PDGA survey

[discerdoo]

I won AmWorlds FA40.

By 21 strokes, congrats

 

[robdeforge]

What's a better term than "enforced" if we have policies that exist, but there is no requirement that anyone prove they followed those policies? Is "checked" a better term? Monitored? To be clear, I'm not saying it isn't being enforced in that they are allowing people to openly and wildly break the rules while knowing the rules are being broken. They just don't seem to enforce it in any real way.

For example...a speed limit of 55 on a highway, but there is never anyone checking people's speed. That means it isn't being enforced.

Specifically the part of her email that indicates that to me is:

"Some transgender women have voluntarily elected to provide proof of their eligibility to the Medical Committee in confidence."

I forgot to respond to this, but I agree that there is something that does not match up with what the PDGA says the guidelines are vs what Elaine king says in that email. I find it very strange that they would only require the medical evidence when reassigning a player from M to F in the PDGA database.

Because the PDGA guidelines say "Players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition are eligible to compete in a gender-restricted division at a PDGA event only if one of the following sets of criteria are met", I can see no clear reason why there would be a distinction made between "players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition and have previously registered with the PDGA as a Male player" and "players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition who have not registered with the PDGA as a Male player"

 

[dmoore1998]

No, disproportionate in this case (and yes, the IOC uses it, and so should the PDGA and any other sports association or federation) is when data points between the two affected parties in this case (cisgender women and transgender women having met eligibility requirements) have a statistically significant disconnect where one group consistently outmatches the other.

That would be proof of a disproportinate advantage.

How would you want to see the PDGA and DGPT handle (not-calling-it-disproportionate) advantage? Based on what data?

That's statistical significance, which is what should be used. Disproportionate, by the very definition of the word means TOO large or TOO small. That's why the IOC uses it. It's 100% opinion. The IOC is well known by pretty much everyone who follows sports to do this...they put language in their rules which allows them to refer to the rule after they've made the ruling they actually want to make.

I don't think sports federations should look at the IOC, see what an absolute cluster**** they are, and decide "yeah, let's just follow them". They aren't a desirable model to follow, groups literally only do it when they're FORCED to do it in order to compete in the Olympics.

Following the IOC model isn't going to lead to any final outcome. If the current PDGA looks at the data and says "there's a statistical significance between cisgender and transgender women performance"...their job isn't done there based on the IOC rules. They then have to look and say "but is that difference too large or not?" Statistical significant has determined there is an advantage that exists based on confidence intervals, sample sizing, mean of groups, spread of groups, etc. Adding "disproportionate" means that no matter the results, whoever is in charge just says "not disproportionate" or "disproportionate" based on their opinions and desired outcomes.

The way around that, which could be done, is to define what "disproportionate" would be prior to examination of the numbers. But then what you have is simply back to defined parameters for statistical significance. That's the equivalent of statistical significance...but that's not how the IOC uses it in their rules or in practicality. What the IOC does is run the numbers, then decides AFTER the fact whether the numbers are disproportionate or not.

Here's a practical example: If you run fast, I'll give you $1.

What should happen: "What's fast mean though?" "It means if you run 100 meters in 15 seconds".

What the IOC does: "What's fast mean though" "Just start running, I'll decide after we have the results of how far and how long it took"

Not only is the latter likely to end in politically based decisions based on who is in power...it's not likely to ever lead to a final outcome because as different people offer up the $1 and get your results, some will genuinely think you were fast, some will genuinely think you were slow, and some will think you were one or the other but lie to you later. That's not an honest, transparent process.

"Disproportionate" leaves whoever is in charge with the final decision based on opinion, not facts.

So to answer the final question, they should use statistical significance, defined prior to gathering the data.

 

[biscoe]

I disagree that it is that simple.

I am 57 years old and compete with guys who are in their early 50's all the time. It is pretty clear that the population of 52 year olds has a competitive advantage over the population of 57 year olds. The question we ask when setting up these divisions is one of proportionality, not one of absolute advantage or lack thereof.

 

[dmoore1998]

I disagree that it is that simple.

I am 57 years old and compete with guys who are in their early 50's all the time. It is pretty clear that the population of 52 year olds has a competitive advantage over the population of 57 year olds. The question we ask when setting up these divisions is one of proportionality, not one of absolute advantage or lack thereof.

The question we ask when SETTING UP the divisions is definitely proportionality (in theory)...we aren't setting up any division in this case though.

Beyond that though, they weren't even really set up with proportionality...they were set up arbitrarily. It's no mistake that the divisions are nice round numbers. They're essentially set up as a marketing tool, not with statistical analysis of competitive advantages.

 

[dmoore1998]

It's probably also worth noting that I'm concentrating on statistical significance because that seems to be the most widely agreed upon method for determining if transgender women should be allowed to play in female divisions (i.e. "if they have an advantage over cisgender women, then no, if they do not, then yes).

If people want to argue other methods on a basis different from science that's a completely different conversation. For example, the most obvious ones might be "gender is a societal construct, so if they present in society as a woman they should be considered a woman regardless of their advantage and allowed to play in female divisions" or "these aren't gender based, they are sex based, so sex assigned at birth should trump all". Both sides will have non-scientific arguments...some may be perfectly valid...but the consensus seems to be that we need to determine if transgender women have an advantage over cisgender women...so that's the analysis I'm speaking to.

 

[Arisugawa]

Yes, it actually IS that simple. We have cisgender women...if transgender women as a population (however you define that population, presumably in this case medically transitioned trans women) have an advantage over cisgender women, they should not compete in FPO.

You keep saying "competition is never equal" but then keep using individual examples. We aren't talking individuals, we're talking populations.

Wow. Okay. We aren't even in the same conversation any more. Once you start moving onto group exclusion, then it no longer becomes a matter of "if advantage" and more a matter of "not welcome." Ergo, the Jackie Robinson / black athlete comparison my whole position started from.

I'm done attempting to converse with you.

 

[dmoore1998]

Wow. Okay. We aren't even in the same conversation any more. Once you start moving onto group exclusion, then it no longer becomes a matter of "if advantage" and more a matter of "not welcome." Ergo, the Jackie Robinson / black athlete comparison my whole position started from.

I'm done attempting to converse with you.

Isn't that the ENTIRE conversation happening though? Whether transgender women should be allowed to play in FPO (or general female divisions)? Are you arguing it should be a decision based on every individual transgender woman? If so, we're definitely not having the same conversation, primarily because out of thousands of opinions I've heard, that would be the absolute first time I've heard anyone argue that's how it should work (on either side of the discussion)

 

[gingerandhoney]

Yes, it actually IS that simple. We have cisgender women...if transgender women as a population (however you define that population, presumably in this case medically transitioned trans women) have an advantage over cisgender women, they should not compete in FPO.

You keep saying "competition is never equal" but then keep using individual examples. We aren't talking individuals, we're talking populations.

The bolded "if" in what you say is the only thing that matters.

IF it is proven (not assumed or believed or alluded or suggested, but proven) that transgender women - while competing in gender-based divisions with/against cisgender women, have an consisten and ststistically significat advantage #because# of being transgender *, then it is justified to limit how transgender women can gain access to gender-based divisions.
Currently, that is done by stating their T levels need to have been < 10 nmol/L for a minimum of 12 months prior.

And by the way, it is not "should not compete in FPO", but their access needs to be limited by setting in place eligibility requirements that are deemed to mitigate the advantage transgender women may have.

* = just being tall isn't a qualifier, nor is having broad shoulders, larger wingspan, or more higher muscle mass, or lower body fat %.
Any of these qualifiers would statistically hurt more cisgender women than it does transgender women.
Quick exercise there: avg height for women in the USA is 1.63m (5'4"), while avg male height in the USA is 1.77m (5'9")
At what height would you say "this transgender woman is too tall to be allowed in"?
And how many cisgender would you need to disqualify then, for being taller than that threshold?
Any of these physical traits as (dis)qualifiers will hurt cisgender women more than it hurts transgender women.

 

[dmoore1998]

IF it is proven (not assumed or believed or alluded or suggested, but proven) that transgender women - while competing in gender-based divisions with/against cisgender women, have an consisten and ststistically significat advantage #because# of being transgender *, then it is justified to limit how transgender women can gain access to gender-based divisions.
Currently, that is done by stating their T levels need to have been < 10 nmol/L for a minimum of 12 months prior.

It's possible/plausible that regardless of T levels, there may be proof that we find that simply the physical (not hormonal) attributes of the transgender woman population may provide for a statistically significant advantage that cannot be mitigated.

There's no point where anyone should say "this transgender woman is too tall"...this isn't any individual issue...this is a population issue. I would expect that if there is scientific proof that transgender women have a statistically significant advantage...we're VERY far away from any kind of scientific proof that any particular source of that difference is attributable to the advantage.

Beyond that...if we do have a proven source...it may be that the proven source of the advantage is not something easily controlled by hormones.

Some of that may/may not come out in any research being done to determine if there is a difference or not (i.e. if we know T levels at the time of determining whether a difference exists...that may at least paint some sort of picture in order to determine where to look next for mitigating the advantage to allow participation). A lot of that "why do they have an advantage" (if they do) comes down to anything from random guessing to logical speculation.

 

[denny ritner]

Still want to claim that people transition in order to making a living playing a game?

An individual's motivation has zero bearing on the question of fairness.

 

[gingerandhoney]

By 21 strokes, congrats

Here we go again. Really!?!?!?!

At the same event: (https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/38850)
In FA70, Paula Bowen beat Judith Gipson by 42 strokes.
In FA60, Donna Stanley beat Maureen Miller by 51 strokes.
By your inferred logic, both Paula and Donna are transgender as well.
Scoreboard statistics like these are absolutely irrelevant.

-

But I'll - once again - explain how and why I got to that 21 stroke difference.
Purely looking at player ratings going in, anyone understanding ratings would quite probably simply write: "Laura is expected to win by about 14-15 strokes", without knowing any of our stories, histories, course layouts, dominant hand, usable distance, or arsenal of shots used.

I was expected to beat Kerri by 14.25 strokes (19 ratings points difference, assuming an average course SSA of 10 ratings points per stroke difference, that would result in 14.25 strokes difference after 7.5 rounds)
Actual course SSA's ended up being 9.15 ratings points per stroke (excluding the final 9), which would then have me win by 14.5 strokes after 7 of 7.5 rounds. (I actually was at 16 after 7 rounds).
Ie. I over-performed by 1.5 strokes total after 7 rounds, or 126 holes!!!!!!
But Laura has an advantage, right?!

Yet I ended up winning by 21, as you so accurately pointed out.
I earned a 15-stroke disconnect during that crazy 4th round (my -8 v Kerri's +7).

We had played that exact layout under the same exact conditions two more times, Kerri beating me by 1, me beating Kerri by 5. Ie. on average, I beat her by 6.3 on that course.
Kerri beat my by 1 stroke on the other 4 rounds of 18 holes.
All summed up, I beat her by 16 strokes in 7 full rounds = 2.3 strokes per round, which is totally in line with the expected 1.9 strokes per round difference)

Without that course, Codorus Township, on our course schedule, I doubt I would have won.
Without that "constantly in the zone, on cloud 9" bogey-free -8 round on exactly that course, I would absolutely not have won the title.
We tied twice during the tournament:
Before starting round 1, both at 0.
I then constantly trailed Kerri by 1-3 strokes for 55 holes straight. But sure, Laura has an advantage!
After hole #2, 4th round, we tied once more, both at +12.
At the end of the 4th round, we were at +6 for me, and +19 for Kerri. (A 2-stroke deficit turned into a 13-stroke lead)
She ended up at +38, while I ended up at +17.

That course where this happened, Codorus township, was exactly playing to:
* both our distance game's strength (both throwing about 280-290ft, with us consistently alternating longest drives throughout the tournament; avg hole length 296ft) - rest of field threw about 250ft drives.
* my game's strength for it being a leftie-favouring layout (didn't know beforehand)
* probably my strength for carrying a sidearm and anhyzer in my bag next to her straight and hyzer shots
* possibly my strengths; I like tunnel shots (didn't know beforehand, 11 holes were wooded tunnel shots)

Oh, and I nailed almost all of my putts during the tournament (84% C1x for the tournament, 100% C1x for that amazing -8 round).

 

[gingerandhoney]

I forgot to respond to this, but I agree that there is something that does not match up with what the PDGA says the guidelines are vs what Elaine king says in that email. I find it very strange that they would only require the medical evidence when reassigning a player from M to F in the PDGA database.

Because the PDGA guidelines say "Players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition are eligible to compete in a gender-restricted division at a PDGA event only if one of the following sets of criteria are met", I can see no clear reason why there would be a distinction made between "players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition and have previously registered with the PDGA as a Male player" and "players who were assigned male gender at birth and are taking hormone replacement therapy and/or testosterone suppression medication related to gender transition who have not registered with the PDGA as a Male player"

Because the only way to lose that distinction is forcing *every* woman, cisgender or transgender, to prove the eligibility to compete in gender-based divisions.
Ie. forcing Paige Pierce she is cisgender, forcing Kristin Tattar to prove she is cisgender ,et cetera.

 

[gingerandhoney]

That's statistical significance, which is what should be used. Disproportionate, by the very definition of the word means TOO large or TOO small. That's why the IOC uses it. It's 100% opinion. The IOC is well known by pretty much everyone who follows sports to do this...they put language in their rules which allows them to refer to the rule after they've made the ruling they actually want to make.

<snip>

Following the IOC model isn't going to lead to any final outcome. If the current PDGA looks at the data and says [sic: not "says", "proves"] "there's a statistical significance between cisgender and transgender women performance"...their job isn't done there based on the IOC rules. They then have to look and say "but is that difference too large or not?" Statistical significant has determined there is an advantage that exists based on confidence intervals, sample sizing, mean of groups, spread of groups, etc. Adding "disproportionate" means that no matter the results, whoever is in charge just says "not disproportionate" or "disproportionate" based on their opinions and desired outcomes.

The way around that, which could be done, is to define what "disproportionate" would be prior to examination of the numbers. But then what you have is simply back to defined parameters for statistical significance. That's the equivalent of statistical significance...but that's not how the IOC uses it in their rules or in practicality. What the IOC does is run the numbers, then decides AFTER the fact whether the numbers are disproportionate or not.
<snip>

How much of a proven statistical significance between the two affected groups (cisgender women & transgender women who meet the eligibility requirements) there needs to be for eligibility requirements to be put/kept in place is indeed up for discussion. I agree. You may even say "is opinion". (I don't).

For now, it isn't even proven that there *is* an advantage, let alone that it is statistically significant.

Cross the bridge of "how much is or isn't *disproportionate*?" stick to the more important task at hand, verify whether or not there even *is* a statistically sinificant advantage.

 

[foxdawg10]

Apologies, I meant no disrespect. I am engaging in an open discussion.
The "you" I used was not "you, foxdawg10", it was the generic use of "you"; I should have been clearer there, and probably use "one" instead.

You did start the topic when distinguishing between


I've bolded it above so you don't have to look for it. Txmxer did not paraphrase or anything. He was pointing out that foxdawg should really think about that. If we have a say in where our premiums go, we can discriminate against all kinds of classes of people. And when a class of people largely need a certain kind of healthcare … women, transgender, race, etc.

Ideally in America we would have infinite medical resources to take care of everyone's needs. I didn't mean to open the door for discrimination, it was not my intent. The current system however does discriminate. It is inherent in a system that is based on money and who can actually afford healthcare.

Also it's a minor point but one I would like to make. If gender is a social construct, than so is cisgender by extension. The prefix cis seems to invite all kinds of connotation for some reason.

 

[robdeforge]

Because the only way to lose that distinction is forcing *every* woman, cisgender or transgender, to prove the eligibility to compete in gender-based divisions.
Ie. forcing Paige Pierce she is cisgender, forcing Kristin Tattar to prove she is cisgender ,et cetera.

Much of the disc golf registration system seems to rely on the individual being honest and forthright with their information. They wouldn't be asked to *prove* anything, I was thinking they could simply check off a box that says "I was not assigned male gender at birth" (because that is what the PDGA policy seems to be trying to address).

It just seems really strange for me to draw a line between somebody who transitioned before they started playing disc golf vs. after. Presumably the same physical advantages and disadvantages would exist in both groups of transgender players. Why treat them differently?

 

[gingerandhoney]

It's possible/plausible that regardless of T levels, there may be proof that we find that simply the physical (not hormonal) attributes of the transgender woman population may provide for a statistically significant advantage that cannot be mitigated.

That is a possibility; the outcome is not something anyone would or should like, because by those same physical attributes, cisgender women will have to then be excluded, lest it explicitly be targeting transgender women for having those physical attributes, which is discrimination at first, ans secondly, flies straight in the face of section 3 of the IOC Framework; https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf

There's no point where anyone should say "this transgender woman is too tall"...this isn't any individual issue...this is a population issue. I would expect that if there is scientific proof that transgender women have a statistically significant advantage...we're VERY far away from any kind of scientific proof that any particular source of that difference is attributable to the advantage.

We agree on that. And until further notice, scientists across the globe have reached consensus about testosterone levels and testosterone depletion are the largest dial we know exists to date.
Those same scientists who currently still have *not* met consensus about whether or not there is a statistically significant advantage, and/or whether/when "enough T depletion is enough to warrant there's only residual - and as such statistically insignificant - advantage.

Beyond that...if we do have a proven source...it may be that the proven source of the advantage is not something easily controlled by hormones.

That is most certainly a possibility.

Some of that may/may not come out in any research being done to determine if there is a difference or not (i.e. if we know T levels at the time of determining whether a difference exists...that may at least paint some sort of picture in order to determine where to look next for mitigating the advantage to allow participation). A lot of that "why do they have an advantage" (if they do) comes down to anything from random guessing to logical speculation.

Exactly.
And my best guess for the best imaginable study to perform, is to follow (over a prolonged period of time, from pre-puberty to well into adulthood) monozygotic and dizygotic twins of which one identifies as transgender pre-puberty.
All the while assuming their parents or guardians raise both as equitable as possible (ie. not giving ball to boy while giving doll to girl)

 

[gingerandhoney]

An individual's motivation has zero bearing on the question of fairness.

Yet it is being used as the stick to beat transgender women with. A lot.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Also it's a minor point but one I would like to make. If gender is a social construct, than so is cisgender by extension. The prefix cis seems to invite all kinds of connotation for some reason.

I don't think I agree with that.
Gender is a social contruct, cisgender is a class.
Tthe prefix cis- doesn't invite all sorts of connotation, other than in relation to cisgender, where people (like yourself) feel attacked/awkward/labelled/fill-in-your-version) about their gender. and especialyl how it relates to transgender.

Going off on a tangent, and no I am not labelling or assuming you, foxdawg10 here, I am trying to come at this from a "trying to understand" angle.

I did in fact study psychology)

Here's the possibly anthropo/sociological cause for that:

By dividing the world in cis- and transgender; it automatically gives transgender legitimacy when connected in opposition to cisgender. (Rather than transgender people being able to be referred to as freaks, dejects, outcast, 2nd-rank, fill-in-other-versions).

Just look at how - extremely specific to USA states that vote red - health care, and access to services (whteher sports or bathrooms) seems to be intentionally withheld from transgender people. BECAUSE they are transgender.
Other countries like Russia, the UK, Poland, and Hungary have enacted similar bills on a federal level.
The rest of the world seems to be differently inclined.

Fun fact in Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death.
If two homosexual men are together, and one agrees to undergo gender reassignment surgery, the government will actually pay for that to be performed. Because the outcome - a heteronormative and heterosexual relationship - remains.

 

[foxdawg10]

I don't think I agree with that.
Gender is a social contruct, cisgender is a class.
Tthe prefix cis- doesn't invite all sorts of connotation, other than in relation to cisgender, where people (like yourself) feel attacked/awkward/labelled/fill-in-your-version) about their gender. and especialyl how it relates to transgender.

Going off on a tangent, and no I am not labelling or assuming you, foxdawg10 here, I am trying to come at this from a "trying to understand" angle.

I did in fact study psychology)

Here's the possibly anthropo/sociological cause for that:

By dividing the world in cis- and transgender; it automatically gives transgender legitimacy when connected in opposition to cisgender. (Rather than transgender people being able to be referred to as freaks, dejects, outcast, 2nd-rank, fill-in-other-versions).

Just look at how - extremely specific to USA states that vote red - health care, and access to services (whteher sports or bathrooms) seems to be intentionally withheld from transgender people. BECAUSE they are transgender.
Other countries like Russia, the UK, Poland, and Hungary have enacted similar bills on a federal level.
The rest of the world seems to be differently inclined.

Fun fact in Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death.
If two homosexual men are together, and one agrees to undergo gender reassignment surgery, the government will actually pay for that to be performed. Because the outcome - a heteronormative and heterosexual relationship - remains.

Again with the respect. You are projecting onto me or other "cisgender" people. I am in no way attacking don't take it personal. I'm merely having a conversation and looking at it from a different angle.

Nowhere did I question the legitimacy of anyone. But I am question priorities in a bad medical / insurance system. There does seem to be a difference in the trans world between people who can afford the procedures and people who can not.