A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has granted a transgender professional disc golfer’s motion for a temporary restraining order, which allowed her, for the moment, to continue to compete in the Female Professional Open (FPO) division.
Plaintiff Natalie Ryan earns her living by traveling to and competing in professional disc golf tournaments throughout the United States.
Defendants in this action are the Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) and Lowa LLC, doing business as Disc Golf Pro Tour (DGPT). The PDGA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is the governing body of professional disc golf. The PDGA establishes the sport’s professional rules and its various divisions of competition, runs its own competitive events, and sanctions events run by other organizations. PDGA-sanctioned events are divided into three primary levels: (1) professional; (2) amateur; and (3) junior.
The professional level, the level at issue here, is further divided into two divisions: (1) the Mixed Professional Open (MPO) and the FPO. The MPO is technically open to any player regardless of sex or gender and the FPO is available only for female athletes to participate in. As the governing body, the PDGA establishes policies governing eligibility for these gender-based divisions.
The DGPT is the official professional tour of the PDGA. Accordingly, the DGPT runs PDGA-sanctioned events including silver events, elite events, and playoff events. As professional level events, these events have both an MPO and FPO division. The DGPT recognizes the PDGA as the governing body and the regulatory authority on the matter of eligibility for gender-based divisions.
As a transgender female, the plaintiff competes in the FPO. Ryan has been a member of the PDGA since 2019, and at all times has been registered as female in accordance with her gender. In 2022, the plaintiff competed in 13 DGPT tournaments and three PDGA majors within the FPO division. The plaintiff also competed in the 2022 OTB Open in the FPO division. As a result of her performance in the 2022 DGPT tournaments, Ryan qualified to purchase a “tour card” for the 2023 DGPT season, which provides automatic priority registration to all events for the upcoming professional tour season. The plaintiff purchased her tour card and planned to complete in all 2023 Elite Series events, including the OTB Open.
However, on December 12, 2022, the PDGA announced changes to its eligibility policy for transgender women set to go into effect in January of 2023. The policy is titled “PDGA Policy on Eligibility for Gender-Based Division.” The new policy created limits for transgender individuals seeking to participate in the FPO. For instance, it prohibits transgender men who are taking hormone treatment to increase testosterone from competing in the FPO. It also imposes strict limitations on transgender women who seek to compete in the FPO — this policy is outlined in section C.
Section C has three parts. Section C.1 imposes requirements related to hormone therapy and testosterone levels. Section C.2 imposes requirements for gender affirming surgery and testosterone levels. Section C.3 imposes a requirement that a trans-woman athlete must have transitioned prior to puberty, defined as during Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later. Section C.3 also imposes a testosterone level requirement. Because the PDGA is the governing body and the regulatory authority on this matter, the DGPT policy is aligned with the PDGA’s policy. But for the requirement in section C.3, Ryan would qualify to compete in the OTB Open, which was imminent.
Both Ryan and her counsel reached out to Jeff Spring, CEO of the DGPT, to ensure Ryan was still eligible to play despite this new policy. On January 6, 2023, after the new policy went into effect, Spring responded that “Natalie is not excluded from the DGPT in 2023.” A month later, on February 7, 2023, Spring sent Ryan and her counsel a second email stating:
“We were recently informed by the PDGA that you are not eligible to compete in the FPO division at the DGPT events during the 2023 season. The PDGA is the regulatory authority for all decisions related to player eligibility at PDGA-sanctioned events, including all DGPT events. Information provided by the PDGA to the DGPT is the basis for all determinations as to any individual player’s eligibility to compete at the DGPT event or group events.”
Spring’s decision revoked the plaintiff’s tournament card and barred her from all FPO professional level events, including the OBT Open in Stockton, California, set to take place May 12-14, 2023. Later that same month, on February 22, 2023, the plaintiff filed her initial complaint in this case. After filing the complaint Ryan’s counsel indicates he attempted to engage in settlement discussions. Then, on March 22, 2023, PDGA indicated to the plaintiff that it would not engage in any further settlement discussions. The plaintiff then filed the motion for
a TRO.
In its analysis, the court found that “the balance tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff.
“The argument that some competitors may be scored lower, lose points, or otherwise perform worse because the plaintiff is participating in the OTB Open is a minimal hardship rooted in speculation, as it is unknown how high the plaintiff will place in the competition. The argument that other competitors are at a disadvantage because the plaintiff went through male puberty and that the plaintiff’s participation disrupts competitive fairness is unpersuasive based on the evidence currently before the court. This argument appears rooted in a fallacy likely born from a dearth of research. None of the scientific evidence presented in this case studied transgender athletes and none of the scientific evidence sought to determine whether transgender athletes, having gone through significant physical and psychological change, have a disproportionate advantage to their teammates or competitors. Conclusions that transgender women athletes will perform better than their cis-gender competitors are based on comparisons between the development of cis-men to cis-women, and on some research about physiological changes that occur during transitioning. These comparisons appear not to consider the myriad of factors and forces that effect an individual who has transitioned, including changes in body chemistry, physiology, psychology, etc. For these reasons, the court at this time cannot say the plaintiff’s participation threatened competitive fairness.”
The court next considered whether the “injunction is in the public interest.” To do this, it considered “guidance from leaders in the athletic world. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is among those leaders. As the parties have all noted, the IOC promulgated a framework related to the inclusion of individuals in sports based on gender. This framework states ‘everyone, regardless of their gender identity, expression and/or sex variation should be able to participate in sport safely and without prejudice.’ The IOC counsels for inclusion and the prevention of discrimination. The PDGA asserts the rules were created in response to the IOC framework and represented during the hearing that the PDGA policy is in line with this framework. However, when the policy is compared to the IOC framework, there appear to be significant discrepancies. The IOC framework mandates ‘[t]he physical, psychological and mental well-being of athletes should be prioritized when establishing eligibility criteria.’ However, the PDGA medical subcommittee report explicitly states, ‘it does not include sociological, psychological, or cultural issues surrounding transgender participation in competitive athletics.’
“The IOC framework also counsels ‘[n]o athlete should be precluded from competing or excluded from competition on the exclusive ground of an unverified, alleged or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status.’ It goes on to say ‘[u]ntil evidence (per principle 6) determines otherwise, athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status.’ Based on this Court’s review of the PDGA’s medical subcommittee report, neither of these principles were honored. There is currently insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the plaintiff has an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage. The assumption that she will have an unfair competitive advantage seems to be based on the ‘unverified’ and ‘perceived’ notion that because the plaintiff is transgender and went to male puberty, she will be better. These discrepancies between the IOC framework and the PDGA policy counsel in favor of granting the TRO.
“Additionally, the trend in women’s sporting events appears to be more inclusive than the policy in the instant case. As discussed at the hearing the NCAA, NWSL, and WNBA all have policies in place governing gender qualifications and none of them require transition prior to male puberty as the PDGA policy section C.3 does. Taken together, the IOC’s guidance and the trend in professional sports organizations not to require transition prior to puberty are persuasive and sufficient to demonstrate an injunction here is in the public’s interest.”
Thus, the court found an injunction “is in the public’s interest.”
Natalie Ryan v. Professional Disc Golf Association, et al.; E.D. Cal.; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82987, No. 2:23-cv-00324-TLN-JDP; 5/11/23
