LPGA Updates Gender Policy

[bkuehn1952]

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

I have off the grid for a couple months, so excuse my ignorance.

Was Hailey Davidson dominating the LPGA tournament circuit?
Has trans women been filling up the leaderboard every sunday?

If not they are trying to solve a problem that does not currently exist.

"First they came for the Communists. And I did not speak out. Because I was not a Communist........"

My guess is they are not correcting a current problem. Rather they are attempting to address a tough situation that could become a huge problem in the future. They are trying to be proactive rather than reactive.

As to offending or not offending people @ChetlovesMer, I believe Michael Whan said they tried to draw the line where someone gained a competitive advantage. It was felt that people who had gone through male puberty had a physical advantage vs. those who had not (all other things being equal). The decision was driven by a desire to create as level a playing field as possible. There was no mention of choosing the least offensive process.

I have not really given all this a great deal of thought. On the surface, the policy seems to be a reasonable attempt to create some certainty in a very fluid situation. I am sure the courts will have an opportunity to review this policy. This not going to be the last word on this issue. And my opinion is just that, one person’s opinion.

Edited December 6, 2024 by bkuehn1952

[ChetlovesMer]

22 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

As to offending or not offending people @ChetlovesMer, I believe Michael Whan said they tried to draw the line where someone gained a competitive advantage. It was felt that people who had gone through male puberty had a physical advantage vs. those who had not (all other things being equal). The decision was driven by a desire to create as level a playing field as possible. There was no mention of choosing the least offensive process.

I totally agree with you. I'm not sure if I've lost the forest in all the trees.

I was trying to commend the way this was handled. I agree with the decision. I agree that people born male have an advantage. Having typed that, I think when trying to create a rule set on this type of thing it's a major mind-field. It needed to be addressed one way or another. It will need to be addressed by all women's sports at some time in the future. 

No matter how it's addressed there will be people who will be offended. I think they handled it the best way they could. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

If not they are trying to solve a problem that does not currently exist.

So you can't be proactive, you can only be reactive? If the USGA had been more proactive, others would point out, we wouldn't be seeing a rollback.

39 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think too many people thing trans folks have made the changes simply to compete in a less competitive setting.  This is a momentous change in someone's life, never taken lightly. 

I don't see that as the main reason for the change. I think that, as Matt said earlier, women who were once young men (beyond puberty) do have a competitive advantage.

Nobody has an issue with a 25-year-old not being allowed to compete in a junior event.

Just now, ChetlovesMer said:

mind-field

Or a mine field. 😉

[ChetlovesMer]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Or a mine field. 😉

Oh, sometimes I'm not too brite. 😜

[turtleback]

6 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I think people are getting too worked up with the wording here. Gender at birth means gender you were born with. knowing or not knowing doesn't change that. To nitpick based on knowing or not knowing is just a waste of time. 

It's not so much the time that is an issue it is this notion that sex is 'assigned'.  What, is the Dr. going to say, "well your baby has a penis, but I am going to assign his sex as female."?  The pollution of the language is a big factor in how this stuff is sold.  The baby's sex is observed not assigned.  And in most cases it is observed on an ultrasound long before birth.  But neither of these inconvenient facts fit the narrative.  

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, turtleback said:

It's not so much the time that is an issue it is this notion that sex is 'assigned'.  What, is the Dr. going to say, "well your baby has a penis, but I am going to assign his sex as female."?  The pollution of the language is a big factor in how this stuff is sold.  The baby's sex is observed not assigned.  And in most cases it is observed on an ultrasound long before birth.  But neither of these inconvenient facts fit the narrative.  

They've used the phrase "assigned" for decades. Language shifts. Words have different meanings in different contexts.

You know all of that.

If you can "observe" it before the baby is born, that'd be a reason not to change it to "observed." It's made official when it's "assigned" at birth. That's all that use of the word means.

[Ty_Webb]

It's worth mentioning also that even a medical exam isn't necessarily enough to determine which gender to assign. 

Separately, genetic testing while pregnant isn't risk free, so would typically I think only be done when there is some other reason to do it.