Trans woman leading in qualifying to join tour – and everyone seems to be fine with it.
Woke, welcoming, and an effective marketing strategy. Business leaders take notice.
You might wonder why the other golfers aren’t worried about being put at a competitive disadvantage?
{{ She allegedly began talking with the tour in 2016 but wasn’t deemed eligible to compete until 2021, when, at that time, she had been on Hormone Replacement Therapy for 5 years and 8 months.
Actually I’m not fine with it. I do believe male and female musculature are different, and that is (highly) reflected in athletic endeavors. If someone is gender reassigned, that’s OK with me, that’s part of their mental makeup, but the build of the human body is definitely different, drug therapy or no, and I think it inappropriate to have those lines blurred simply on the say-so of someone.
I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, that’s my position.
“Actually I’m not fine with it. I do believe male and female musculature are different, and that is (highly) reflected in athletic endeavors”
I agree. In athletics, in leagues that are segregated by gender, people born male should compete against other males, people born female should compete against other females. Exception would be if a person is so gifted and good that they can compete drug free against what is perceived as the superior competition, then let them compete. I definitely do not understand how the “transition” drugs affect the athleticism of the body, so I am open to changing my mind down the road.
I didn’t read the linked article yet, am wondering if this person was a great golfer as a male ? Pretty sure there is far more money to be made on the PGA or LIV tours compared to LPGA tour. If this person, as a male, was not good enough to compete against the best males, then there will always be suspicion that they transitioned to female in order to compete against less talented golfers on the LPGA.
Seems that anyone, in any athletic field, would enjoy greater size and strength if started out as male, especially if transitioned after puberty. Can you imagine Bruce Jenner transitioning when he was in his twenties, then competing as a woman?
Same thing with anyone with prosthetics. Would Pistorius’ prosthetic legs be an advantage or disadvantage in running?
But, we realize that, today, the only thing that matters is publicity, so, of course, pro golf will try to attract more publicity, just like when Bill Veeck put a midget in the Browns’ lineup.
Just curious. How much money would it take for you to agree to permanently remove your birth genitalia, take the opposite sex hormones, and permanently live the life of the opposite sex you were born?
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone would do this just for the money. But that’s just me.
Some people do crazy stuff for money. I have read of models that had their back teeth pulled, to give themselves a “hollow cheek” look they deemed attractive. Some people will marry people of questionable virtues, to get at their money.
“Just curious. How much money would it take for you to agree to permanently remove your birth genitalia, take the opposite sex hormones, and permanently live the life of the opposite sex you were born?”
no amount of money could get me to do that.
I do not care if somebody feels trapped in the wrong gender and wants to change. Feel free, life is short, make themselves happy, not up to me to render judgement on anybody. But if you want to be a pro athlete, compete against the same gender. You’re welcome to disagree with that.
Just a little, meaningless anectdote: I have done mountain bike races. These are fun, but rather meaningless in the big picture. No money to win, just a trophy and bragging rights. A couple of years ago a guy won our age group, and his time was much faster than his previous years time for same race, same course. The race sponsors like a level playing field, and noticing the huge improvement, they immediately asked for a urine sample. Guy refused to do it, got very indignant about even being asked, denies everything. They still vacate his win because of refusing the urine test. A couple of days later, and obviously feeling guilty, the guy fesses up to being on steroids. He was 60 years old, and he was twisted enough that he would dope to win a race that would have basically no effect on his life, no cash prizes, no bike sponsors, no nothing, just ego stroked. Willingly risk his health by taking drugs to win a meaningless race. People do some crazy things.
A good comparison. Sports ban performance improving drugs, presumably, as “unnatural”. Would banning people who underwent a gender change fall under the same principle? Would banning people who have any sort of prosthetic device fall under the same principle?
Yes, I get that it would tend to make the modified person feel excluded, but is telling women they need to compete against someone who is 6’2", with this build, fair?
“Would banning people who have any sort of prosthetic device fall under the same principle?”
You probably already know this, but Oscar Pistorius from South Africa was the test case for this. He had both feet amputated at 11 months old due to a “congenital defect”. From what I can tell, he grew up competing in a lot of different sports, very, very good athlete. As a young man competing, he was known as “Blade Runner” for the prosthetics he was given. He wanted to compete as a sprinter on the SA Olympic team, he was that good. But he had to undergo testing, as it was thought the Blades gave him a Spring-Like effect, that non disabled runners did not have:
" the report claimed that Pistorius’s limbs used 25% less energy than runners with complete natural legs running at the same speed, and that they led to less vertical motion combined with 30% less mechanical work for lifting the body.[57] In December, Brüggemann told Die Welt newspaper that Pistorius “has considerable advantages over athletes without prosthetic limbs who were tested by us”. At first, the IAFF dq’d him, but that was overruled. SA did let him try out for the team, but did not choose him in 2008. After much drama, he did make the 2012 SA Olympic team. The IAFF did not want to let him compete, but apparently did not want to undertake the legal cost ( both financial and reputationally ) of banning a “disabled” person.
Oscar ran into all kinds of trouble later, he was convicted of the homicide of his girlfriend ( he said he mistook her for a home intruder ( he shot her 4 times )), and spent some time in prison.
Yes, that was my point. It is fundamentally unfair to have people using what they were born with, competing with someone who has been modified in a way that may impact their competitive performance. While people are so concerned with being compassionate for the disadvantaged, what about fairness for those required to compete with what they were born with? This is the sort of overreach that gives DEI a bad name.
This.
Not only is it perceived as unfair, it motivates people to vote for the candidates who promise legislate against such: DEI, AA, ESG, etc.
As for “do they do it for money?”.
I’m thinking not. People have “proclivities”.
Something DRIVES them to some action, maybe even against their will.
Think “50 Shades of Gray”, and the “deviances” against which we legislate.
IMO, these “drives” are often a form of mental illness, if the definition of mental illness is an uncontrollable action that is “outside” the accepted “norms” of society.
Yep. That’s what I think is informing the LPGA tour members being OK with it.
The other thing is that golf is largely a game of fine motor control within 40 yards of the green, rather than booming 350–yard drives. That’s the part of the game where size and strength doesn’t offer any advantage. Though in his day, 6’-7" Phil Blackmar was known as a good putter.
That actually could be a concern. Elite athletes are a different breed.
Researchers asked Olympic athletes if they would take a performance enhancing drug that guaranteed a gold medal even if it was so toxic that they’d be dead within five years. A majority said yes.
It may not be true for all, but for me short chip shots were much easier than longer ones. Get me close to the apron, I’ll drop the ball near the pin. Put me 100 yards short, I’ll be lucky to be on the green.
That first monster shot makes a really big difference. That’s why the ladies tees are closer, because it’s the one place you can even up the game and (most) everybody agrees with it.
The playing field isn’t level if it forces most women to settle for higher scores. Back in 2011, Arthur D. Little and Jann E. Leeming found that most women golfers were playing courses which were more than 1,000 yards too long for them. “How fair is a 5,600-yard course for the average woman? What would you think if we told you that a 5,600-yard course would be equivalent to an 8,400-yard course for the average man?
Would not be fair for Jack Nicklaus, in his prime, to play against any woman, from the same tee.
One concern is how to accept trans people into our society.
There has been a political push that is backfiring. This happened to gays in the 1970s. Spiked collars etc walking down the street in NYC did not play well with heterosexual people who themselves restrained their own proclivities around children.
Gays more recently since roughly 2000 have become family people in the public perspectives of most people. The norm as family people. That was planted to make gay palatable to all of us with no argument…generally.
Trans hit the ground running more recently. Demanding a lot of people. Many of those demands like them or not are backfiring. This is a disaster for the trans community. It may take time for the trans community to regroup. The demographic will be back on different terms. The next time the terms will be accepted by most.
I agree with Goofy. Once you are born male you are endowed with more upper body muscle and a different hip structure. It is not just the hormone levels.
In fact, some women with different hormone levels luck out but now are blocked from competing. That is very unfair.
Calling a woman with a peni$ (foolish censor) a woman is not accurate. The real question is rights and acceptance. Forcing a societal change based on the wording complicates getting rights and employment. Part of that has been a huge success. The current backfiring is still on territory that is better now than it had been.
Separate but similar topic. Humphrey wanted an equality for African Americans. The party lost the New Deal economic control in the process. The New Deal was outdated as an economic force. The current retooling is based on government spending. The Humphrey vision of an integrated America is on the agenda. The backfiring is very dangerous. Pulling down rights also pulls down our economy.
The easiest solution might be to change the names of all the leagues. Change from “men” and “women” to “XY” and “XX”. And heck, if this trans-woman wants to play in the LPGA, maybe she can, but since she is “XY”, she has to play from the “XY” tees instead of from the “XX” tees.
