and use "he/him" there is no malicious intent.

 

[discerdoo]

Will this thread never die?

 

[gingerandhoney]

No one is calling you Hitler, or comparing you with Hitler.
I certainly don't, and last time I checked, the topic was insurrected in my 'honour', not yours.

Whether you like it or not. Whether you agree with it or not. Whether you belief it's right or not. Whether you belief it's fair or not, two things remain valid:
1.) I am the current and reigning FA40 World Champion, and as such the first openly transgender disc golf world champion.
2.) The PDGA, after careful review by the Medical Committee, have approved me for competing in gender-protected divisions earlier this year, I submitted suppoting evidence and documentation for BOTH paths to eligibilty, and got approved for both.

Will my winning that title, and the resulting commotion online be touched upon next Tuesday at my first PDGA Board of Directors teleconforence after being elected? Possibly.
Will the PDGA ask/tell me to give up my title? I very highly doubt that. Really.
The motion regulating accepting the policy ss we now know it was approved 6-0-0 this spring.
See page 3-4, https://www.pdga.com/files/2019-3-12bodmeetingminutes_final.pdf
I have not seen anything in the meeting minutes since that point towards reverting that decision.

And I can already guarantee and promise you, I will NOT be voting on a motion to uphold or revert that decision if that were to happen during my tenure. I will abstain. To avoid anyone from accusing me of 'pushing a transgender agenda'.
Will I share my opinion on the topic with the Board if that topic were tabled? Absolutely.
Will I try to convince them of voting in favour of a for-me-beneficial outcome? No.
As is to be expected of any elected governing body, each individual on said body is expected to have personal bias, but is also expected to not simply vote in favour of that bias for personal gain, or seek to influence others to do so.

And as for my being female or not, being a woman or not. I will repeat:
1. my passport unequivocally confirms I am female
2. legally, socially, visually, formally, emotionally, financially, bathroomingly, dress-codily, even the ability to distinguish between peach, mauve, ginger, salmon, pink, and rose, I am female, I am woman.
3. Point #2 will be verifiable by force if you were to perform visual physical checks, my external sexual characteristics are in line with that of a cisgender woman.

On the debate of chromosomes, you do not know what my karyotype is, you only know - by my own admission - what my phenotype was.
And phenotype, genotype, and karyotype do NOT always align. Hermaphroditism and intersex conditions being well documented of said non-alignment.

You do not know whether I am XY (what was once believed irrefutable proof of being male). Assumptions have been, and will continue to be, made, but without any actual proof, these are just that, assumptions.
For all you know, I could even have YCM, or XX male syndrome.

On the physical aspects of the players vying for that title in FA40 (small focus group, but also directly involved)
I was 'out-monkey-ed', and out-length-ed, and out-muscle-toned (combined with low fat percentage) by 2 of the 5 other semi-finalists, and out-shoulderwidth-ed by a different combination of 2 out of 5, making for a nice mix of "no one really stood out based on physicality".
Kerri (2nd), Amy (5th) and myself being the tall and lanky type, Erin (6th) being lanky, and Mila (3rd), and Tammy (4th) being larger-framed, and shorter and shortest respectively. Would you put Mila's total muscle mass on the scale, I'd actually be NOT-surprised if their muscle mass were to be higher than mine.

On the testosterone debate; transgender women - me included, typically have LESS of it than cisgender men. That typically puts transgender women under the IOC-mandated 10nmol/l threshold. Well below, actually.
Typically, said transgender women ALSO have testosterone levels below that of a cisgender woman's.

The IAAF have, for 3 of their just over 30 recognised events (it would appear this is to spite Caster Semenya, but they supposedly did so by verifying which events' esults have the larger variance between men's and women's divisions), stipulated that the threshold lies at 5nmol/l.

In an ideal world. I would tend to agree with this lower threshold with regards to transgender women, as it will still be slightly above typical values for cisgender women, instead of slightly above the abnormal values for cisgender women.
BUT, this amount also is a double edged sword, as with the threshold set at 5nmol/l cisgender women, or hyperandrogenous women who can and do create testosterone in excess of 5nmol/l, will be disallowed to compete in gender-protected divisions (lest they artificially lower their naturally occurring testosterone levels).
And THAT is physiologically the same as telling Michael Phelps, whose body creates far less lactic acid (resulting in less physical fatique), he should artificially take lactic acid to level the playing field.
Or telling Ralph Sampson or Boban Marjanovic (extremely basket ball players, FYI) they are too tall to play basket ball.
Or a cyclist with exceptional lung capacity - or oxygen absorption - they need to have one nostril taped shut.

Caster Semenya being a very visible case in women with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone, but she is not alone, she is mereley the most talked about.


I can not guarantee that my testosterone levels are typical for all transgender women, but so far, the ones I talked with - those with AND those without any athletic ambitions, ie. I am not selecting subjects, and thus skewing results in my favour - all report their bloodserum levels of testosterone on or below the LOW END of the normal range for women. Only one transgender woman I know, and she has nno athletic ambitions other than commuting to her work by bike, and whose measurements (weight, height, circumference) resemble that of Paige Pierce, yet she is well in her 40's, has reported testosterone levels as high as 1.8nmol, which places her in the normal range of normal values for transgender women.

Until the IOC, and with them, the countless other sports authorities, have found a better way to address the athletically important physiological differences between men and women, it is to be considered the fairest method available.


So, you want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have longer limbs, ie. more kinetic leverage? Make 'monkey factor' divisions, separating Eveliina Salonen from Sarah Hokom, and separating Jeremy Koling from Paul McBeth.
You want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have more weight, ie. more intertia and weight shift to bring to the table when hurling their discs forward? Make weight classes, separating Burl Berlogar from Elaine King, and separating Val Jenkins from Paige Pierce.
You want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have more muscle mass? Make weight mass classes, separating Sarah Hokom from Paige Pierce.
You want to regulate specific bodily measurements but not others, you are on a slope so slippery you will have effectively killed physical excellence.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Will this thread never die?

As long as discourse is done in a civil manner, and/or I don't stop breathing, I guess it'll stay alive.

 

[discerdoo]

As long as discourse is done in a civil manner, and/or I don't stop breathing, I guess it'll stay alive.

Maybe you and Bro D could just PM each other. It's all been said on this thread already.

 

[biscoe]

Maybe you and Bro D could just PM each other. It's all been said on this thread already.

you could also choose not to read...

 

[discerdoo]

you could also choose not to read...

I certainly don't read the manifesto posts. I tend to gawk at car wrecks too, one of my many character flaws.

 

[robdeforge]

It is an interesting dilemma to have. The need to grow the sport vs. the integrity of the competition.

I'd just like to add that, in my 6ish years of playing disc golf, I don't see a correlation between PDGA membership and rules knowledge/compliance. If I thought that playing in a PDGA sanctioned tournament meant that everybody would be playing by the rules I would've been a member as of a few years ago. Instead I've had PDGA members tell me incorrect rulings, tell me that I'm wrong with no evidence, I've had the PDGA director for my state tell me an incorrect ruling and wouldn't change his mind even after I showed him how he was wrong as stated in the rulebook.

So I personally don't see any benefit for an event being PDGA sanctioned.

 

[Arisugawa]

I'd just like to add that, in my 6ish years of playing disc golf, I don't see a correlation between PDGA membership and rules knowledge/compliance. If I thought that playing in a PDGA sanctioned tournament meant that everybody would be playing by the rules I would've been a member as of a few years ago. Instead I've had PDGA members tell me incorrect rulings, tell me that I'm wrong with no evidence, I've had the PDGA director for my state tell me an incorrect ruling and wouldn't change his mind even after I showed him how he was wrong as stated in the rulebook.

So I personally don't see any benefit for an event being PDGA sanctioned.

You're correct. Signing up for the PDGA does not require passing the certified official's exam, and many players who are officials did the minimum amount of work to pass the exam and do not know all of the rules or the nuances of applying them. That extends to some TDs.

I was merely pointing out that in my experience, the permitted and expected ignorance on the part of the participants (and staff, at times), and the assumption that experienced players will make allowances for this, to encourage more participation is an interesting problem that I've only witnessed in disc golf.

It very likely is not unique to our sport, but it is the first I've encountered. For example, I never experienced anything similar, even in the intermediate levels of a USTA sanctioned tennis tournament.

 

[robdeforge]

I was merely pointing out that in my experience, the permitted and expected ignorance on the part of the participants (and staff, at times), and the assumption that experienced players will make allowances for this, to encourage more participation is an interesting problem that I've only witnessed in disc golf.

It very likely is not unique to our sport, but it is the first I've encountered. For example, I never experienced anything similar, even in the intermediate levels of a USTA sanctioned tennis tournament.

That is a great point and I would agree with you. As somebody who grew up playing basketball, soccer, and tennis at various levels of competition, disc golf is unique in that regard.

 

[John Rock]

Ginger, You try hard to be politically correct and your rebuttals/arguments are mostly sound, but your last paragraph just ruined your whole stance. You're comparing players in Open divisions with your fears. Those playing in an Open division are putting their skills up against all comers, they're not choosing to compete where they feel they have some advantage. Personally I'm not in favor of letting trans-people compete in a protected division like you have done, it just reeks of unfairness given the final outcome. Please quit comparing Open players with those choosing a protected division for whatever reason they may be able to justify.

 

[BigDickHyzer]

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the facts. Here is mine:

It's nice to see some actual links and references to actual facts instead of anecdotal evidence. Saying "so and so is actually taller than me, so actually I'm at a disadvantage" doesn't exactly move the needle for me.

 

[DavidSauls]

So, you want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have longer limbs, ie. more kinetic leverage? Make 'monkey factor' divisions, separating Eveliina Salonen from Sarah Hokom, and separating Jeremy Koling from Paul McBeth.
You want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have more weight, ie. more intertia and weight shift to bring to the table when hurling their discs forward? Make weight classes, separating Burl Berlogar from Elaine King, and separating Val Jenkins from Paige Pierce.
You want to disallow transgender women from competing because they have more muscle mass? Make weight mass classes, separating Sarah Hokom from Paige Pierce.
You want to regulate specific bodily measurements but not others, you are on a slope so slippery you will have effectively killed physical excellence.

This strikes me as a straw man. As best I've seen, nobody has argued that all trans-women will have those advantages, over all other women.

On average, men have certain physical advantages over women. Not all, of course; there are women who are taller and have longer limbs than, say, me. But on average, men have physical advantages, which is why we have a protected division.

The variations in individuals don't matter.

Take 1000 men and 1000 women, the averages favor the men. Transition those 1000 men, and some of those advantages still apply.

Your argument should be that the advantages that may still apply are vastly outweighed by the advantages that will no longer apply (testosterone, muscle mass), to the degree that the female-protected divisions are appropriate.

I don't know if that's true or not, but that should be the argument. I gather it's a winning argument with the IOC and many other sports.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Ginger, You try hard to be politically correct and your rebuttals/arguments are mostly sound, but your last paragraph just ruined your whole stance. You're comparing players in Open divisions with your fears. Those playing in an Open division are putting their skills up against all comers, they're not choosing to compete where they feel they have some advantage. Personally I'm not in favor of letting trans-people compete in a protected division like you have done, it just reeks of unfairness given the final outcome. Please quit comparing Open players with those choosing a protected division for whatever reason they may be able to justify.

I am amused and amazed that you 'pull' fears as your operative word for my post.
Fear has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
And, you don't know what, if any, my fears are.

The comparisons I am making are no more an dno less than an extrapolation of trying to curb physical differences between players.
By trying to regulate - as a result of the countless "well, transgender women have XXX and YYY traits, you are jus tgoing to have to extrapolate that to the disc golf population as a whole.
Including those in MPO and FPO that are 'not contested' by you, like I obviously am.

If you want to disallow a transgender woman playing in a gender-protected division for having a certain physical trait, you are going to have to step on that slippery slope, and start making distinctions like the ones I made in my examples.

And the even more outrageous "well, a transgender woman could only play gender-protected if they wer eno taller than 5'6", not heavier than 160lb, have wing span no more than 5'7", wear shoes no larger than US10, etc...." Don't even get me started, please....

 

[gingerandhoney]

It's nice to see some actual links and references to actual facts instead of anecdotal evidence. Saying "so and so is actually taller than me, so actually I'm at a disadvantage" doesn't exactly move the needle for me.

I'm not trying to move the needle in any direction.

I am simply debunking allegations and accusations that transgender women are taller, have longer arms, have broader shoulders, etc. by giving you first-hand knowledge of the opposite occurring.
I am not presenting it as "I am at a disadvantage".
I am not presenting it as "transgender women are NOT taller, do NOT have longer arms, do NOT have broader shoulders, etc."
I am simply showing you data that proves that a broad brush is used to paint transgender women as having advantageous physical measurements.

The only thing you'll win that game on, is claiming I have larger feet than my competitors.
It is what I am still highly dysphoric about, and will always remain so.

Rather than a disadvantage, I felt I was at an advantage, but not one that you would probably pick for me.

My putting game. I knew I went into the tournament with a 3 month average of C1 putting at 82%. That is mostly because I tend to remain calm AND I have a notoriously conservative putting style. I think that in my entire 9 year career, I 3-putted about 6 or 7 times.
That 82% is 'pretty solid', if I may say so myself. And is almost exclusively an aim & confidence thing. There's very little, if any at all, physical advantage one player would hold over another inside C1.

That percentage gave me a mental break and perceived advantage that allowed me to remain confident, even if my drives and approaches were average/okay.
For AmWorlds, I actually tallied an 86% C1 putting percentage; ie. even higher than what I already knew I could do.

 

[John Rock]

Slippery slope, I guess. Isn't that everyday life? Many slopes we have to traverse, sometimes we need crampons to reach our objectives. As a long time player who has organized many, many events, I have heard numerous complaints about who is playing what division, and have heard just as many lame-a** excuses why so-and-so doesn't want to play a division more in line with their skill level.