PDGA Board of Director Elections

[Dingus]

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

What are you talking about? Trans women already have entry. You are talking about revoking it. The burden of proof is on those who wish to revoke access.

 

[CPAPhil]

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.

Who is asking to gain entry? Anyone competing in a division is already doing so under the current guidelines.

 

[ChrisWoj]

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?

These are not separate issues within the context of this discussion because people, such as yourself, are using one incredibly big problem in our sporting landscape (size of the venues available to women) to invent a separate problem for the purpose of scapegoating. You're discriminating against some women because of exterior limitations engendered (no pun intended) by discriminatory practices against all women.

 

[Tinkles]

Who is asking to gain entry? Anyone competing in a division is already doing so under the current guidelines.

I would argue that entry should not have been granted without meeting that burden and if it isn't currently clearly met, then it should be suspended pending conclusive evidence otherwise. The burden is not on the women.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, and I am compassionate with the trans women trying to play sports with their gender. This is not an easy discussion but one worth having.

I also feel like we are unfairly putting this burden on women and would absolutely not do the same to men. In an effort to be compassionate to trans women, we have minimized/ignored the impact to women and appear unwilling to amend that unless women can prove otherwise.

I see women's rights in this country under assault from multiple directions. This is another place where they are being dismissed.

 

[Tinkles]

These are not separate issues within the context of this discussion because people, such as yourself, are using one incredibly big problem in our sporting landscape (size of the venues available to women) to invent a separate problem for the purpose of scapegoating. You're discriminating against some women because of exterior limitations engendered (no pun intended) by discriminatory practices against all women.

Independent of the landscape size, that problem exists no? Unless your suggesting that the solution to that issue is unlimited spots. In that case you certainly remove this consideration.

As it is how are you not discriminating against some women?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Independent of the landscape size, that problem exists no? Unless your suggesting that the solution to that issue is unlimited spots. In that case you certainly remove this consideration.

As it is how are you not discriminating against some women?

You are proposing discriminating against some women, as a result of discrimination against all women. Shouldn't you be fighting to end the discrimination against all women?

 

[Dingus]

I would argue that entry should not have been granted without meeting that burden

You are a day late and a dollar short. Trans women are women as far as the PDGA is concerned. You missed your chance to make this argument, so now the burden of proof has shifted to you.

 

[roblee]

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.

Huh?

 

[Tinkles]

You are proposing discriminating against some women, as a result of discrimination against all women. Shouldn't you be fighting to end the discrimination against all women?

100% on fighting to end discrimination against people in general. I am 100% an advocate for LGBTQ+ to be treated like everyone else, as a human deserving of your respect and compassion.

We love to focus on our differences when we are 99% the same. Life is hard enough without us inventing reasons to dislike each other. My 8 year old told me she was a lesbian the other day. I told her I love her and am proud of her for being her, and I had my arm around her and her wife (giant stuffed unicorn) while we watched Ms Marvel. I don't even like being in a position where I have to tell her I'm proud of that. She should just be who she is and know she'll be loved and treated with respect and compassion. I waffled between telling her I was proud or just saying "ok" in my best attempt to act like it's a topic I couldn't care less about either way. I was thinking in that moment, even with an 8 year old, how do I ensure that she knows I love her unconditionally and that no matter what support she finds outside this door, she will always find mine.

I think she and other cis women are worthy of my consideration as athletes in a protected division.

I think trans women are worthy of my consideration in that regard.

These decisions can cause harm to all women in this case. That is why this is such a difficult discussion…

In the case of competitive sport specifically, I don't think cis women should have the burden of proof on them, and I do believe it is discrimination against them and dismissive of them to put that on them.

 

[GMcAtee]

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."

Not likely. It's all to see how they respond. Some cry to mommy, while others get mad and are determined to beat you. She received no special privileges. Take it to the paint and get hit. No blood, no foul.

If you ever get a chance to read about the first super recruit, Damon Bailey, and how his dad's friends used to beat him up on the basketball court, you'd understand.

That's an era that has gone and passed though. Now we have all these people identifying as something else, whining, wanting special treatment, forcing their agenda on others. Now those people are the bullies and people are fighting back.

 

[PennedStarValkyrie]

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

I made this point earlier but because they have their way now, they can hide behind 'inconclusive' science (its not really inconclusive). Its just a flavor of science they choose to ignore because it doesn't agree with their politics. They will ignore videos like this one that shed light on how the development of transgender medicine isn't based on peer reviewed science at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c

The burden of proof should absolutely be the promoters of trans women in FPO. It used to be simple, born a female = FPO eligible. Now there's extra layers of rules dependent on the quantity of pharmaceutical drugs someone is taking and for how long. This opens the door for lots of grey areas and the need for testing.

It also reduces athletic ability to one simple testable compound: testosterone. This is a gross oversimplification of athleticism. Why not keep it simple instead? Mixed divisions are your friend.

It is kind of ironic, for all the hating on white men*, they're fighting to have a few more divisions for them to be the best at. *(at birth!)

 

[ChrisWoj]

They will ignore videos like this one that shed light on how the development of transgender medicine isn't based on peer reviewed science at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c

This is a horrific propaganda video. Dr. Quentin van Meter is not an expert, and does not provide facts. He is often outright wrong, for example: he does not have a deep understanding of the history of transgender medicine, he does not accurately represent it nor the depth of studies, nor the number of studies that support the science. As a matter of fact - in the state of Texas his testimony has been thrown out of courts in the past because he can not supply support for the points that he makes - he is not regarded as an expert in the field, and can not support himself as such. He takes advantage of the fact that he was working as a pediatrician attached to a research project to make it sound like he has some expertise, but he was not a researcher and does not have any expertise on the topic.

 

[Streets]

I made this point earlier but because they have their way now, they can hide behind 'inconclusive' science (its not really inconclusive). Its just a flavor of science they choose to ignore because it doesn't agree with their politics. They will ignore videos like this one that shed light on how the development of transgender medicine isn't based on peer reviewed science at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c

The burden of proof should absolutely be the promoters of trans women in FPO. It used to be simple, born a female = FPO eligible. Now there's extra layers of rules dependent on the quantity of pharmaceutical drugs someone is taking and for how long. This opens the door for lots of grey areas and the need for testing.

It also reduces athletic ability to one simple testable compound: testosterone. This is a gross oversimplification of athleticism. Why not keep it simple instead? Mixed divisions are your friend.

It is kind of ironic, for all the hating on white men*, they're fighting to have a few more divisions for them to be the best at. *(at birth!)

Halcon, is that you?

 

[Tinkles]

I made this point earlier but because they have their way now, they can hide behind 'inconclusive' science (its not really inconclusive). Its just a flavor of science they choose to ignore because it doesn't agree with their politics. They will ignore videos like this one that shed light on how the development of transgender medicine isn't based on peer reviewed science at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c

The burden of proof should absolutely be the promoters of trans women in FPO. It used to be simple, born a female = FPO eligible. Now there's extra layers of rules dependent on the quantity of pharmaceutical drugs someone is taking and for how long. This opens the door for lots of grey areas and the need for testing.

It also reduces athletic ability to one simple testable compound: testosterone. This is a gross oversimplification of athleticism. Why not keep it simple instead? Mixed divisions are your friend.

It is kind of ironic, for all the hating on white men*, they're fighting to have a few more divisions for them to be the best at. *(at birth!)

Who are they?

 

[ru4por]

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.

This is the most pathetic thing you have posted......AND THAT IS SAYING A LOT! You need it to be about you SO BADLY, that you somehow convinced yourself to take credit for her accomplishment? Add narcissist to this list.....SMH.

 

[chevis]

Halcon, is that you?

wish there was only one of 'em, but there are far too many crusading for their religious beliefs

 

[foxdawg10]

In this fairly narrow discussion topic, biologists, the actual scientists who could chime in with actual first had research on the matter, do not speak of defects, abnormalities, or anomalies. Those words are xxx-normative, and are rarely used without intrinsic negativebias built in. (In this topic that would be cis-normative) They speak of variations.. For a reason.

Yes, the world anomaly has the potential to carry a very negative connotation.

Some people in this thread fail to recognize that their own glib use of the word feeds into the negativity, even when they are ostensibly using the word in a supportive manner.

 

[foxdawg10]

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.

Where is your gold medal?

 

[foxdawg10]

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.

This has to be the most tone deaf pun on this thread, whether it was intentional or not.

 

[txmxer]

In this fairly narrow discussion topic, biologists, the actual scientists who could chime in with actual first had research on the matter, do not speak of defects, abnormalities, or anomalies. Those words are xxx-normative, and are rarely used without intrinsic negativebias built in. (In this topic that would be cis-normative) They speak of variations.. For a reason.

Foxdawg has a personal issue with me and he's doing his passive-aggressive trolling--don't get sucked in to it.

I made a statement in post #283 that he decided was "glib".

Link provided above to 46XY mother of two. And you can rattle on about how this is an anomaly, it's not the natural order of things…blah, blah, blah. Human beings are all genetic anomalies. We are continually evolving and mutations occur.
My point is this is about people. Individuals. They exist. They didn't ask to be unique as none of us have control or get to choose their sex nor their gender (two different things). But you think they should only be allowed to exist as something less than equal. They are inferior.
The whole fairness debate is a red herring because nobody wants to open that can of worms beyond the minimal and incorrect binary statement that people are either XX or XY. You admit that neither sex nor gender are binary, then say those individuals don't matter.