Let her play golf

[C l u t c H 385]

I'm not the state. Are you equally offended when someone refers to their car as a her?

Now if Elin had chopped off Tiger's 1 wood when they got in their fight should he be allowed to play in the lpga? That's fair to you?

 

[sirkickyass]

I have yet to see one good reason for you to refer to him as a woman.

1. Personal preference of the person being identified. For instance, I would assume that you would prefer I refer to you on the forums as Clutch rather than Scott D. Woodruff or "that hateful dude who is doomed to a future bankruptcy." You don't have any specific right to dictate how I refer to you, and I could use the pronoun "she" or any other number of other names, but obviously I defer to how you want to be referred to because, it turns out, it's you. These are pretty basic decorum issues. As George Constanza would say "We live in society!"

2. Legal status. She's a woman under the law of her location. That's a "good reason" to refer to her as a woman.

3. The nature of her physical organs.

4. Her gender performance in the social environment.

EDIT: Moe, we usually take a vote before we edit people's posts.

 

[sirkickyass]

Now if Elin had chopped off Tiger's 1 wood when they got in their fight should he be allowed to play in the lpga?

You seem to be missing the key distinction between, for example, a eunuch and a transgendered person.

 

[KatieMCR]

I'm not the state. Are you equally offended when someone refers to their car as a her?

Now if Elin had chopped off Tiger's 1 wood when they got in their fight should he be allowed to play in the lpga? That's fair to you?

No I don't care what anyone calls their car. I'm also not saying you are the state. I'm asking you to show some respect for the feelings of other people.

No he should not, because as far as I'm aware Tiger does not identify as female. He is a man. Having his "1 wood" chopped off would not automatically make him a woman or transgender. Anyone who is physically male, and identifies as a male, would be horrified of that part of their body being removed. It's a completely different situation.

 

[KatieMCR]

1. Personal preference of the person being identified. For instance, I would assume that you would prefer I refer to you on the forums as Clutch rather than Stuart D. Woodson or "that hateful dude who is doomed to a future bankruptcy." You don't have any specific right to dictate how I refer to you, and I could use the pronoun "she" or any other number of other names, but obviously I defer to how you want to be referred to because, it turns out, it's you. These are pretty basic decorum issues. As George Constanza would say "We live in society!"

2. Legal status. She's a woman under the law of her location. That's a "good reason" to refer to her as a woman.

3. The nature of her physical organs.

4. Her gender performance in the social environment.

I agree with this list.

 

[TroutBum]

Golf is gay.

 

[moevillini]

heck, it's not even a sport

 

[moevillini]

Anyhow, what I don't really understand is why she is now ineligible for the competition when she has competed in it before and won it in 2008. Have the rules changed since then or what? If so, is there a rationale given for the change?

To me, that is what seems the most unfair about this is the idea that she had been able to participate under prior rules, but now the rules have changed and she is no longer eligible. It is a difficult situation, with no simple answers, and in her particular case, given that she appears to be a large-framed person, it reinforces the idea that her years living as a man gave her a testosterone-enhanced musculature that might give her an unfair advantage in this type of competition.

 

[sirkickyass]

Have the rules changed since then or what?

That appears to be the case. Furthermore it seems the rules were changed specifically to exclude people in her situation, and given her previous championship may have been written to exclude her individually.

 

[The Thriller]

No. She's a man.

 

[TroutBum]

That appears to be the case. Furthermore it seems the rules were changed specifically to exclude people in her situation, and given her previous championship may have been written to exclude her individually.

Or the people who originally wrote the rules didn't foresee a man getting his wang cut off so he could join the tour. Know what I mean? They do this kind of **** with the constitution all the time, but they call them a fancier word.

 

[franklin]

1) You'll note that my criticism was to the way that franklin got to his conclusion. It was based on a broad principle. I was pointing out that principle, broadly applied as he stated, would logically also lead to advocating for the repeal of the public accomodations provisions of the civil rights act. You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between arguing against the form of argument as opposed to the argument applied to the particular facts at hand.

2) You've assumed the conclusion. The entire point is that she possesses some characteristics of a female and in the jurisdiction of the suit is legally a female but also possesses some physical characteristics of a male.

3) The LPGA is surely a business and it is excluding a person based on a pretty narrow definition of physical sex. Both sex and race are protected classes. The similarities are greater than you acknowledge.

I'm not certain if the LPGA constitutes a public accomodation because I have no idea what the requirements for entry into an LPGA tournament are. I believe the PGA has specific competitive requirements and those might be used to distinguish them from public accomodations.

In any event, franklin's statement is exactly the argument used by business owners who challenged public accomodations laws saying that they had the right to choose their customers under policies of free association. My statement merely goes to the point that the principle he's arguing for has limits under the law and isn't the slam dunk he believes.

Obviously Renee Richards wouldn't have won her suit if it was that easy.

No need to argue with me through discourse with clutch. The answer is "yes", as you've explained the law anyway. As far as slam dunk, you don't need to be so cheeky. I'd love to hear your convincing argument, which I think serves your purpose as I see it much better. Don't approach this with the assumption that I don't understand the cost analysis with this position, or that you couldn't convince me otherwise. There are differing world views.

 

[Archie Moses]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiffTsdullc

Is this guy a dog or a human? He says he's a dog, so he must be a dog.

 

[sirkickyass]

The answer is "yes", as you've explained the law anyway.

Then you're way on the extreme edge. Rand Paul already learned this lesson with respect to the public accomodations law this election season.

In any event, we've already seen what America looks like when "free association" is taken that far. It's ugly, mean, and for a sizable chunk of the population not particularly free.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Or the people who originally wrote the rules didn't foresee a man getting his wang cut off so he could join the tour. Know what I mean? They do this kind of **** with the constitution all the time, but they call them a fancier word.

I hate when you're right.

 

[sirkickyass]

Or the people who originally wrote the rules didn't foresee a man getting his wang cut off so he could join the tour.

I think your assumption that she underwent sex reassignment surgery JUST to win a relatively meaningless long ball competition is erroneous.

How's this: she probably underwent the surgery because she had a gender/sex mismatch AND she happens to also enjoy playing golf competitively.

Juwanna Man really set everyone's thinking on this back 20 years.

They do this kind of **** with the constitution all the time, but they call them a fancier word.

And by all the time, you mean exactly once in your lifetime.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

It's a shame this thread has gone on this long without this:

I blame myself.

 

[TroutBum]

I think your assumption that she underwent sex reassignment surgery JUST to win a relatively meaningless long ball competition is erroneous.

Of course that's not my assumption, please give me some credit. My opinion still stands, man.

How's this: she probably underwent the surgery because she had a gender/sex mismatch AND she happens to also enjoy playing golf competitively.

Of course that's the reason. It doesn't change the fact that it's not fair and that changing of the rules is warranted.

Juwanna Man really set everyone's thinking on this back 20 years.

I had to google this one -- sorry to say that I never saw that flick. Shame, really.

And by all the time, you mean exactly once in your lifetime.

Don't be fatuous, Tink. There are TWENTY SEVEN amendments to the constitution. That means in all it's glory and wisdom, they've gone back and changed the rules 27 times. Imagine that. If the constitution can do it, why can't the LPGA?

 

[Stifle Tower]

That appears to be the case. Furthermore it seems the rules were changed specifically to exclude people in her situation, and given her previous championship may have been written to exclude her individually.

It appears the competition was either not sponsored by the LPGA when Lawless originally won it, or they decided to conform to LPGA rules for 2010. Wouldn't surprise me if "Long Drivers of America" is some obscure organization that was hoping their event would eventually draw national attenttion and official sponsorship from the LPGA - or the LPGA would just buy them out and take over the competition.

"Lawless, 57, also sued three LPGA sponsors and the Long Drivers of America, which holds the annual women's long-drive golf championship. Lawless won the event in 2008 with a 254-yard drive but was barred from competing this year after organizers adopted the LPGA's gender rules."

 

[The-Joker]

It appears the competition was either not sponsored by the LPGA when Lawless originally won it, or they decided to conform to LPGA rules for 2010. Wouldn't surprise me if "Long Drivers of America" is some obscure organization that was hoping their event would eventually draw national attenttion and official sponsorship from the LPGA - or the LPGA would just buy them out and take over the competition.

"Lawless, 57, also sued three LPGA sponsors and the Long Drivers of America, which holds the annual women's long-drive golf championship. Lawless won the event in 2008 with a 254-yard drive but was barred from competing this year after organizers adopted the LPGA's gender rules."

Jesus christ I hit 275ish after a 2 year "leave of absence from golf".
Let the man play, someone needs to show these girls how to choke down on the grip (no pun intended).