We do the calculations as a service to the PDGA. If the PDGA Board or Women's committee desires to see the ratings another way for women, we're more than happy to provide that. In the mean time, women can add 75 points to their rating if they want to see where they rank in some rough equivalence to men.
I was merely wondering if there is something you can do to address Katie's point. If ratings do provide an incentive to join the PDGA, as I've said I believe (and I imagine you do, too), then wouldn't normalizing women's ratings bring even more women to the PDGA because there would no longer be the PDGA ranking them in comparison to men, but rather in comparison to each other.
Basically, right now, without meaning to be, the women's ratings are somewhat of a backhanded compliment. Yes, you're good, the ratings say, but then the ratings go on to remind women that as a group, they're still not as good as the men. Why have the ratings go out of their way to drive that point home, which is both insulting and irrelevant?
I've seen women play on the same card as us men, and many times they aren't having as much fun because they see men outthrowing them. So they drop the sport because it's not so much fun to them, when actually they might have the potential of being pretty good players.
So why have the ratings crystallize that same experience into a single number on their PDGA membership card?
I think it would be nice if the ratings could be made to reflect how good the women players are against their competitors -- that is, against other women -- and not against men. If you think there's a way to do that and not cause you too much work -- somehow I think there's more to normalizing a distribution than simply adding 75 to all scores -- and you do think your rating system attracts players to the PDGA, then I ask you to consider it. 'Cause I don't think Katie's wrong.