PDGA survey

[Raiaramis]

So much talk and still no real point made. Even mr ChrisWoj mentioned, that if he can see study, that gives transgender players advantage in disc golf, he would understand the problem. This is the only issue - if there is no advantage - everybody should drop the mike and go home. If brain thinks she is female from the start, but has all the biological male advantages, then doesnt really matter, what brain thinks. Hormone therapy takes the muscle down, but even then the advantage stays in many ways. I believe here is one study about it: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/tra...bNPjtYfXYRCcV0Y_7g5XPj-Gn4vH2_cE1FDZPuA3s1ADU

 

[Billipo]

Their are so many special interest groups. For instance, I think I have a nut allergy.

Just the fact that this is a topic of discussion makes me think PDGA is NUTS! It may not be safe for me to play.

 

[Arisugawa]

So much talk and still no real point made. Even mr ChrisWoj mentioned, that if he can see study, that gives transgender players advantage in disc golf, he would understand the problem. This is the only issue - if there is no advantage - everybody should drop the mike and go home. If brain thinks she is female from the start, but has all the biological male advantages, then doesnt really matter, what brain thinks. Hormone therapy takes the muscle down, but even then the advantage stays in many ways. I believe here is one study about it: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/tra...bNPjtYfXYRCcV0Y_7g5XPj-Gn4vH2_cE1FDZPuA3s1ADU

This isn't a zero sum game. It's not a matter of if any advantage exists, she cannot play. The question needs to be if the advantage exists, does it unbalance the playing field?

Again - competition is not fair. You will always play against people who are stronger and faster than you are, and there is nothing you can do to change that. No matter how much work you put into your fitness, you will not catch them, you will not exceed them. The idea that all women are equal against all women is a lie - it's a pretty myth we tell ourselves to say that sports are fair.

In my own experience, for example, I will probably never throw as far as say, Emily Beach. On average, she has me by 75-100 feet if not more. And Emily isn't even 25 yet - she is still figuring out her game and her form, and should she continue pursuing this as a career, her distance is going to keep getting longer. And, it's disheartening. I played one event with her where I was leading going into the final 10 holes of the event - largely because she was making mistakes and I was playing cleanly. And then she woke up, and birdied out something like six of the final seven holes, getting easily into circle 1 on holes I would be lucky to sniff circle 2 on.

And that's sports. She has a clear advantage over me. And probably always will. And that's fine. But no one is saying it's unfair for her to have that kind of natural power over most of the field. Because if you don't think her power is related at all to her frame and musculature, you're wrong. Technique maximizes things, but some facets of distance come from power.

Which is a very long way of saying, if I play against Natalie and she is outhrowing me by 75-100 on wide open shots, I don't see this any differently as when Emily does it.

 

[Shallows]

This isn't a zero sum game. It's not a matter of if any advantage exists, she cannot play. The question needs to be if the advantage exists, does it unbalance the playing field?

Again - competition is not fair. You will always play against people who are stronger and faster than you are, and there is nothing you can do to change that. No matter how much work you put into your fitness, you will not catch them, you will not exceed them. The idea that all women are equal against all women is a lie - it's a pretty myth we tell ourselves to say that sports are fair.

In my own experience, for example, I will probably never throw as far as say, Emily Beach. On average, she has me by 75-100 feet if not more. And Emily isn't even 25 yet - she is still figuring out her game and her form, and should she continue pursuing this as a career, her distance is going to keep getting longer. And, it's disheartening. I played one event with her where I was leading going into the final 10 holes of the event - largely because she was making mistakes and I was playing cleanly. And then she woke up, and birdied out something like six of the final seven holes, getting easily into circle 1 on holes I would be lucky to sniff circle 2 on.

And that's sports. She has a clear advantage over me. And probably always will. And that's fine. But no one is saying it's unfair for her to have that kind of natural power over most of the field. Because if you don't think her power is related at all to her frame and musculature, you're wrong. Technique maximizes things, but some facets of distance come from power.

Which is a very long way of saying, if I play against Natalie and she is outhrowing me by 75-100 on wide open shots, I don't see this any differently as when Emily does it.

If there isn't an advantage but it's still about fairness, then why not include MJ15 players who throw further and are higher rated than Emily? What's the argument for a separate division whatsoever?

 

[biscoe]

A lot of people were really happy when this survey was announced.

But then it was more than one question and they became confused.

People- "The PDGA doesn't listen to me"
The PDGA- "We want your input, can you answer some questions so we can better understand it?"
People- "The PDGA wants to know too much about me- waaaaaah!"

For the members reading this who support players such as Natalie I strongly suggest you fill out the survey- don't allow the folks on the other side of the issue to have a voice that you do not.

 

[Golden Tuna]

The problem I have with the point regarding "the analogy of getting married" is that this has to do with physical structures of the brain that develop prior to birth. Although the process of transitioning is something one does as an adult, that process is a part of these folk effectively becoming "whole" in their identities, in alignment with their neuroanatomy. They're not "leaving that old person behind" as much as they are bringing everything in alignment with the person that they are.

A big difference in how you and I react to this situation, maybe I'm wrong here, seems to come from the fact that I perceive one's neuroanatomy as just as crucial to who someone is (if not more so) as their external sex organs, their chromosomal structure, or the down/upregulation of hormones. Whereas you seem to see neuroanatomy as secondary to those. Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously I don't know what you think.

Perhaps there isn't an analogy that works here...

I think there is a difference in how we react, but not the way you've described. I simply don't care about one's orientation, identity, alphabet letters, etc. That is to say, it's not important to me relative to how I treat them.

DISCLAIMER: It is important to note that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. My comments in this discussion are surrounding the PDGA's approach to competition guidelines for our sport. These comments are not intended to cross over into personal freedoms outside sanctioned play.

In general, I don't like the idea making/amending rules for statistical outliers. The Pareto Principle is a strong indicator of the most productive way to prioritize. By that logic, this group does not represent a large enough cross-section of the target audience to change rules. I believe the PDGA should peruse the greatest good for the most amount of people - which may have been what triggered the survey originally.

Also, consider if the PDGA had made an edict on this topic without polling the membership. Would that have been better or worse than them asking our opinion?

And this, unfortunately, is the context a lot of the people in the world are lacking. This isn't about "feelings." This isn't about some vague, intangible dream or wish to be something else. This is about the fundamental parts of biology in the mind responsible for identity. It's not an illness, it's not desire or some feeling. Even saying "Natalie identifies as a female" is problematic, because identify being used as a verb implies choice instead of recognition or acknowledgement in the eyes of the public.

It's not something that can be changed with medication, not something that can smoothed over with therapy. It's lifelong, and it's a terrible burden for the people with it.

It is very, very difficult for those of us in the world without it to understand or really even conceptualize it, because it is outside of anything else we may experience.

I empathize with these people even though I can't possibly understand what they're experiencing.

In my previous research, I also learned this is relatively uncommon in that it only impacts up to 1.5% of the population. My suspicion is that it impacts even less of our community as disc golf is still a very niche sport.

Again, I'm not arguing against treating people with dignity. I am arguing against making rules that apply specifically to such a small audience segment.

I propose the following solution to be fair to everyone. Reduce the divisions to the following:

Pro

Am

/thread

I think the divisions should be rearranged, but they never will because this would de-segregate the pro women.
>1000
950-1000
900-950
850-900
800-850
750-800
<750
When players register, they can check their "previous" division MP40, FA1, JR, etc. so TDs can card "like" divisions together for round 1. Round 2, all cards ceded by score (w/in their division)

Their are so many special interest groups. For instance, I think I have a nut allergy.

Just the fact that this is a topic of discussion makes me think PDGA is NUTS! It may not be safe for me to play.

Mildly insensitive, but hilarious nonetheless.

 

[ChrisWoj]

In general, I don't like the idea making/amending rules for statistical outliers. The Pareto Principle is a strong indicator of the most productive way to prioritize. By that logic, this group does not represent a large enough cross-section of the target audience to change rules. I believe the PDGA should peruse the greatest good for the most amount of people - which may have been what triggered the survey originally.

Wouldn't the Pareto Principle indicate that since 80% of your income as an organization comes from 20% of your members, the best thing to do would be to accede to the wishes of that 20%? So if the 20% of members of the PDGA that make up most of the incoming money are in favor of women who have transitioned participating in the protected divisions, the PDGA should go with that?

I think the divisions should be rearranged, but they never will because this would de-segregate the pro women.
>1000
950-1000
900-950
850-900
800-850
750-800
<750
When players register, they can check their "previous" division MP40, FA1, JR, etc. so TDs can card "like" divisions together for round 1. Round 2, all cards ceded by score (w/in their division)

Yeah, I'm in favor of desegregating - but I don't think we're socially capable of moving in that direction right now. If we did this we would have plenty of women who were champions, it'd happen all the time in each of the brackets (proportional to female participation in the sport, which hopefully is a number we'd continue to work hard on bringing toward parity). They should, would, and could be celebrated as champions.

 

[Arisugawa]

If there isn't an advantage but it's still about fairness, then why not include MJ15 players who throw further and are higher rated than Emily? What's the argument for a separate division whatsoever?

Because, as I said, it's about whether or not the advantage unbalances the field. Competition isn't fair, but the divisions exist to make it reasonable fair or feasibly fair. It's the same reason you don't have little league kids playing against MLB players.

I don't understand why so many people insists this is a zero sum question. It's not about if advantage than no participation. It's not about if competition unfair then why have divisions.

The insistence that this question isn't nuanced or textured baffles me. I understand that we as a species tend to like either / or and black / white answers. But life isn't like that, and demanding that it is will almost always be harmful.

 

[Golden Tuna]

Wouldn't the Pareto Principle indicate that since 80% of your income as an organization comes from 20% of your members, the best thing to do would be to accede to the wishes of that 20%? So if the 20% of members of the PDGA that make up most of the incoming money are in favor of women who have transitioned participating in the protected divisions, the PDGA should go with that?

The Pareto principle is more about cause and effect. (Roughly) 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes. But, when applied to finances, that is not an accurate ratio (at the moment) since the PDGA has more active members than ever before. Also there is only a small delta between the lowest tier of membership and the highest, and we're (almost) all on annual renewal.

Regardless, I'll submit, that's why the PDGA distributed the survey, to get anonymous feedback from the membership. So, again, I'd encourage everyone that feels strongly to share their voice.

Yeah, I'm in favor of desegregating - but I don't think we're socially capable of moving in that direction right now. If we did this we would have plenty of women who were champions, it'd happen all the time in each of the brackets (proportional to female participation in the sport

Tell me more about that. It seems to contradict the very segregation we currently have.
...Remember when Paige played the USDGC a few years ago?
...Remember when Serena played Karsten Braasch?

 

[txmxer]

In general, I don't like the idea making/amending rules for statistical outliers. The Pareto Principle is a strong indicator of the most productive way to prioritize. By that logic, this group does not represent a large enough cross-section of the target audience to change rules. I believe the PDGA should peruse the greatest good for the most amount of people - which may have been what triggered the survey originally.

Just catching up, so if someone else has posted a response, sorry. As Nova has said she is female, so no rules changes needed.

 

[Golden Tuna]

Because, as I said, it's about whether or not the advantage unbalances the field. Competition isn't fair, but the divisions exist to make it reasonable fair or feasibly fair. It's the same reason you don't have little league kids playing against MLB players.

I don't understand why so many people insists this is a zero sum question. It's not about if advantage than no participation. It's not about if competition unfair then why have divisions.

The insistence that this question isn't nuanced or textured baffles me. I understand that we as a species tend to like either / or and black / white answers. But life isn't like that, and demanding that it is will almost always be harmful.

I believe there is a suspicion that allowing transitioned men to play in gender-protected divisions is akin to letting an MLB player play in a little league game. To be honest, I am personally concerned about this - not necessarily in DG, but in contact sports (hockey, MMA, etc.)

I'm not sure where we draw the line on co-mingling male and female athletes - is it with contact sports? What about golf, tennis, weightlifting? Are chess and racing cars considered sports?

This is a "new" world that isn't entirely clear. One could argue we need inclusion to study the impact, but what happens if/when a cis woman boxer is killed in the ring or paralyzed from an open-ice hit? Does it make sense to under-correct before we over-corect?

 

[Golden Tuna]

Just catching up, so if someone else has posted a response, sorry. As Nova has said she is female, so no rules changes needed.

This isn't about a singular person. This is about setting policy for a group of people.

 

[txmxer]

This isn't about a singular person. This is about setting policy for a group of people.

I'm not making it about her, only offering her status as an example. I don't know if Natalie or Chloe or others have fully transitioned as Nova has, but the point being you say the PDGA

In general, I don't like the idea making/amending rules for statistical outliers.

Then this is a non-issue and Nova, et al can proceed to play in F divisions.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The Pareto principle is more about cause and effect. (Roughly) 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes. But, when applied to finances, that is not an accurate ratio (at the moment) since the PDGA has more active members than ever before. Also there is only a small delta between the lowest tier of membership and the highest, and we're (almost) all on annual renewal.

Regardless, I'll submit, that's why the PDGA distributed the survey, to get anonymous feedback from the membership. So, again, I'd encourage everyone that feels strongly to share their voice.

Yeah, that was my main hangup as I typed it - the PDGA's money comes from a much broader distribution of members than just 20% contributing 80%. But in terms of how the Pareto Principle, if we're holding to it, is applied - what I described is pretty close: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paretoprinciple.asp - it is applied to cause-and-effect but it is more about how distributions impact cause-and-effect.

Tell me more about that. It seems to contradict the very segregation we currently have.
...Remember when Paige played the USDGC a few years ago?
...Remember when Serena played Karsten Braasch?

Yes.
No.

Are you saying that my idea contradicts what we've seen, because people don't celebrate Paige's participation in USDGC or Serena (reading) and Venus losing in an exhibition? I think the Paige example you provided is closer to what we're discussing - and I'm not sure it contradicts what I'm saying because USDGC was a single division. We tend to find ways to champion people who win, even if they win in lower divisions. We celebrate our Advanced Champions, whose only protection is rating. We could easily celebrate champions at all skill levels - if our events and championships were structured around rating breaks.

 

[nothinbuttree]

This isn't a zero sum game. It's not a matter of if any advantage exists, she cannot play. The question needs to be if the advantage exists, does it unbalance the playing field?

Again - competition is not fair. You will always play against people who are stronger and faster than you are, and there is nothing you can do to change that. No matter how much work you put into your fitness, you will not catch them, you will not exceed them. The idea that all women are equal against all women is a lie - it's a pretty myth we tell ourselves to say that sports are fair.

In my own experience, for example, I will probably never throw as far as say, Emily Beach. On average, she has me by 75-100 feet if not more. And Emily isn't even 25 yet - she is still figuring out her game and her form, and should she continue pursuing this as a career, her distance is going to keep getting longer. And, it's disheartening. I played one event with her where I was leading going into the final 10 holes of the event - largely because she was making mistakes and I was playing cleanly. And then she woke up, and birdied out something like six of the final seven holes, getting easily into circle 1 on holes I would be lucky to sniff circle 2 on.

And that's sports. She has a clear advantage over me. And probably always will. And that's fine. But no one is saying it's unfair for her to have that kind of natural power over most of the field. Because if you don't think her power is related at all to her frame and musculature, you're wrong. Technique maximizes things, but some facets of distance come from power.

Which is a very long way of saying, if I play against Natalie and she is outhrowing me by 75-100 on wide open shots, I don't see this any differently as when Emily does it.

What is interesting about this analogy is that Paul and Paige, clearly the most dominant players in the past 5-10 years, are certainly not the largest framed or tallest individuals in their respective divisions. Not by a long shot. Yet 11X champions between them. And both have elite distance (Paul maybe just a shade below elite, but still better than 98% of 1000-rated players). I will be honest, when I look at Paige's stature, I am totally dumbfounded how she can throw so far. Really impressive. Lots of moving parts to throwing far. I think elasticity of muscles/tendons must be a huge factor as well--maybe the main reason distance declines as top players age?

 

[biscoe]

What is interesting about this analogy is that Paul and Paige, clearly the most dominant players in the past 5-10 years, are certainly not the largest framed or tallest individuals in their respective divisions. Not by a long shot. Yet 11X champions between them. And both have elite distance (Paul maybe just a shade below elite, but still better than 98% of 1000-rated players). I will be honest, when I look at Paige's stature, I am totally dumbfounded how she can throw so far. Really impressive. Lots of moving parts to throwing far. I think elasticity of muscles/tendons must be a huge factor as well--maybe the main reason distance declines as top players age?

Ella Hansen, Jen Allen, Paige, Catrina, Natalie- all elite FPO distance- none of them tall in stature.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Starts at the legs.

 

[DanJon]

If there isn't an advantage but it's still about fairness, then why not include MJ15 players who throw further and are higher rated than Emily? What's the argument for a separate division whatsoever?

Social constructs.

 

[Arisugawa]

I believe there is a suspicion that allowing transitioned men to play in gender-protected divisions is akin to letting an MLB player play in a little league game. To be honest, I am personally concerned about this - not necessarily in DG, but in contact sports (hockey, MMA, etc.)

I'm hesitant to even address this - one's suspicion or perception of something does not make it so. And it is problematic that the perception of a transwoman competing in women's divisions is seen as akin to an adult man competing in a division for teenage boys.

As I previously said acceptance rarely comes in the initial generation. These things take time in order to work themselves out in the minds of the public, and sometimes, it never fully dissipates. Again, as previously said, there was not immediate acceptance of Jackie Robinson or his peers who came later, and to this day, there are still people who insist it is not fair for white athletes to compete against black ones.

I'm not sure where we draw the line on co-mingling male and female athletes - is it with contact sports? What about golf, tennis, weightlifting? Are chess and racing cars considered sports?

Again, this is problematic. If you are equating a transwoman as a male athlete playing against female athletes, we're already not participating in the same conversation.

This is a "new" world that isn't entirely clear. One could argue we need inclusion to study the impact, but what happens if/when a cis woman boxer is killed in the ring or paralyzed from an open-ice hit? Does it make sense to under-correct before we over-corect?

Worst-case scenario is always brought up here. I'm not sure why this is. Everyone wants to talk about Fallon Fox broke the orbital bone of an opponent while overlooking that plenty of cis-women break the bones of other cis-women. Somehow, it is significant that a transwoman did it, but in a contact sport, that kind of injury is inevitable. It's going to happen. It would be statistically more interesting if it never happened, but that's not the case at all. And when a cis-woman does it, it almost goes without notice. For example, Miesha Tate had an orbital bone break in a match against Sara McCann, and this is practically never mentioned.

Stories become sensationalized, overblown, and suddenly something that is a statistical probability is treated as something that never happens and OMG how could this have been allowed to happen?

I don't know how to say this any clearer. Competition isn't fair. We try to make it reasonably fair. That's why we have divisions. People have advantages, and they always will. The question isn't whether someone with an advantage should be immediately considered non-eligible, but if that advantage is sufficient to unbalance things.

The majority of people who rage against Natalie or Chloe or whomever don't care for nuance. And honestly - let's postulate that when sufficient evidence is gathered it is determined their ability is within the spectrum of other women, this won't satisfy the people who don't want Natalie or Chloe competing. Because it honestly isn't about fairness to them. It's about the ick factor.

And that perception, that suspicion, isn't going to go away any more than we can make flat-earthers accept that an image of earth taken from space is real.

 

[Golden Tuna]

one's suspicion or perception of something does not make it so.

Isn't this the entire conversation, right here?!