PDGA Board of Director Elections

[ru4por]

No offense, but repeatedly pointing out your own lack of talent does nothing for your argument.



Why don't you and your buddies create your own disc golf tour? The PDGA has a policy in place that is in line with other major sporting bodies around the world and works just fine. You aren't trying to defend the women's division of the PDGA, you are trying to change it. Instead of changing something that already exists, why don't you create the new trans exclusionary division of your dreams on your own dime? If people truly want a women's division that excludes trans women they will flock to your tour and you will be a shining success. If not you will fail and lose money. Seems like a much more fair way to handle this than coopting an entire organization over your little pet issue.

It could be called Terror Disc Golf Tour. Exclude non white golfers, redheads, non religious, Democrats, critical thinkers, and all people different than PenValk. Promote hate and fear, hoping for sponsors that are like minded. :thmbup:

 

[Dingus]

It could be called Terror Disc Golf Tour. Exclude non white golfers, redheads, non religious, Democrats, critical thinkers, and all people different than PenValk. Promote hate and fear, hoping for sponsors that are like minded. :thmbup:

ESPECIALLY redheads.

 

[Shallows]

Outside of Johnny Knoxville I highly doubt anyone is trying to game the regs to win a special Olympics medal. I would also say a special Olympics medal is more prestigious than a disc golf world championship. All this to say that transgender athletes in disc golf is a non issue.

I'd much rather be a dg world champion than win a special Olympics medal!

 

[Dingus]

I'd much rather be a dg world champion than win a special Olympics medal!

The Special Olympics had 120k spectators and reached over 700 million households globally. Obviously my post wasn't meant to be 100% serious, but without a doubt the Special Olympics dwarfs PDGA Worlds as an event.

 

[GMcAtee]

I'd much rather be a dg world champion than win a special Olympics medal!

I'm pretty jealous of my sister's gold medal for basketball. If I didn't bully her on the basketball court when we were kids, she wouldn't be such a good player.

 

[Dingus]

I'm pretty jealous of my sister's gold medal for basketball. If I didn't bully her on the basketball court when we were kids, she wouldn't be such a good player.

Today I learned that trans women playing against other women is bad because they are actually men, but women playing against actual men is good because it challenges them to improve. Got it.

 

[txmxer]

I suppose I am coming at it from a different perspective relative to the initial conversational frame used initially, with regard to mutations and such. I should have addressed, more directly, the post you made where you provided the definition. My posts this afternoon have really been more tightly aligned with responding to your use of the definition of the word.

He's got an agenda related to me for some reason. It's a really weird obsession to bring in to this thread considering we seem to be on same side regarding the issue of trans participation in disc golf.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I'm pretty jealous of my sister's gold medal for basketball. If I didn't bully her on the basketball court when we were kids, she wouldn't be such a good player.

Or she would be, minus your bullying. Hell, maybe she'd be better. But whatever helps you sleep at night considering you take pride in referring to yourself as a "bully."

 

[Tinkles]

Today I learned that trans women playing against other women is bad because they are actually men, but women playing against actual men is good because it challenges them to improve. Got it.

This is disingenuous.

Trans women playing against other women appear to have a physical advantage that is not sufficiently mitigated by testosterone suppression to effectively remove the advantage, and this may create an unfair playing field in a protected division.

The inclusion of trans women in protected divisions is also potentially troublesome in that it means exclusion of other players in that protected division in some cases which is also worth consideration. There are only so many places on a podium or lanes in a pool..

The impact on trans women of being excluded from participating in sports with their gender is also worth considering.

A brother playing games with his sister is good.

 

[Dingus]

Trans women playing against other women appear to have a physical advantage that is not sufficiently mitigated by testosterone suppression to effectively remove the advantage, and this may create an unfair playing field in a protected division.

Why can't the women's disc golf field benefit from playing against the unmitigated physical advantages in the same way as that guy's sister? Maybe our ladies need a bit stiffer competition to unleash their true talents.

Steel sharpens steel. We would be doing our ladies a disservice by preventing them from competing against the best.

 

[gingerandhoney]

This is disingenuous.

Trans women playing against other women appear to have a physical advantage that is not sufficiently mitigated by testosterone suppression to effectively remove the advantage, and this may create an unfair playing field in a protected division.

Operative word "appear".
Please let the actual scientists come to a consensus.

The inclusion of trans women in protected divisions is also potentially troublesome in that it means exclusion of other players in that protected division in some cases which is also worth consideration. There are only so many places on a podium or lanes in a pool..

So you end up with the much larger issues, people in gender based divisions not being catered to (which means people in mixed divisions needing to give up spots). That is a so so so much bigger dial in "protecting women's divisions"; even just 2 cards of mixed players giving up spots to cater to people eligible to compete in gender-based divisions in event X, has a much much much larger effect than preventing Natalie, Chloe, Nova, and myself to compete in that division.

In jest I wrote on a Facebook thread "women's disc golf has 99 problems and transgender women ain't 1", and it's sad to say so, but that is actually more true than many would care to admit.

The same problems that made/kept female participation below 8% prior to 2010 (ie prior to transgender women being allowed in gender-based divisions) are still as applicable now as they were then.

 

[Dingus]

The same problems that made/kept female participation below 8% prior to 2010 (ie prior to transgender women being allowed in gender-based divisions) are still as applicable now as they were then.

All things considered, would you advocate for the inclusion of trans women if it resulted in a net loss of cis women participating in disc golf?

 

[Tinkles]

Why can't the women's disc golf field benefit from playing against the unmitigated physical advantages in the same way as that guy's sister? Maybe our ladies need a bit stiffer competition to unleash their true talents.

Steel sharpens steel. We would be doing our ladies a disservice by preventing them from competing against the best.

They do, I'm sure in many cases, practice with men.

Why don't competitive sports allow unmitigated access to performance enhancing drugs?

Your argument's conclusion seems to be that we don't need protected divisions. Am I misinterpreting something?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Operative word "appear".
Please let the actual scientists come to a consensus.


So you end up with the much larger issues, people in gender based divisions not being catered to (which means people in mixed divisions needing to give up spots). That is a so so so much bigger dial in "protecting women's divisions"; even just 2 cards of mixed players giving up spots to cater to people eligible to compete in gender-based divisions in event X, has a much much much larger effect than preventing Natalie, Chloe, Nova, and myself to compete in that division.

In jest I wrote on a Facebook thread "women's disc golf has 99 problems and transgender women ain't 1", and it's sad to say so, but that is actually more true than many would care to admit.

The same problems that made/kept female participation below 8% prior to 2010 (ie prior to transgender women being allowed in gender-based divisions) are still as applicable now as they were then.

This is 100% a much much much bigger issue than the one that we are fighting over. I was listening to a discussion regarding the subjugation of women's association football in Great Britain during the period from the late 19th century through the present. Men actively took away venues that women could use to compete, controlling sites and banning women from them - forcing them onto lesser fields. This despite the fact that prior to and during World War I women were commonly encouraged to participate in the sport and women's events were a huge draw. The fields eventually dwindled, and the entire sport in Great Britain eventually had to completely reboot when the Women's World Cup led to a desire for a strong women's program. Limits on women competing damage the sporting landscape.

Any argument that women who have transitioned are in any way limiting space in the fields is completely wrongheaded, and should be focused on the problem that is any artificial limitation on the size of their fields. This can impact logistics, so be it. But if the inclusion of a woman who has transitioned impacts any element it should be the overall number of spots available, not "the number of spots available to women."

 

[ChrisWoj]

Why don't competitive sports allow unmitigated access to performance enhancing drugs?

Because many of them actively damage the body. It certainly has nothing to do with enhancing performance. If that was the case the lists of banned substances would be much much longer.

 

[Dingus]

They do, I'm sure in many cases, practice with men.

Why don't competitive sports allow unmitigated access to performance enhancing drugs?

Your argument's conclusion seems to be that we don't need protected divisions. Am I misinterpreting something?

Sports should allow unmitigated access to PEDs. The 80s and 90s were awesome :thmbup:

I don't have a horse in this race. I would never play in a protected division of any kind, be it gender, skill, or age. But the fact is that we have these protected divisions, and the women's division currently includes trans women. You are the one trying to change it. As the one trying to change it you have the obligation to give clear and irrefutable evidence that the change would be beneficial. So far the logic sounds like "but a cis woman might LOSE!!" which is not compelling to me. If you fear losing you must practice harder. If we get to a point where the top ten are all trans women we can talk again, maybe there will be a "there" there. But right now you don't have enough weight to effect change.

 

[txmxer]

should be focused on the problem that is any artificial limitation on the size of their fields.

This. To suggest that having a few additional participants in the sport is somehow a problem is like trying to drive forward by staring in to the review mirror.

 

[DatRedDude]

ESPECIALLY redheads.

What have we done other than steal souls?

 

[Tinkles]

This. To suggest that having a few additional participants in the sport is somehow a problem is like trying to drive forward by staring in to the review mirror.

To suggest it is not worth consideration is dismissive of the protected group. To suggest that the person excluded from a swim lane or who lost out on a medal is not worth considering is like what?

 

[Tinkles]

Operative word "appear".
Please let the actual scientists come to a consensus.

I don't disagree with the sentiment here.

In your opinion should the burden of proof be on the protected group or the one asking to gain entry?


Regarding your other point, I agree but that is a different issue entirely IMO.