NEFA DISCussion

We can let the PDGA make their ruling that is fine.....but this is not PDGA this is NEFA...I feel our Point Series was undermined this weekend.

Lets not tip toe around this people...we have an issue and it needs to be addressed.

In order to compete in the Olympics, athletes must first, qualify for their sport. Trans athletes must also have completed sex-reassignment surgery, have their gender identity be legally recognized and must have been on hormones long enough that they would not have any gender-related advantage in sports competition. The rules cover both female-to-male and male-to-female transsexuals.

Apparently we need to set a standard in Disc Golf...its a new age and we must "grow" with the times....

There is now an issue...it needs to be clarified in the Charter ASAP.

This is sports...not life.....you must follow a sports ethic....and men playing in a gender protected division...is unethical.

If it's good enough for the olympics, it's good enough for me. Life is life but sport is sport. Do what ever makes you happy in life if it doesn't affect others.

This person took something away from every participating member of the gender they wish to become. Ironic, unfortunate.

Selfish.

Its all about me.

Boo

I just checked out how the the PDGA has this set up and it is pretty well covered within their rules and competition guidelines. I could post the particular rules if need be.

My action as a TD would be for disqualification for purposely circumventing the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. But thats just me.

Nothing against transgendered people. I give Windchime credit for having the courage to head out and compete but you really need to consider following the rules the next time or face disqualification.

Matt Stroika wrote:Nothing against you James. I give you credit for having the courage to head out and compete but you really need to consider following the rules the next time or face disqualification.

This.

Most sports - disc golf included - have a bias toward being something that is "power predicated". That's just the nature of "sports". Example: In track & field, most female WRs average about 83% (give or take a bunch) of that of the men's WR for those events that you CAN compare.
Yes there are exceptions (like long-distance swimming) where endurance is way more important - so women will succeed moreso - but this is an exception not the rule.

Having said this, it is common practice (in virtually every other sport to "segregate the sexes" when setting up 'competitions'. Whether this 'common practice' is 'correct' or not is probably moot, but it IS accepted, so must be considered when making a decision about such.

Certain sports "get around this" by having handicaps, ratings, etc. and use them. We could too! Or don't have to! Our choice (we're lucky that we have a choice).

I'm not sure where this discussion is going but the 'extremes' of the scenario are one of the following:

1. We have 1 division for all players - same tees (isn't liked by many)
2. We have 1 division for each player (is pretty ludicrous)
3. We have something in between 1. and 2.

And any version of 3. is really "no better" than any other version because it's "just someone's version of segregation" (via gender, age, ratings, etc.).

Since we've kind of already figured out what most people seem to like, what's the question?

Karl

Edit: Oops, didn't know something actually went down regarding this!!!!

Kovo wrote:

Matt Stroika wrote:Nothing against you James. I give you credit for having the courage to head out and compete but you really need to consider following the rules the next time or face disqualification.

This.

yes....

I encourage and welcome "windchime" to keep competing...NEFA is very colorful and host many wonderful personalities.

The issue is more with the rules not at all a personal attack on anyone....

But I love talking about disc golf, beer, music, pets, environment, fungi, mary j, Buddhism, and whatever else. I'm not going to tell you what to say or think though. To each their own, right?

We all love talking about DG also.....check the rules area of the board....we often go on for days about "how to mark our lie"....
....we usually have 7 different takes on the rule.....then several people correct other peoples grammar then we thread dirft......someone makes a joke about Bobby....Bobby then avenges himself and then most of the time we are all friends again......oh and the rule we usually never come up with a conclusion.....

Well anyways welcome to NEFA....

Wouldn't a woman be allowed to compete in a men's division?

If a woman is allowed to compete in a men's division then a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division. No?

Wouldn't a woman be allowed to compete in a men's division?

If a woman is allowed to compete in a men's division then a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division. No?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/2-1-general

CaptainAnhyzer wrote:

Wouldn't a woman be allowed to compete in a men's division?

If a woman is allowed to compete in a men's division then a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division. No?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/2-1-general

Thats pretty a pretty simple rule, whether its right or not is another matter.

Is James legally a woman? If not then there is no way he should have been allowed to compete in that division.

CaptainAnhyzer wrote:

Wouldn't a woman be allowed to compete in a men's division?

If a woman is allowed to compete in a men's division then a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division. No?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/2-1-general

Yeah I read the rule. I was just throwin that out there. Equal rights freedom of choice yada yada.....

Didn't this happen in ball golf a few yrs ago when a man wanted to compete in a women's event?

I agree that if thats the rule than that's the rule and it should be followed.

This was a non-PDGA event so that rule "2.1 F" is not applicable.

If NEFA wants to adopt the PDGA's stance that's fine, but as it stands there seems to be a loophole regarding this.

Kovo wrote:This was a non-PDGA event so that rule "2.1 F" is not applicable.

If NEFA wants to adopt the PDGA's stance that's fine, but as it stands there seems to be a loophole regarding this.

I thought unless otherwise specified by the TD that PDGA rules are in effect at all NEFA events, am I wrong in thinking this?

Mullen wrote:Yeah I read the rule. I was just throwin that out there. Equal rights freedom of choice yada yada.....

Didn't this happen in ball golf a few yrs ago when a man wanted to compete in a women's event?

I agree that if thats the rule than that's the rule and it should be followed.

Gotcha.

Cheef wrote:I thought unless otherwise specified by the TD that PDGA rules are in effect at all NEFA events, am I wrong in thinking this?

I assumed this also........... in fact i believe I've heard it announced that way before.

CaptainAnhyzer wrote:

Cheef wrote:I thought unless otherwise specified by the TD that PDGA rules are in effect at all NEFA events, am I wrong in thinking this?

I assumed this also........... in fact i believe I've heard it announced that way before.

Is there something in the NEFA charter that clarifies this?

Mullen wrote:Wouldn't a woman be allowed to compete in a men's division?

If a woman is allowed to compete in a men's division then a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division. No?

That is a good point...Karl touches on that some....in a way yes it is a double standard.

Bottom line unless we go to one big division....We must have rules and there seems to be one in place. So until further litigation or changes to the rules are amended I say we follow them.

Cheef wrote:

Kovo wrote:This was a non-PDGA event so that rule "2.1 F" is not applicable.

If NEFA wants to adopt the PDGA's stance that's fine, but as it stands there seems to be a loophole regarding this.

I thought unless otherwise specified by the TD that PDGA rules are in effect at all NEFA events, am I wrong in thinking this?

I think you are right. The standard was set on Saturday when she was allowed to play in the womens division. I don't fault them for treading lightly and allowing it though...

Page 2 of the Points Charter - http://www.nefa.com/images/customer-fil ... harter.pdf

PDGA Rules of Play: TDs must communicate any deviations and/or course-specific rules to players prior to the event.

Kovo wrote:
I think you are right. The standard was set on Saturday when she was allowed to play in the womens division. I don't fault them for treading lightly and allowing it though...

Agreed entirely. Its something that should be clarified before the next event if James wants to compete again, which I hope he/she does.

Here are the divisions offered by NEFA.

I see divisions specific to WOMEN but no divisions specific to MEN.


Pro Divisions
Pro Open
Pro Masters
Pro Grandmasters
Pro Women

Amateur Divisions
Advanced Masters
Advanced
Intermediate
Recreational
Advanced Women
Intermediate Women

Cheef wrote:

Kovo wrote:
I think you are right. The standard was set on Saturday when she was allowed to play in the womens division. I don't fault them for treading lightly and allowing it though...

Agreed entirely. Its something that should be clarified before the next event if James wants to compete again, which I hope he/she does.

I know she is registered for a few tournies in the next month or so...one of which is the Spring Fling...a PDGA event.

CaptainAnhyzer wrote:Page 2 of the Points Charter - http://www.nefa.com/images/customer-fil ... harter.pdf

PDGA Rules of Play: TDs must communicate any deviations and/or course-specific rules to players prior to the event.

disregard this......... Section 2: Division Qualifications is separate from the 803. Rules of Play

Well its up to the TD's at this point to make the right call, and hopefully before the event so any issues can get resolved before the fact.

Cheef wrote:Well its up to the TD's at this point to make the right call, and hopefully before the event so any issues can get resolved before the fact.

TD freedom needs to be limited in this case...this is a NEFA Point Series Issue not a TD issue

We need OUR Charter to address this.

I agree Titan, but I don't see the Charter getting changed anytime soon. Its a process that should and will get done I'm sure, but until then you have to encourage TD's to make the right call.

I was upset that our charter lets people double dip......

Next NEFA Event someone else could bag to the PW division and take it down.....and that is $$$$ real cash tender....

No rule against it.

Cheef wrote:I agree Titan, but I don't see the Charter getting changed anytime soon. Its a process that should and will get done I'm sure, but until then you have to encourage TD's to make the right call.

We totally trampled on the Charter this year....myself guilty

When we voted the Utopia Open to get NEFA sanctioned after the deadline.....

So I say the board members VOTE ASAP and get this amended not for next year....for NOW...its only fair to all involved to have a solid solution to this....

Granted 2.1.F explicitly speaks to the case that women's divisions are open to women only, but which rules does NEFA choose to follow as far as determining gender since we don't have anything in place for this right now? It's a tricky thing to try and essentially rewrite laws when even state and federal governments have different restrictions on gender-change processes. I know someone who is legally a female according to the Federal government and NOT according to the state of CT because she hadn't undergone surgery but had been on hormone therapy for a number of months.

My personal opinion is that the olympic rule is a little over the top for our organization. As long as the state of residency says a player is a particular gender, that should be good enough for NEFA (my humble $0.02). No enforcement of pre/post surgery, no messing with federal yay/nay, and who the hell knows well enough to know if someone has been on hormones long enough to "not have a competitive advantage"? You have a "F" on your driver's license, you can play women's divisions at an event.

Let's be honest, this isn't something that's going to be a widespread circumstance that needs to be addressed. And while I disagree with titan's sentiment that the points series was "undermined", I DO think in this day and age it makes sense to have rules defining what requirements are needed to play in gender-protected divisions.

Also kovo, careful with the use of quotes around "she". I understand what you were going for but when it's something this sensitive of a topic, it can be taken highly offensively by some people.

Only women's divisions are gender protected, men's divisions are not, nothing more simple than that. Same as masters is age protected, open is not.

And yes we use the pdga rules as a default in nefa events, pdga 2.1(F) makes it clear enough, this shouldn't even be a discussion.

The 'right' call was not made, but I would have you all put yourself in that specific TD's shoes for just a minute and honestly think what you would do at that moment. I most likely would have done the same, there was no time for deliberation.

I think we should just move past this now and stick with PDGA rules, a player can't participate in a division in which they do not qualify. Agree with DMC, use the state definition.

Without rules it's not a game.