With these new rules, FIDE has managed to
- Imply the mental inferiority of women
- Validate the existence of transgender men
- Destroy the integrity of awards record-keeping
- Call transgender women men
Very nice, FIDE, incredible mental gymnastics performance! 👏 Add them to the ever lengthening sports federation shitlist.
So the argument about physical capabilities used to ban trans women from sports was bullshit and it was all actually transphobia?! Color me shocked
Well… no. There are maybe 50 women total who could play in the NFL, mostly as kickers. In basketball, women use a smaller ball because their hands are just smaller. Someone who’s FTM is probably not going to be able to compete.
There are enduring advantages from living most of your life pumped with testosterone. But there’s so few top athletes who transition MTF in their prime, it’s not a big problem. Just look at Caitlyn Jenner. She could still beat most women (and men) at a track meet.
Just gonna paste an old comment I made about trans athletes. TL;DR: athletic advantages/disadvantages diminish after ~2 years of HRT. There’s no good reason to exclude trans people from elite sports. Athletes already undergo testing to make sure their hormones levels are within pre-determined limits.
British Journal of Sports Medicine states 2 years after receiving gender affirming hormones, athletic advantages disappeared with an exception to running, in which trans- women had 9% faster lap times. Trans-men were on par with their biological male counterparts after just 1 year of hormone therapy.
Medscape has an interview with Joanna Harper, and advisor to the I0C on gender and sports about this very topic. In the interview she mentions a study out of Brazil that indicates a further decrease in strength in trans-women (MtF) athletes after 36 months, further diminishing any potential physiological advantage in these athletes.
There’s also something to be said about who these arguments are targeting. There are very few elite trans athletes and they already have to conform to strict guidelines on blood hormone levels and other doping tactics, just like everyone else at that level. The arguments are largely against high schoolers (children) who just want to participate in something. No one is taking puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones just to take a trophy home in high school. It’s a ridiculous argument through and through. A thinly veiled attempt to further marginalize and discriminate against a vulnerable population
The issue of transgender athletes was basically resolved several years ago when the IOC decided on two years of feminizing hormones before transgender women could compete in the female category. But due to the re-emergence of the anti-queer culture war, sports federations are re-litigating the issue and throwing science out the door.
Science completely disagrees in so many studies. Let alone the personal opinions of trans athletes in the world themselves lol.
Like you two, I’ve provided sauce above. Most of it far more recent than several years ago as if pointing to a single study refutes any other lol.
Edit: It sounds like you’re referencing old studies. And the Olympic Committee isn’t exactly known for being on top of science or neutral lol. It’s nearly decade old science in a field that still needs a lot of data.
In 2015, IOC invited Harper to attend its Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism held in Lausanne, Switzerland. After 3 days, the panel of scientists and physicians converged on revised rules for transgender competitors, including at least 1 year of hormone replacement therapy for female competitors, rather than the 2 years previously required. That change was a nod to Harper’s personal transition experience and to research published in 2004 in the European Journal of Endocrinology showing that the testosterone levels—and therefore performance—of 19 transgender women stabilized after 12 months of hormone therapy.
More news showing it’s unfair. Just go see my original.
Begone, transphobe.
iridaniotter
Begone, transphobe.
Sounds more like you’re a closed minded bigot who has already made up their mind despite being shown evidence to the contrary.
It’s not a very becoming look for someone who presumably wants progress for trans folk. You can’t just stuff your head in the sand the moment science begins to sway a different direction. It’s not how science or reality works. It’s not Adam Savage’s most well known catchphrase.
These are important discussions and you’re literally harming trans people by acting this petulant and childish. Quit with the persecution act and show your sources. This ain’t Truth Social lmfao.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Yeaaaaah no. Gender, just like sexual preference is a spectrum and people can fall anywhere on that spectrum
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I know. As soon as you question the “agenda” at all you get attacked by the usual suspects. Whatever. It’s clear that when people get mad an insult you that you’ve struck a nerve. They can’t handle it.
I’m sure muscle diminishes rapidly after MTF transition, but humans are just very good at losing muscle. Height and hand size are not things that go away after transition. Basketball is obviously one of the sports where MTF people have a massive advantage, although I don’t know of any studies on it. It depends massively on the sport.
Of course in professional leagues everyone is genetically unique. Saying “no this particular genetically unique person is unfair” is a bit weird.
When you start talking about height and hand size, I think you’re getting lost in the sauce. Basketball already favors abnormally tall people anyway, but no one is trying to ban Yao Ming from the sport for being 229 cm (7’6").
Yeah. Pretty much all the transphobic arguments could apply to most top athletes.
“Yao Ming is stealing sports from natural, normal height men!”
“Michael Phelps has an unfair advantage because he has unnatural lungs and bone structure!”
“It’s not fair to normal men that they have to compete against Mike Tyson. Would you want your son to have to fight against that?”
The reality is that the top athletes will always be physical outliers. That doesn’t mean more average folks need to be excluded from sports nor that birth gender necessarily gives you an unfair advantage compared to the top athletes.
Beat me to the punch. This has been a settled issue for years, the only reason to hammer on about how trans people shouldn’t be in sports is either prejudice or ignorance. And having a several comment exchange where sources are already cited kinda narrows that down
Have you seen Michael Phelp’s hands. The man is an absolute genetic freak with multiple advantages, both in external build and internally (e.g. lactose buildup), there’s no way anyone with average genetics can compete no matter how much they train.
And middle of the road athletes competing in the men’s leagues don’t become top athletes in the woman’s league after transitioning, btw. They become middle of the road. Might there be some slight advantage? Dunno, not sure, might be, but it also doesn’t matter because noone the fuck is willing to incur gender dysphoria to win a fucking title. Athletes are nuts but not that nuts.
deleted by creator
Except they haven’t. There are a small handful of examples, that people both greatly exaggerate, and repeat over and over again. Trans people have been allowed to compete for many years prior, and have not overrun women’s sports.
Simple math is that even being a small minority, trans people will, occasionally, win things. Even if there are zero competitive advantages to being a transgender woman, some trans women are gonna excel. Finding a handful of examples of trans people being good at sports isn’t actually proof of advantage.
200-yard freestyle race at the Ivy League women’s swimming
Is the type of race that can be totally dominated by up and coming Olympic athletes. Regional/institutional races tend to have quite low records until someone top-tier happens, by chance, to participate in them in the course of their career.
women’s indoor 1,500 meter long distance running event for ages 50-54.
My sides. A senior event. At that age the only one you’re competing against is yourself.
The Canadian Powerlifting Union announced a gender self-identification policy earlier this year that allowed athletes to participate in women’s competitions on the basis of self-declared gender alone.
Yeah that’s bullshit there’s a reason the rules set by all other organisations involve something along the lines of a minimum of two years on HRT. Noone at all anywhere is claming that the act of identifying as a woman, alone, reduces muscle mass.
deleted by creator
athletic advantages/disadvantages diminish after ~2 years of HRT
This is what I keep thinking whenever I hear about this “debate.” But I guess if the bigots admitted they know how hormones work, then they wouldn’t have an outlet for their transphobia.
It’s incredible how a good number of transphobic people just either do not know, or cannot admit, what hormones do.
Yeah, non-trans women don’t enjoy being forever 2nd because they weren’t born men in physically competitive sport lol.
It doesn’t take years long studies to understand a woman who transitioned well into or after puberty is still built more physiologically man than women. We will still need data about those who transitioned early and before onset. When a man transitions into being a woman then wipes the floor with every one of her peers, there’s something wrong.
You either need mixed gender sport. Male only, and female only. The regulations regarding each will have to be arbitrarily chosen until a good spot is found.
Mental sports that take near zero physical strength should have zero separations between the genders though.
It was great when women started wiping the floor with men at Shooting lol.
It’s not so great when, well, Bill Burr says it funnier lol: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESahoCdQ28
Edit: Since people want sauce wars…
Trans athletes retaining advantages even after a year or HRT.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764 - Jan. 5, 2021
Given that the percentage difference between medal placings at the elite level is normally less than 1%, there must be confidence that an elite transwoman athlete retains no residual advantage from former testosterone exposure, where the inherent advantage depending on sport could be 10–30%. Current scientific evidence can not provide such assurances and thus, under abiding rulings, the inclusion of transwomen in the elite female division needs to be reconsidered for fairness to female-born athletes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ - 2022 Aug; 19
When a male athlete transitions to female, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which governs college sports, requires a year of hormone-suppressing therapy to bring down testosterone levels. The N.C.A.A. put this in place to diminish the inherent biological advantage held by those born male.
Ms. Thomas followed this regimen.
But peer reviewed studies show that even after testosterone suppression, top trans women retain a substantial edge when racing against top biological women…
Testosterone levels are crucial but do not invariably predict performance in every sport.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/us/lia-thomas-women-sports.html
Renee Richards interview…
“I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me,” she said in an interview. “I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”
The council said they ultimately decided to prioritize “fairness and the integrity” of the female competition over inclusion.
The World Athletics Council plans to form a working group to consider the issue of transgender inclusion over the next year. The committee will speak with transgender athletes to seek their perspective, review research on the matter and submit recommendations to the council.
However, we do have evidence - we have 13 studies that show significant retained advantage. We have a number of other studies of males with lower testosterone levels with prostate cancer, we know what happens with training, and so I think collectively the picture is quite strong to suggest that advantages are retained.
So I would be quite confident at this point that a policy that regulates women’s sport by excluding male advantage, which includes trans women, is the evidence-based one.https://www.bbc.com/sport/61346517 - 11 May 2022
In this study, we confirmed that use of gender affirming hormones are associated with changes in athletic performance and demonstrated that the pretreatment differences between transgender and cis gender women persist beyond the 12 month time requirement currently being proposed for athletic competition by the World Athletics and the IOC.10 This study suggests that more than 12 months of testosterone suppression may be needed to ensure that transgender women do not have an unfair competitive advantage when participating in elite level athletic competition.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577 - May 17, 2021
Responded to a comment above yours with sources etc. There’s no good reason to exclude trans athletes from sports. Benefits diminish to a negligible point after ~2 years of hormone therapy. I do agree with you that the chess thing is ridiculous though
Thanks for the update.
I’ve also went and provided numerous and a variety of sources, direct studies, and reputable news sites disagreeing with the nearly decade old science the ALWAYS RIGHTEOUS OLYMPIC COMMITTEE based their decision on from an apparently single cherrypicked study in 2015?
I’d agree it looks like a 2 year wait requirement is a much better factor than the current single year though. Until then though, it needs changed. Then we will need more refuting the current I’ve linked above which shows pretty handily across the board that MtF athletes retain advantages well after a year and longer.
@iridaniotter @BarrelAgedBoredom
Yeah, non-trans women don’t enjoy being forever 2nd because they weren’t born men in physically competitive sport
Some sports just have totally dominant competitors. I don’t think all the men who lost to Michael Phelps enjoyed losing to him because they didn’t get to be born complete genetic freaks that look like they were engineered in a lab to win at swimming. In many women’s sports, the top (cis) competitors tend to have really beneficial genetics, including really high levels of testosterone compared to average. Losing to someone because their genetics help them be faster/stronger/taller is just how it goes in competitive sports. Losing to a trans woman is no different than losing to a cis woman who hit the genetic lottery.
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve provided lots of sauce now too and will continue editing as I pull them up almost in order on Google lol.
Yeah, non-trans women don’t enjoy being forever 2nd because they weren’t born men in physically competitive sport lol.
The way you start your post is very telling. You’d have been better off leaving out the first two paragraphs.
It doesn’t take years long studies to understand a woman who transitioned well into or after puberty is still built more physiologically man than women.
Appeal to common sense. Also, why default to exclusion/discrimination rather than starting from a point of inclusion and make adjustments from there?
When a man transitions into being a woman then wipes the floor with every one of her peers, there’s something wrong.
That is not something that has been shown to happen to any significant degree. Seems like another appeal to common sense. Are trans women not allowed to win?
I’m sure you’re just a concerned citizen who wants what’s best for all involved. 🙄
OmniDeficient
Common Sense Fallacy… concerned citizen…
So are you going to talk about the numerous sauce or???
Right, you can’t. Fallacy fallacy. I’m poking fun at the issue like numerous others have had. So the entire argument is wrong… despite…
Appeal to common sense fallacy!.. Yet it’s where almost all scientific studies come from lol. Also, just because something is a fallacy doesn’t mean the logic isn’t true lol. Black or white fallacy!
It’s only a fallacy if it isn’t true mate.
This isn’t rhetorical roulette. The simple fact is that you can’t refute the studies, you can’t refute the sources, so you refuse to change your position. We literally hang a Progress Pride flag off our porch. Like the other person below, you’re doing way more harm than good to trans rights.
Either get with the times and help, or stop trolling and ruining the perception of trans folk online by refusing reality. The current rules need to be changed. Top athletes have changed their position ex posto facto realizing how much of an advantage they had within those 2 years after transitioning for decades. Science is showing that people retain advantages after for even longer than 1-2 years. At the top levels of Sport, advantages as small as 1% is the different between even qualifying and medaling.
It’s an issue. It’s going to take time to resolve. No, swinging the pendulum too far the other direction isn’t good, it ruins arguments. Yes, you’re human just like those trolls, it doesn’t mean you should be falling for the same stick your fingers in your ears obstinance,
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=2ESahoCdQ28
https://piped.video/watch?v=2ESahoCdQ28
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Why are men and women separated in chess competition at all? There is no logical reason other than sexism and transphobia. The reason the top women in the world are so far below the top men is because chess has historically been a man’s game and the history of and continued sexism has no doubt kept out women who could be just as good as the best men. I play chess regularly online and have lost to both men and women. I wouldn’t be surprised if several top chess players chose to leave fide in favor of other competitions over this.
I’m a chess fan. Men-only events were abolished in the 1980s. There are now women’s events (no men allowed) and open events (everyone allowed). In practice open events are 90% male, and the male players, especially at the lower levels, tend to fit the smelly and socially inept stereotype. Playing in them can be unpleasant for women, and women’s events exist basically to provide playing venues where women can enjoy competitive chess while staying the hell away from us clueless males. As a clueless male myself, I can get behind that, no problem. I understand and I’m fine with it. How do cis women feel about playing alongside trans women? Idk, I’m cis male and I don’t feel entitled to spout off about that. But I think they are the ones I’d want to listen to the most.
The top levels from what I can tell aren’t as bad as the lower levels, since the effort it takes to reach that level of chess tends to weed out the clueless and lazy. There is still bad stuff though, e.g. the incidents with GM Alejandro Ramirez.
You might like the book Chess Bi tch (that is the title, damn censor bot),by WGM Jennifer Shahade reviewed here , about her experiences in both women’s and open chess events coming up through the ranks.
As for FIDE, there currently aren’t really alternatives at the top levels. FIDE on the other hand is not much of a factor in lower and mid level chess. Those events tend to be regulated by national and ad hoc federations, etc.
Does what cis women think about playing trans women really matter? You wouldn’t give a racist a time of day for saying they don’t want to play a black person, why should we care what TERFs think?
Because it’s a restricted participation class, and like it or not the details of those restrictions are important to the participants.
If the class exists because women want it, then it’s reasonable ask women participants what they want.
If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.
Nah, I don’t buy it. The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don’t inherently belong to that class of participation. The majority of a group (cis women) do not get to unilaterally decide who is/is not a part of the greater group (women).
If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.
But following this analogy through, you’re not asking all PoC. You’re asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.
In this case, the organizers of these tournaments are picking and choosing their own definitions for who qualify as “women” and listening only to those opinions. The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards from that conclusion.
The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don’t inherently belong to that class of participation
I don’t think it’s right to call it “an assumption”. By definition, a restricted competition class uses rules to establish who is allowed to participate. These rules are willfully and intentionally composed. When circumstances arise that make the rules ambiguous in some way, the participating community is called to clarify them.
This isn’t unique to women’s chess, it applies to any restricted class sport or competition.
But following this analogy through, you’re not asking all PoC. You’re asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.
To be clear, I am not in any sense telling the chess world, much less women players, how to set the rules for their restricted class of competition. I am saying that women chess players are stakeholders in the rules of women’s chess. Precisely how their input is to be converted into a decision is not in my scope of understanding, and it would be presumptuous of me to hazard a guess at how they prefer to operate women’s chess.
The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards
Agreed, and that was not my intent.
I genuinely don’t how or if women chess players were involved in this decision, I’m only responding to the assertion that asking “what cis women think about playing trans women” is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people. It paints current women players with a broad brush and disenfranchises them from the management of their own competition.
I’m only responding to the assertion that asking “what cis women think about playing trans women” is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people.
But I think this part is where the disconnect is happening. Before this decision, cis women and trans women were both components of women’s chess. The act of conferring with only a subset of that group implies that the other does not fall into that category. Relying only on the majority group’s opinion on the status of the minority group is itself an assumption that one of the groups inherently belongs less than the other.
The act of conferring with only a subset of that group
Cis women are stakeholders, I didn’t mean to imply that they are the only stakeholders That may be lack of clarity on my part. I definitely did not mean to suggest that ONLY cis women’s opinions matter, or should be considered in rulemaking.
I offered that as a counterpoint to the assertion that the opinion of cis women is morally equivalent to the opinion of racists.
Again, I don’t really know how or if women chess players (cis or trans) were solicited for their opinions on these rule changes.
You’re looking at my analogy the wrong way. I’m saying that if a racist said they didn’t want to play with black people as they don’t see them as equal, we wouldn’t give them the time of day, so why do we give bigoted women the time of day because they refuse to accept transwomens gender?
if a racist said they didn’t want to play with black people
If the larger community proposed a restricted class for black people, we would still listen to black people about whether they thought it was a good idea, not the racists.
The previous commenters’ statement that we need to listen to the women in the women’s restricted participation class, with respect to rule changes for the women’s restricted class, is valid. I think you’ve jumped to a conclusion that women chess players would oppose including trans chess players, without a basis in fact. It’s not clear to me that proposed restrictions on trans participation are actually coming from women participants.
But if women players are concerned about the effect of including trans players (whatever effect that may be), clearly we should listen to them. The limited participation women’s class exists to serve the needs of the women in that class.
It’s more like a tiny minority of cis women think all trans people should be shot at dawn and they get all the press, and are the only ones permitted to be acknowledged as “true women” with rights and shit—ironically.
source, am woman who really doesn’t care where people piss and shit and thinks we can’t get evidence on whether trans people have advantages in sport or not unless we let them, y’know, do sport
I think similarly. If, as a previous commenter implied, the main concern is discomfort related to social mixing between men and women participants, then the vast majority of female chess players are probably fine with including transwomen. But it’s their restricted class and they should be full stakeholders in any decisions.
I think every sport has its own challenges regarding trans/intersex participation in restricted women’s classes, and it’s certainly not my role to tell women participating in those classes that they should accept participants with male genetics. I’m 100% behind social acceptance of trans identity, but athletic contests add a dimension that I am in no way qualified to comment on.
deleted by creator
Great comment, very insightful.
Also, censor bot? Where is there a censor bot?
I griped about the censor bot here: https://lemmy.ml/post/3449468
Since men have been getting support and funding for over a century in sports and games like this, you end up with them dominating the field. Women’s categories bring in more female players that otherwise wouldn’t have a chance if the entire game was open only. But on the other hand, this enables concern-trolling over “transgender invasion”. It’s also applied questionably to sports that maybe don’t need this such as in the case of Zhang Shan & Olympic skeet shooting. It can reinforce gender stereotypes. Finally, I’d say it’s frustratingly slow at leveling the playing field.
deleted by creator
I’ll assume you just didn’t understand what I meant so I will repeat it. Men and women can both play chess. Male brains are not superior to female brains. The reason there are more male pros in chess is because of the centuries long head start they had. To rectify this, there must be a conscious effort to boost female chess players. The current strategy to do this is to create a women’s league. At this rate, perhaps by 2100 there will be an equal mix of male and female pros, and we can abolish the gendered division in chess because it would no longer serve any purpose.
Having the current best female chess player, Hou Yifan, be at rank 55 and be the third woman ever to be in the top 100, while the second best woman, Aleksandra Goryachkina, is at rank 347, doesn’t exactly paint a very gender-balanced playing field.
I think the point is that the field should be left alone. Let players of both genders rank wherever they do. Seems odd to separate the genders for a non-physical sport.
In a way they are as there is no “men only” tournaments. There is open for all, and a few women only. You just won’t see any women in the open for all tournaments as they fail to qualify so ending the womens tournaments would just result in having no female competitors at all.
They do that, in the men’s division. The men’s division is open. Anyone can participate.
There are 16 times as many male chess players than women so men dominate the open category by sheer number alone, it’s basic statistics.
As such the woman’s category is not so much a separate thing but a subset of the open one and if nothing else it provides visibility and a competitive field where women can deal with female instead of male asshole competitors so they can comfortably be catty queen bees instead of learning how to chest thumb.
Then you will get all the top tournaments with maybe a few women, none of them will likely win (based on current ranking), which will cause possibly even less women to try chess and reinforce the vicious circle (less win also equals less money, less sponsors). Basically, after that you will get protests as well.
Do you think that activities that are dominated by a certain gender are that way “naturally”, or would you maybe agree that societal factors and sexism play a role too? The idea of “just leave things alone and let people do what they want” often ignores the subtle way that men and women are encouraged towards or discouraged away from those activities.
deleted by creator
It’s fucking chess, a game of the mind. What possible relevance could being transgender have to a game of chess?
CHESS?!
When did sexuality mattered in a game of chess? Like do trans people get a buff at thinking or something?
The men can only move 1 square in any direction, while women can move anywhere on their row/column/diagonal. Clearly this biological difference is why they have separate men’s and women’s chess tournaments. Also, I hear trans people can double jump.
Damm double-jumping trannies coming to take my fish.
women can move anywhere on their row/column/diagonal
Not all of them. Pawns are women, too, because they can be promoted to queens but not to kings. They can also be promoted to bishops, which means that women are accepted into clergy by chess’ church.
Men automatically get a +10 masculity buff. It’s widely considered an overpowred stat in chess.
Stroking your beard also gives a +2 intelligence boost
The king also is a queen so that’s not fair
deleted by creator
Chess has long had different leagues for men and women
Yeah, but that doesn’t make it right.
Never said it did. I’m answering your question. When did sexuality matter in game like chess? A very long time, because misogyny.
I agree you never said it did. You just stated what has been happening.
Oops, you gave it away! Turns out if you make this move you either admit:
-
That you think people who are biologically male have an advantage in mental only competition
-
That you want to punish transgender people for transitioning by taking away what they’ve earned and preventing them from participating in the future.
How completely and utterly shocking, that the trans people in sports “fairness” debate was just a badly put together costume for sexism and transphobia. I tell you, I’m more shocked about this than anything. Definitely.
That you think people who are biologically male have an advantage in mental only competition
Doesn’t supporting gender/sex separated leagues existing at all imply exactly the same thing?
no, it’s a tool used to combat the overwhelming misogyny that makes it extremely unappealing for women to participate in. It’s only effective when these orgs actually use other policies to work alongside it, which of course they never do.
Im not too familiar with Chess, but is there gendered leagues with Chess? Cause if so that seems really weird.
Like physical sports I understand a seperation and understand the need to regulate transgendered individuals due to physical difference between genders.
But for a mental cognitive sport that seems ludicrous to do
Yes, there are gendered leagues with Chess because misogyny
If women were treated equally at the highest level of chess they would only have <1% representation as of 2021.
There is only one woman in the top 100 ELO currently.
If women were held to the same intellectual standards of men in chess, they would only exist as rare, near singular phenomena, and then THAT would, rightfully, be called misogyny.
If you want to compete at the highest level, you must first compete–if you cannot compete, then you are not competing–it’s built into the concept a priori. White men who are hateful are all for affirmative action because it keeps the weak weak. You can imagine Don Draper smiling and typing back whiskey while the victims are given handouts–resented by the rest of humanity, wrongfully or rightfully–this is how they make their racist fantasies racist realities.
I don’t think it’s an intellectual shortcoming either: it may even be that men are just mentally ill when it comes to excellence in competition and not excellence for its own sake, which I think more women are open minded enough to see; and, that men are more likely to take things “too far.”
Men also had to swallow that computers–built by people of diverse backgrounds and genders–are far better at calculating chess outcomes, and someone might complain that computer constructors should be allowed to enter AI and have it ELO ranked.
On top of all this, I think chess would be delighted with female stars especially after Queen’s Gambit. I can’t imagine they would turn down the massive amounts of money that would generate (see formula W drivers/Danica Patrick) even if all they did was ALMOST win.
At some point reality sets and you’re left with only hard truths. The hard truth about chess is that it’s a war fantasy computation board game probably invented by and for male brain reward structure.
Women are proving much more capable than men in society, which is what matters, but if they want to win at chess or backgammon or go or shogi they’re going to have to develop an insane priority structure where you would sooner skin your mother alive than lose.
Next, you’re going to tell me skull size matters.
deleted by creator
yes - but at least there you could argue that it’s a historical relic.
I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that the attitude that men are smarter than women (or at least, better at chess) didn’t exist previously, and that’s why they leagues are setup this way. But it’s one thing to not change existing policies rooted in sexism, and another entirely to create new policies rooted in sexism.
The former happens literally all the time, because large institutions are slow to change, and even though blatant sexism is no longer socially acceptable, it’s still prevalent in peoples’ heads. When the latter happens, it understandably causes more uproar, because it’s an active move towards more sexist policies.
Don’t get me wrong, we should absolutely get rid of gender based leagues IMO and switch to having leagues based on ability (whatever the critical ability might be for the competition in question) and call it a day - that would solve both the sexism issue and the trans issue, as there would no longer be any “unfair advantages”. What genitals a person was born with - whether they kept them or not - shouldn’t impact how you’re allowed to compete especially in an activity like chess that has no reasonable basis for gender separation in the first place
IMO you’ve hit the nail on the head.
These conflicts and confusions are the consequences of gendered leagues, but because the issues come up in the context of transgender people, it makes it seem like an issue with transgender people.
Buuut then there is the issue of the representation of women in (most) popular professional sports is much lower, and would be worse without this delineation along gender lines.
So what we need is to make up our mind if we want either:
All sports to be as fair at all times as physically possible
Or
If we want to see all genders fairly represented in popular professional sports
If it is the first, we should ungender the leagues. If it is the second, we should stop worrying about it and let transgender people compete wherever they want.
“the transphobia is because we gave the women their own space, that was our mistake”
No, it was because of transphobia
That isn’t what I’m saying, I agree the transphobia is just transphobia.
I’m trying to talk about why this issue confuses so many people, and why people that aren’t well educated on gender often fall for the transphobes bullshit when it comes to the “fairness” in sport shit, as well as guess at a possible way to recontextualize this “debate” in a way that benefits trans people.
Skill and talent aren’t cleanly split along gender lines just because that is a convenient way to split the leagues. If these transphobes are so concerned about “fairness” then we should have more leagues for all sports delineated by something besides gender, I recommend weight class. Or, if the point was for women to have a space, then it should be a space for all women, and trans women should be allowed to participate. That second option is the one I would pick.
you think people who are biologically male have an advantage in mental only competition
They do. There are two types of chess competition: open and women only. Women don’t do well in the open competition which is why they added the women only competition.
But it’s not because men on average have an advantage. It’s because men have a greater spread of chess ability so the very top men tend to do better than the top women.
Something to keep in mind with studies are outside social factors such as less women playing chess and less women being exposed to chess at a young age. There are fewer women in chess and fewer girls learning chess, for probably centuries. This will have a factor when comparing two demographics.
Well, sometimes it is a physical competition. You can break your leg if you do a hard enough move!
-
Ah here we fucking go again… 20 years of progress lost.
Chess and eSports always do that. They’re the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how, if you work on the social pressures and limitations that keep women/queer/trans people away from the sport, they can absolutely join in, compete, influence younger people, attract advertisers and so on. They can bypass the “bUt PhYsiCal DiffEnCeS” argument entirely, they’re the perfect category for inclusive sports.
But without fail, after we get some progress, they come up with some way of absolutely setting everything back with new weird regulations, changes in funding, changes in language. It’s bizarre. It’s self sabotage.
But without fail, after we get some progress, they come up with some way of absolutely setting everything back with new weird regulations, changes in funding, changes in language. It’s bizarre. It’s self sabotage.
because it’s on purpose. They’re bigots, this is what bigots do to fight social progress.
Wow, Fuck FIDE
Given the current FIDE president is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_Dvorkovich
It’s not much of a surprise.
Does he have a history of conservative nonsense or something?
He’s a hard-core insider in Russian Politics. He was the Deputy Prim Minister under Dmitry Medvedev for years. He’s been heavily involved in Moscow politics for years.
Well Russia’s recent push to make the lives of trans people worse has been after he left politics so I don’t really get the connection.
Russia has always tried to make the lives of trans people worse. It’s not remotely new, it’s just more prioritized now.
But you don’t understand! Clearly trans women having a different bone density gives them an unfair advantage because of, uh, something something integrity of sports.
You see, she hasn’t been on estrogen long enough to be as emotional and illogical as cis women, giving her an advantage in such strategic and intellectual pursuits as Chess. This isn’t one of the few board games that women can compete on a level playing field with men, like Shoots and Ladders or Candyland.
This shit doesn’t even make sense. It’s God damn chess! Men and women don’t have different minds. You might have a case with physical sports, maybe (IDK anymore; used to think women were not able to be as physical strong as men due to physiology, but even that seems like it is inaccurate with new studies), but there is no such case to be made with a mind. Human brains are human brains. The body they are encased in doesn’t change them fundamentally.
You might have a case with physical sports, maybe (IDK anymore; used to think women were not able to be as physical strong as men due to physiology, but even that seems like it is inaccurate with new studies),
I feel like the fact that the top leagues in most sports are open to both genders but it’s basically unheard of for females to be even close to be good enough to join, proves there is a massive difference at those levels.
For example women can play in the NBA, some have tried, only one or two got close, but none have played a game.
What research are you referring to that says there is no advantage?
Men and women don’t have different minds.
Chess stats don’t agree with you on that. Men have a greater spread of chess ability than women. ie. the bottom end of men are significantly worse than the bottom end of women but also the top skilled men are better than the top women.
Maybe if they played together instead of separately things would change, considering how it is played and what the logic employed entails. You might not know how to deal with en passant if you’ve never seen it used.
The measured pool is chess players, not random people they picked off the street.
The standard chess competition is “open” so they do play together.
Girls are made to feel unwelcome in chess environments at a very young age. Of course once many drop out because of cultural pressure, the remaining small sample size will have less spread than the larger population of men who have been made welcome in chess environments their whole lives.
I’m pretty sure it’s just that greater male variability In most traits means that extreme upper echelon of men are better than the extreme upper echelon of women.
I like how this manages to be both transphobic and like insanely sexist. Way to go, FIDE! Can you guys work homophobia or racism in there for a hat trick?
I really wish posts like this included more interesting discussion, instead of 90 % of people just white knighting how shocked they are and how awful this is!
Yea we get it after the first comment, you don’t need to post the same shit over and over.
My personal genuine question is to women, how they feel about transgender women in their sports? For physical sports I’d imagine it matters even more.
Chess is just a brain game so it really shouldn’t matter at all, but I’d still love to womens opinion on the subject.
Woman here, and genuinely, I don’t know what’s right.
I can recognise that m>f after puberty gives someone a strength advantage but at the same time it’s hard enough having to transition without feeling even more marginalised by being banned from sports.
Maybe there needs to be just a women’s and open category to recognise the strength handicap that cis women have for certain activities and allow anyone to compete in open, but then there’s the challenge of prize money, viewers etc etc between the two that also needs to be managed appropriately.
At the end of the day, someone isn’t going to be happy and for that there is no good solution, but we need to be doing our best for cis and trans athletes to make sure everyone has a chance to compete in the sports they live.
Chess? Banning trans competitors is fucking idiotic and the chess federation can fuck right off with that implied notion of women being less capable.
Hang on a sec…
I can recognise that m>f after puberty gives someone a strength advantage
This is the sort of thing that is said in these conversations, as if it is simply fact. A common sense truth that we all agree on.
But it’s not. Transgender women might retain some advantage after transition, but they also might not. That is something that is intensely studied, and hotly debated. Results have been found to support either hypothesis, and may differ from sport to sport. It’s not cut-and-dry in the slightest.
I think I read in a study somewhere that after transition, a trans female retains a certain amount of muscle mass and strength for a minimum of 2 years after transitioning. I’ll try to find the study and link it when I’m on the computer.
That said, there is absolutely nuance to be had here, and the chess organization is being both transphobic and sexist at this point 😮💨
I think I read in a study somewhere that after transition, a trans female retains a certain amount of muscle mass and strength for a minimum of 2 years after transitioning. I’ll try to find the study and link it when I’m on the computer.
That’s why I said that the evidence is highly mixed. I’ve seen multiple studies that conclude that there is no reason to believe trans women retain advantage, but I also don’t doubt that you have seen the results you say you have either.
Then it gets even more complicated with, what kind of strength are we talking about? And for what sport? There are even arguments made that increased bone size and density, paired with female-range muscle strength that trans women at least approach if not reach after a few years of transition, may represent a net disadvantage for transgender women.
I just wanted to call out the one of the incorrect assumptions that even well-meaning folks make when talking about transgender people. Because they’re really quite common unfortunately.
That said, there is absolutely nuance to be had here, and the chess organization is being both transphobic and sexist at this point 😮💨
100%.
I’d like to interject that it’s not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.
I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women’s competitiveness…
One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis… but what we seek to validate “fairness” is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.
I’d like to interject that it’s not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.
I mean yes and no, some studies don’t find evidence of competitive advantage. Some do. So, yes I agree that interpretations are mixed, but also evidence, between studies. And then interpretations of the entire body of evidence are mixed, but I personally don’t think that those interpretations are of much relevance, this is a discussion that has to happen at a more granular level of each sport.
I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women’s competitiveness…
I actually think I’ve seen that one, yeah. One of the reasons I mention “what kind of strength”, and how that’s going to differ for each sport. But yeah, in that case, an exclusion period of two years, is not unreasonable at highly competitive levels.
One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis… but what we seek to validate “fairness” is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.
Yeah, I agree 100% here. We should expect a roughly proportional number of transgender women to be successful.
But literally any single example of a transgender women succeeding is enough to have people crying “but they’re a man!”. Because, for a lot of people, they really just wanted to call trans women men, the whole sports thing is mostly just pretense.
Exactly. I recently watched Lance Armstrong go off on a silly survival TV show about how trans folk should not be allowed in men/women’s sports and try to defend it with a truly pointless argument of “unless there’s overwhelming proof” bullshit.
He almost got voted off the show for that rant alone. If it weren’t on Fox, he would have.
Even if it’s not simply fact, you have to take into account people who want to abuse the system.
I’m male. How much do I have to change to be considered female?
After getting X amount of estrogen?
In things like running or swimming, breasts are a complete disadvantage. Am I required to get a certain cup size?
I could be decent in Tennis as a male. But if I started playing females tomorrow I’d be one of the best. Just how the sport works. No amount of training is going to get a female to serve and return the ball as hard as I can (Which isn’t even top male speed).
How many days from today until I can play females?
What if I didn’t want to subject my body to hormones just to be considered the gender I feel like I already am? That should be my choice.
You’re basically saying that I need to do enough “damage” to my body to be considered female.
I’m male. How much do I have to change to be considered female?
The standard in many sports is… documented use of testosterone blockers for 2 consecutive years, and a testosterone test showing T levels lower than some number that is clearly within the natural ranges.
If you dig into the sports involved, they generally all have run studies. There is a point where any advantage of being born male becomes negligible. It’s not (just) about identifying as the destination gender. It’s about showing zero or limited advantage in the league.
Ironically, it looks like the bigger issue is with trans men, who tend to somewhat outperform cis men in certain base tests of strength despite having compatible testosterone levels.
As for breasts in swimming. You understand that it is not against the rules in competitive swimming for a cis woman to get a breast reduction, right? If Cis women have no requirements or limitations on that, why should trans women?
What if I didn’t want to subject my body to hormones just to be considered the gender I feel like I already am? That should be my choice.
Then don’t compete in the destination gender’s circuit? Turning gendered sports into hormone-matched gendered sports is an entirely reasonable compromise because you’re defending the competitive integrity without being bigoted against a person.
A trans individual is not welcome in their birth gender sport because they resemble (hormonally) the other gender. It seems contrived to defend exclusionary behavior on “what if I want to do what would include me in the other category”.
Pretty much every sport is going to set some reasonable limits, based on the level of competition. Most are based on maintaining a certain hormone balance, including low testosterone, for at least 1-2 years.
So most of your hypotheticals just cannot happen. And moreover, they just aren’t relevant to the arguments people are making. A transgender woman is a woman, regardless of if she transitions medically, or how far along she is. But for certain types and levels of competitions, some restrictions are implemented. Most people are arguing against a) a blanket ban, which seems more fueled by bigotry than data, b) a ban from levels of competition that are more socially-oriented than meaningfully competitive, such as school sports, or c) bans like this one, in chess.
Maybe there needs to be just a women’s and open category to recognise the strength handicap that cis women have for certain activities and allow anyone to compete in open, but then there’s the challenge of prize money, viewers etc etc between the two that also needs to be managed appropriately.
I’m fairly certain that this is already the case, and what’s being done here as well. Specifically that there isn’t a “men’s” category, there’s open, and there’s women’s. In chess specifically it’s a strange situation. My understanding is that the existence of “women’s chess” isn’t due to any inferiority of play (though there’s undoubtedly some sexism in its origin) but rather as a way to entice women to play and grow the sport. There’s no restrictions on a woman being granted the grandmaster title, but a man can’t hold a Women’s Grandmaster title.
Not keeping your women specific titles as a trans man at least tracks for that. As to not being able to compete as a trans woman I don’t really see the point. I could see an argument for resetting your ELO because there is a lower ELO pool in women’s chess (due to population, nothing enforced) and your ELO could be unduly skewed, but idk. That’s kinda getting beyond my competitive chess knowledge
Tldr; this is probably dumb and misguided, but maybe not as hostile as the headline first looked to me
In most sports the men’s group is technically open. Most women just don’t succeed because of the sheer difference in physicality.
It might help you to understand that there has been a lot of study in many sports (for the very reason of your uncertainty).
Apparently, testosterone level (not birth gender) is the effective indicator of expected performance. In all women’s sports that allow trans competitors, trans individuals need to test **lower ** testosterone levels than are naturally allowable in cis women.
The issue is this. For someone trans to be willing and able to power through all the bullshit, they need to be uniquely dedicated and talented (or they’d just not do it). What that means is that unsurprisingly some trans individuals are absolutely phenomenal at a given sport.
Ultimately, there’s the problem. “We” seem to think a m>f individual doesn’t have an unfair advantage ONLY if they lose. So we’re not looking for the average or variance of skill, only the fact that there exists a trans individual that shines. It’s hard not to look at a trans woman winning and say “see, that’s what happens when someone born male competes with a woman in this sport”. But it’s also unscientific, as the science says trans women compete with comparative attributes to cis women.
Chess? Banning trans competitors is fucking idiotic and the chess federation can fuck right off with that implied notion of women being less capable.
Yeah, there’s no real defense to the two being separated in any league.
I just don’t think there’s a blanket answer, that doesn’t involve invasive poking and prodding. There’s always going to be somebody unhappy.
Any pro-trans decision, like just opening it up and having ability ranked categories is in danger of sidelining women’s sports. But… they are anyway…
England have just reached the women’s World Cup final in Australia. I look out the window right now, and I don’t see a single England flag. For the men’s tournament last year there was so many flags about you’d think we’d just crowned a new king on St George’s Day. People were playing “Three Lions” for the 13th major tournament in a row. And we did fucking rubbish in that compared to the ladies.
It’s strange the these people “protecting women’s sports” are completely absent when it comes to supporting them.
It’s strange the these people “protecting women’s sports” are completely absent when it comes to supporting them.
It’s really not strange at all when you consider the fairly obvious fact that it was never about protecting women’s sports, but instead about finding a way to hurt trans people that plays well in the media.
Seriously, find me a conservative whose railing against trans women in sports that has actually attended a WNBA game, or is watching every game of the women’s world cup. I’m sure they exist, but I’d be surprised if even 5% of the people who act like the world will end if trans women are allowed to compete in sports have ever actually expressed interest in womens sports. And hell, I’ll bet the number who have actively made fun of womens sports before this became a hot topic is a hell of a lot higher lol
The solution is easy, just open more categories ciswomen, transwomen and anyone who identifies with the female gender. Same for men. Done.
Not enough people to make a meaningful category tho
Point is more categories are required now. Leave cis women as category then make other categories like open for all, trans people, people that identifies with the female gender, etc. Sure some categories might not have many competitors, but this way eveyone can play in the categories they feel comfortable.
The problem is that the way sports is funded is through competition and you can’t have competition without competitors. Small categories are inefficient and will be removed as a business decision. Also it’s kind of meaningless to say “I’m the best in X category” when there are 3 people in that category.
“Discussion” about this is just transphobic concern trolling, so it’s not necessary.
Someone tell me why there is even a “womens chess” for them to insanely bar trans people from, gender doesn’t affect chess in the 1st place.
In case you don’t know - there are two categories: open and women-only. Anyone can compete in open, no matter what their gender/sex is. Women can also compete against other women only if they want. It’s definitely not like “oh you’re a woman, you can’t compete here, it’s only for men”.
But let me call myself a women so i can stop being 10th place and take 1st in women league
I’m waiting to hear a reason that doesnt go back to some tired stereotype in the lines of “Men are smarter than women, so its not fair”.
deleted by creator
Maybe the amazing women chess players just have better things to do
That was interesting. Thanks for posting.
Historically, women did not feel welcome at open chess tournaments. Chess talent was seen as synonymous with intellectual brilliance, so some men would not take it well when they were beat by a woman. I like to think that this has changed, but there’s probably still an element of this. Regardless, women’s tournaments were set up so that women who wanted to play chess competitively would have an opportunity to do so safely and without the fear of harassment. They still exist because people still compete in them and enjoy them, so why stop?
Thank you.
Whole dang game is about coming out as trans and violently abolishing the patriarchy and they ban trans women from top level play smh
There are too many women in chess after the popularity of the queen gambit, said FIDE. What can we do or say to get them go away?
Really, what is the nationality of the FIDE leadership? Are they Russia? I remember a lot of famous Russians playing.
Yes the current leader is a generic russian politician/stooge, but the previous leader was a real firecracker! He claimed to have been abducted by aliens and to have visited their planet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsan_Ilyumzhinov
Removed by mod
Ah yes, men and women are physically built differently so trans women have an advantage because they can… grip the chess pieces better with their bigger hands, and crush the pieces/flip the table more easily due to their increased strength. Makes total sense.
What the hell? There is no possible (meaningful) reason for this…
