Jump to content

Report

  • Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Optionally enter a message with your report.

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 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. 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. Or a mine field. 😉
    • 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. 
    • Wow. What are they thinking when they place a price tag like that on a golf club? Maybe they know the person who bought the “banana duct taped to wall” piece of art is in the market for new clubs.
    • 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.
    • Strangely enough, she played at my club as a teenage boy, and was a very good player.  Always seemed a bit of a "tortured soul", and I don't think transitioned until well after leaving here, much too late in life to fit within the new LPGA policy.  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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...