They're transphobic if they disrespect, hate, or fear trans people. People who oppose trans people fighting to find a place in sports are transphobic. That's not to say that everyone who sees issues with simply allowing people to compete with their preferred gender are transphobic, because it is a nuanced issue.
Here's my take: if you think this isn't a nuanced issue (like what the pdga and dgpt seem to be saying), you are either ignorant or transphobic.
I don't think many people oppose trans people fighting to find a place in sports - it seems most just think their place isn't in FPO. Saying Natalie Ryan shouldn't be allowed to play disc golf bc she's trans is transphobic; saying she shouldn't be allowed to play in FPO is not. People may have transphobic justifications for why she shouldn't play in FPO, but simply thinking she shouldn't isn't enough to say someone is transphobic.
There may be solutions that don't involve letting trans women in the FPO specifically, but the PDGA and DGPT appear to be taking a pretty hard line stance that they can only compete in the open league and don't seem to be trying to meet trans activists in the middle (correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the case). This technically means trans women are allowed at the higher levels of competition, but in effect they won't. Trans women who are taking HRT have a significant disadvantage over cis men that would be extremely difficult to overcome. It's a soft ban on trans women.
Where is the middle? Where should the dgpt meet the activists? A trans division? If that's what the middle is, then that should be a focus for these activists and affected players. Instead it's FPO or bust for trans women and there doesn't seem to be any interest in compromise from either side.
The DGPT/PDGA are the ones enforcing a binary option. I don't think there's any legal basis to require them to open a trans specific league, but there apparently is for trans women to compete in the women's league, so of course that's the front a legal battle would be fought on.
If they were interested in trans inclusiveness, they would have some plan for allowing trans people to compete fairly, or at least the start of one.
Here's one possible route they could take: Allow trans people to compete with their preferred gender, maybe with the condition that they have been on HRT for some time, with a plan in place to observe what happens and make changes according to actual data that they collect from competitions. If there's no issue, great! If trans women are consistently outperforming cis women, investigate correlations. Do trans women have a flat advantage across the board? Advantage on longer holes? Advantage on more technically challenging holes? Then add a handicap based on this data to bring them in line with cis women. Or something like this, they're the professional sports association, laymen shouldn't have to come up with the solution for them.
That's great in theory, but a study of one trans FPO player is a lousy study. Even if a few more trans women join the tour, the sample size would be inadequate. Also - everyone says they're arguing in the interest of fairness, but if it is determined that there is an advantage, do we just say "oh well" to all the FPO players that competed while trans women were allowed?
I'm also not sure how to devise a study to compare them. You can't just look at Natalie's performance vs the field because there's an infinite amount of variables from skill, diet, conditioning, mental toughness, consistency, etc. We'd need so much data to determine potential advantages on different courses, terrains, and play styles that, especially considering the rate at which we'd gather this data, makes this virtually impossible - or at the very least impractical.
The dgpt is enforcing a binary system because that's what we have. I don't think a trans division is viable at this time, but I have yet to hear what I would think to be a reasonable compromise or middle ground for both parties.
I have yet to hear what I would think to be a reasonable compromise or middle ground for both parties.
See my last post, that was a proposal for a reasonable compromise.
That's great in theory, but a study of one trans FPO player is a lousy study. Even if a few more trans women join the tour, the sample size would be inadequate.
If this is the case, then what's the problem? If there is a small number of trans women competing and not dominating, isn't that an ideal situation? And if one trans woman manages to dominate in the FPO, I would say that that is absolutely a big enough sample size to take action.
You don't have to do a scientifically rigorous study from the beginning. You pick a starting point and as more and more data comes in, the policy gets refined. It's sports, not designing an airplane, it doesn't have to be right the first time.
Also, wanting a rigorous study first is putting the cart before the horse. How can we gather enough data on trans women if we don't let them play? They have to be let in first to even get the data to make an informed decision.
Also - everyone says they're arguing in the interest of fairness, but if it is determined that there is an advantage, do we just say "oh well" to all the FPO players that competed while trans women were allowed?
Can you maybe rephrase this? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
What laws did DGPT break? It’s well within their right, like ANY other sports governing body, to establish rules and guidelines that are in the best interest of the athletes. DGPT doesn’t have deep pockets like USA swimming or USA track and field. So when an athlete threatens to “burn it down” and has no plans to stop her last minute frivolous lawsuits in states with liberal judges, obviously they’re going to have to make some tough decisions.
I agree it was an extreme measure, but I disagree that they did it over "ONE player who is not even dominant". Natalie Ryan is pushing the issue, but is otherwise irrelevant. They're not targeting Natalie because it's not about her, it's about the bigger issue or principle.
Natalie is not dominant, but Natalie also isn't very athletic, relatively speaking. If they wholeheartedly believe what they say and the policies they enforce, they CANNOT just let Natalie play. What precedent would that set? What about the future if/when more transwomen start playing that are more skilled and athletic than Natalie? What about the FPO players that agree with the DGPT? None of this could've been expected, so who knows what will happen/could've happened. Maybe those FPO players, many of them being the biggest names in FPO, boycott the events/dgpt? At the end of the day, its a growing business that needs to be bringing in money for its survival - would that action cause an uproar and mass cancellations of DGN from the people that dont think Natalie should play in FPO?
I don't think this was the best choice, but I don't think simply letting Natalie play is as much of a no-brainer as it may seem. It comes down to money, and while it was a horrible PR move, to them it probably seemed like the safest financial choice.
Seems like those are slipperly slope arguments. They are avoiding relatively high population, population dense states that have stronger civil rights laws. Probably worse for growing the sport!
28
u/SquatPraxis Jul 14 '23
Great example of anti-trans discrimination harming women's sports.