- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.
You must log in or register to comment.
Silly question, why does chess, a mental activity, need gendered leagues?
Chess at pro level is brutal. One can get mentally mauled if the adversary has a superior, trained for cruel psychological warfare, mind.
Men just don’t stand a chance.
Because the whole idea of gendered leagues in games that ultimately don’t matter at all is about segregation and control, not physiology.
Bring on the down votes from the “but muh sports 'tegridy!” clowns.
Edit: some of yall need a class on statistics lol
I don’t really follow. Do you mean only non/minimally physical competitions or all competitive sports/games/activities?
For things like chess, fishing, and spelling bees gender segregation doesn’t make sense. But for things like martial arts or weight lifting I think it makes sense.
It at least makes sense if the goal is competition between roughly similar groups of participants, and not just a single open class dominated by a particular physiology.
Why not set up divisions, among sports where the physiological differences do matter, based on the actual weight, strength etc of the individual participants, whatever traits are relevant to that sport, rather than by gender? Even if the average woman and the average man have, say, a strength difference, there are still going to be some women who are evenly matched with some subset of men, after all. I feel like such a system, if done well, could make things more competitive than simply sorting by gender, because it enables sports where the people who are not on the stronger end of what their gender is capable of to still face equivalent opponents, and would remove the whole reason for debate regarding trans athletes, because they could get put into the same categories as anyone else without their identity being invalidated or having any relevance to their performance.
There are tons of ways to makes sports more inclusive. The issue has never been “we’re all out of ideas,” but rather “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” Also “tRaDiTiOn”
Fair point. If your argument is that physiological factors matter, but gender is an insufficient variable to segregate on then I don’t disagree.
I think it comes down to a matter of practicality. In most cases is gender a good enough heuristic? Maybe, or maybe not. I don’t really know, but it’s probably one of the simplest variables to consider. Perhaps it would be better if a more complete (but complex and harder to measure) set of factors were considered.
The only concession I can think of is things like crossfit games or Olympic weight lifting, where raw strength is the one and only point, or so central to the point that it’d be pointless to have men and women competing against one another. But things that require strategy or finesse like most sports, and definitely martial arts, women could absolutely be top contenders.
As humans we have hunted mammoths together, gone to the moon together, created computers together, etc. I think we can handle throwing and catching the balls together too.
TLDR there are many more aspects to most sports than raw physical strength, which is the only physiological “advantage” men have over women.
I think you’re right that there’s a spectrum, where one end is bound by raw physical strength and the other end is bound by technique. However, I’d draw the line for segregation closer to the strength end than you, I think. Granted, this is ultimately all just subjective.
I think for many sports the physical advantage men have (on average) would outweigh any technique advantage a woman may have. Especially if we consider professional sports, where the skill (technique) of all participants is already exceptionally high.
I’m not a martial arts expert, but I would argue that the existence of weight classes in most martial arts is evidence that raw strength is a factor that can’t be ignored. It’s a fact that for an athletic man and an athletic woman of equal weight, the man will be stronger.
Men will still be stronger at equal weight than women though the difference isn’t as drastic any more.
About martial arts in particular though women have an advantage when it comes to actually being mentally capable of learning proper technique early on. You can tell your ordinary 16yold guy as often as you want that they should trust technique, punch with their legs, etc. it won’t get through their skull and they’ll over-tense to “feel the strain” the moment you turn your back on them. They just love their 3rd class levers. Probably even makes sense from an evolutionary POV as doing things inefficiently is strength training.
It’s definitely possible for a woman to get better than a random street punk (though not with “feminist self defence” type of classes, those are generally bullshido). Against a properly trained man, though? Let’s say that the only thing my SO manages to be is a handful when I try to tickle her and it’s kinda hard to tickle when you don’t have a free hand.
It’s a fact that for an athletic man and an athletic woman of equal weight, the man will be stronger.
Right. It’s not a fact that the man will be a more skilled or successful fighter (or insert any sports position here) than the woman based on strength alone, so why should we assume that it is?
I agree that technique is absolutely a critical component that women can be equal to men on.
I’m just arguing that a woman would have to have an incredible technique advantage to overcome a man’s strength advantage (in most martial arts). Is it possible? Certainly. Is it a realistic situation, especially at the professional level? I’m not so sure.
That’s why I brought up weight classes. Sure, a lighter weight class athlete has the potential to beat a heavier opponent with superior technique. But the skill gap necessary for that to happen isn’t realistic, therefore the playing field is leveled by strength (weight class).
I definitely disagree with the martial arts point. If it’s simple point sparring where technique is most important like in karate or taekwondo then yes, men and women can compete. If it’s MMA or any kind of grappling then no, men will dominate at the higher levels.
This will be true of any sport where strength, endurance or speed of the human body is a deciding factor. Which is, unfortunately, most sports.
deleted by creator
So is your argument that women are inherently inferior at chess or…?
deleted by creator
What you have just said is that there is a cultural difference and I agree with that. Dont confuse that with a difference based on sex, or physiology, in other words.
Obviously, men and women on a 1:1 basis have equal potential to excel at chess, based on their sex, right?
deleted by creator
I can’t help you to understand the difference between cultural statistics and physiological potential I guess lol
You did see the numbers? I mean, what else do you need?
I weep for your (in)ability to interpret statistics.
Anyone know what the highest rated trans male and trans female chess players are? Would be interesting to know if this rule is even currently necessary.
I can’t find any trans men ranked, but the highest rating I can find for a trans woman is Natalia Pares Vives with a ranking of 2213, or about 325th on the chess.com women’s rankings.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If chess.com’s rankings are to be believed, none :/
deleted by creator
In girl chess the pieces are pink.
All of the pieces. On both sides of the board. Mentally it’s much more taxing keeping track of which pieces are yours. We guys have it really easy with the whole black/white pieces.
Actually women are just better at seeing colour and for them what looks like the same pink to us is actually 17 different shades.
And on average, they only start out with 80% of the pieces of the men’s set.
shaun did an excellent video on exactly this. TL;DW: stereotype threat & harassment.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ZHFZOXiM9SM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
As is tradition
Fucking hell some of us can be idiots…
Have you met chess bros?
I can see why women would want their own league.
The average chess bro is not a trans woman.
The average trans woman chess player was assigned chess bro at birth.
It doesn’t in principle, and it’s not really either.
There is the main league, which is open for everyone, and an extra league for women only to offset the male dominance of the main league.
Why they feel the need to exclude trans women from that I have no idea. Even many of the physical sports allow trans women under certain conditions and only to prevent any unfair advantage due to increased muscle growth during puberty.
Because otherwise women couldn’t currently compete beyond the local level. But I don’t have an explanation for the difference in playing levels beyond the fact that much fewer women seem to be interested in playing Chess competitively.
So you’re saying that women are not as smart as men?
No. First of all Chess has nothing to do with being smart in any sense I would use the word.
Otherwise a Raspberry Pi would outsmart all of humanity.Secondly, it’s much more similar to why the Faroe Islands can’t compete in soccer with France.
Nothing suggests they have less natural talent for soccer (and it’s quite popular there), but there’s just 1/1000 the number of players to draw from.Whoa, watch out with that logical thinking around here. As has been demonstrated by votes in a comment chain of mine further up the thread, the number of women at the top of the chess scene is totally indicative of womens’ intrinsic ability to play chess. It has nothing to do with the amount of women who play chess vs the amount of men who play chess! /s
But yeah, it’s simple shit. If men outnumber women 100:1 in the competitive chess scene then obviously we expect women to be extremely under represented at the top. But misogynists gonna misogyny.
There is an open bracket (where anyone can play) and a womens bracket, currently women do not perform well enough to play internationally in the open bracket. What they are stating are merely facts. And really were it not for the existence of the womens bracket it is possible that women would perform even worse.
So women can play chess without the added mental burdens that come along with being a women in a male dominated space.
Women have more places to hide the sex toys.
Edit: it’s a bad joke referencing the recent cheating scandal
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Yeah I don’t get it either
It’s not gendered. If there is a female super GM she will be invited to the most prestigious tournaments. But there isn’t any… and that’s a whole other debate
Women gated off their league because every their move is commented on as a female one. They can’t fail for it’s deepens the stereotype of women=stupid and they can’t win for it’s just man wasn’t paying attention or played easy for her. The lack of women chess clubs and championships, the stereotype of it being not a sport for women is why there aren’t many high ELO players in this isolated and weird situation.
One of the last strongholds of a fragile male nerd supremacy, that’s all.
I’d say, trans is way more experienced at use of anal buds
Women are scared of weak nerdy men or something…
Lol, literally the only game where physical size, bone density, lung capacity and muscle strength does not matter is keeping men and women separate! Haha… In chess there should be no separate category for women, unless… Unless… Unless we believe that women are less smarter than men.
Chess got an open class and a female class. The latter is there to provide a safer environment for girls and hopefully encourage more to try out the sport.
Why do girls need a safe environment when playing with boys?
Because as we’ve proven times and times again when in presence of women, we’re a bunch of morons that can’t treat them with the respect they deserve.
Men can be nasty and intimidating towards women as history have shown a million times. Add in the fact you have a lot of “old fashioned” men in the sport that may not be up to date on how you should behave in the third millennium. If you want to grow the sport, you need to facilitate a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. Tournaments exclusive to girls is one way build towards that.
This is the first comment that made me understand why separate competitions are requires. Thank you.
Set a code of conduct and ban people who misbehave. Might lose some top players, but it’d be better for everyone else.
I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who’ve made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn’t curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don’t already see an issue they’re not going to start now to make the space better for women.
If you want to grow the sport, you need to facilitate a safe and welcoming environment for everyone.
Hm. In addition to a welcoming environment it might be fun to have a ‘cutthroat’ class with an opposite approach where intimidation, bullying, and over-the-top shit-talking is encouraged. They could have competitors come out in like pro-wrestling gear or something and have a stare-down at the beginning of the match.
Nerdy men playing a board game are intidimating? How do women even get anything in life done of they are this fragile? WTF? Do you also want separate women-only schools, and women-only companies?
deleted by creator
What is abusive about saying that women are strong and should play with men without issues?
deleted by creator
Holy fuck. Stereotype often?
Because without it very very few women will feel comfortable playing chess in a club.
And that is not a political statement or my opinion, just my observation from every single chess club I ever saw.
If I was a woman, I wouldn’t go there either.Because they want one? Why are there woman only gyms?
deleted by creator
You seem hurt
The vast majority of times when men’s and women’s sports are separated it isn’t for the benefit of the men. It is because it would be a blow-out if the two sexes were together.
deleted by creator
Football? American Football has no restrictions on gender, it’s just that no woman can compete after puberty truly sets in. What that guys says is true about physical sports. Women can’t compete and never could. I can’t think of a single sport where a woman could outcompete a man in a physical sense. Even something like gymnastics, I think men still overcome the natural female advantage that comes from being small.
Chess from what I recall created a woman’s division because of the systematic biases and pressures girls faced. However, if I’m recalling correctly, it’s not particularly weird for a woman to complete in the open division. It’s just not a welcoming place for woman, so beginners often start in the women’s division. With that in mind I don’t see why transpeople shouldn’t be allowed. They wouldn’t be welcome much either in the open division, but also I’m not sure they’d be welcome in the women’s division either, so it’s kind of a wash.
deleted by creator
If being good at Chess meant being smart, then a Raspberry Pi is smarter than every human on earth.
I’ve got news for you…
Are…are you a Raspberri Pi?
True, but we play chess differently than a computer. We play chess mostly by pattern recognition or planning. Computers typically play chess by brute forcing all options to find the one with the most highly successful results. The later is good with a lot of very stable memory, which humans don’t have.
Women traditionally have been discouraged from competitions, including chess. To speak in broad strokes, even in progressive locations around the world, there are still those who believe that traditional gender roles mean women should but compete. Men have a generational head start. We are at the stage where, in order to be equitable and fair, we should be creating extra opportunities for women. If we didn’t, tradition and systemic practices would continue to discourage women.
Chess has no male category. There’s open, and female. This allows an extra space for women to compete against each other, feel safe, and make connections and friendships with other women in the minority. While still allowing them to compete in the coed category on a level playing field.
We will most likely continue to be at this stage for generations.
deleted by creator
Sorry to be contrarian here, but at the high competitive level chess is a cardiovascular challenge. If you listen to serious chess players talk about playing it’s not just a simple mental exercise.
High performing chess players have a higher HRV. Chess grandmasters might be sitting still but their body is undergoing a high degree of stress. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-14359-001
Men statistically have higher HRV on average, and the outliers are even more extreme. https://www.whoop.com/ca/en/thelocker/normal-hrv-range-age-gender/
So when you enter into a competitive environment it’s just nicer to know you have a MORE level playing field.
I know chess specifically is controversial with regards to gender stuff and I’m not saying it’s perfect. I’m just saying that there are real reasons to support separate brackets.
Hold up. I’m not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.
-
At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn’t mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.
-
Sample size of 16… And only male.
HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance
If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you’re saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that’s bullshit and this study isn’t incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you’re stating.
But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response
And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women’s HRV responds less severely to stress.
Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.
So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that’s why their brains go haywire during competition. But it’s so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a “MORE level playing field.”
By your logic, they should just be testing people’s HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.
Heh, TIL chess is cardio.
But as a person whos heart rate also increases while playing competitive board games, I can say the heart rate increase is usually due to adrenalin because I was blindsighted and I am in danger of not getting my ‘easy win’ or a toddler like rage at my predictions going wrong. YMMV.
Remember the chess player accused of cheating via anal dildo?
Also remember Petrosian? He spawned a whole bot over on AnarchyChess.
Pretty sure those two’s heart rates had nothing to do with increased bloodflow to the brain to make calculated decisions.
Having my ass handed to me in chess (amateur level) by women a couple of times makes me think that maybe the segregation is to protect men, rather than women. Or I might just be a bad chess player.
Why, if Petrosian had gone berserk on women instead of men, he probably would have had a huge reputation hit. With a bot quoting him for all internet eternity or some stuff like that. Oh, wait.
-
Removed by mod
Well… this is certainly enough bullshit to make the crops grow
Wow. Looks like people can’t handle facts huh.
Pretty typical for here to see a post with actual sources and instead of people doing their own research they instead want to downvote and dog-pile. You can be upset with the outcome but there are reasons behind it (and it’s not just them jumping on the trans bashing bandwagon, they outlined exactly why it was done and how it works for male-female transitions and vice versa)
It’s not an “actual source”, it’s a shit source. N=16, really? Barely qualifies as a study.
Providing a source doesn’t make a statement unchallengeable, especially if the source is deeply flawed.
deleted by creator
You could just say “I’m a fucking moron” and save yourself some time
Why are men like this?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
This dude channeling his inner Radovid
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/bmnC-yaOHkM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
This just in: throughout all of history women were never involved in politics; somehow relates to them being bad at chesd
Women often ruled capably (Nefertiti, Boudica, Catherine, Elizabeth, etc) were politically involved throughout history ,and were likely some decision-makers in early societies, as temporary habits were likely determined by foragability.
They are not bad at chess. There are biased circumstances both social and epistemological that have prevented their involvement with the evolution of Chess. I think these chess people are more afraid of someone insulting Chess and in the process insulted a lot of people.
Yeah dude this was sarcasm, ain’t there a whole era named after a female ruler?
If you want my personal chess opinion they statistically do worse cause chess is nothing but a game of emotions now, and the old masters made sure they had less competition by making women an easy target. Idk why the whole tourney isnt done online if they want an actual representation of chess skill, not just the bachlorette type drama we got going on
I agree. I just think it’s detrimental to just shout that something is wrong as though it’s common sense without analysis or reasoning.
deleted by creator
No, I’m saying chess has been biased from the start and the games greatest players have been neurodivergent for a long time. Gender injustice is happening here, but it also has complex layers worth investigating, too. Like, how much of Chess’ DNA and evolution has been balanced based almost exclusively to satisfy traditionally male interests (domination, competition). How did the pieces and board change to fit the boys’ game.
Is it helpful the WNBA ball is smaller? I’d say yes, but not just in the obvious ways, but also in service of the meta game and to put the best product forward. There are extenuating circumstances. I was trying to say: the exclusion is so deeply entrenched in the historical male worldview that it might just need to have these debates and growing pains to become what it should be: fair and fun.
And they also made it so trans men have to give up any women’s titles they’ve earned. So, they simultaneously think trans men are men, but trans women are not women.
If anything, based on the past comments of the head of the organization, they have a position that’s generally “women are dumber than men and we want to make decisions that align with that ethos always”.
I’ve stopped being surprised by chess dorks after it came out that America’s Champion, Bobby Fischer, our Hope Against The Commie Gameplaying Menace was literally a neo-Nazi and not subtle about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
Holy crap that was a wild read. Jewish Mother but a Holocaust denier. Died in exile in Iceland while evading criminal deportation to the US. I had this vague memory that he was an asshole but I had no idea.
America supporting fascists, because they are anti-communist, has looooong history.
Fascists 🤝 Capitalists
At least for the first stage of the tumour.
And the terminal stage.
It might have evolved, but Mussolini’s fascists initially made their money being hired thugs for the wealthy and industrialists who wanted to directly attack and scupper organising workers.
Similar in Nazi Germany with the Brownshirts iirc.
I guess under Neoliberalism you can kind of just skip the street gangs and use cops to attack unionists, so it’s a different set of material conditions these days but the patterns are there.
He also had schizophrenia, most probably.
I’m more partial to Kasparov myself.
To be clear, the head of FIDE is this guy with close ties to the Russian fascist state.
And the CEO is Emil Sutovsky, who recently made a twitter poll, basically asking, let’s be honest, does anyone actually care to watch this women’s tournament? When he never made a similar poll for any other tournament.
The chess world really needs to outgrow the sexist and transphobic FIDENo wonder the “gender change” wording of their new rules is so similar to the new Russian law that essentially bans transitioning.
One can imagine that every oligarch who wants to suck the milk of Mr. Putin is required to demonstrate loyalty periodically by pissing in the eyes of one of Mr. Putin’s designated targets. LGBTQ+ is just one of those.
None of y’all are getting it. Trans women have an unfair advantage in chess because they can turn the king into another queen.
Trans men can do the opposite, but that’s way less useful…
That would put the chess judges into a paradox and their mind would lock up, requiring a visit to the ICU. Because trans pepople can only do that, thay are “a danger to the whole chess community” /s
I’m still wondering why there is even gender based play in Chess.
I’ve always heard that it’s to encourage visibility of women players and encourage women to take up the game, but this ban goes against that idea and just makes it sound like women aren’t as good at the game. Just like ol’ Bobby would want, I guess.
Strangely, in chess, there is almost never a man category. There is everybody and there is women. wikipedia . See also motivations why and arguments against. It’s tricky.
deleted by creator
Arbitrarianism, “everythng else is gendered, so…”
this makes sense because cis women have such small bones they can’t reach past the centre board, giving most trans women and tall cis women an inherent advantage. /s
what the fuck chess this is just blatant transphobia
It’s transphobia and misogyny. Because it implies that men are smarter than women.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
average @mtgzone user
This is such a stupid argument, while you might be able to make the argument about sexual dimorphism in physical sports there’s literally no good reason why a woman shouldn’t be allowed to play chess against a man, or play chess against another woman if they are trans.
Chess is a game based on intelligence and strategy, it’s not based on strength. It seems that this decision was made primarily on the basis of sexism, either because they think that chess is ““manly”” or because they think that men are smarter than women or that women are stupid. Either way not logical, purely sexist.
Women have been allowed in the open division and Trans females will also continued to be allowed in that division just not in the women’s division.
So you’re saying there’s a case for discrepancy in other sports?
They said that while you might be able to make it for sports, you certainly can’t make it for chess. That doesn’t mean they personally think there’s a case for sports too.
Exactly, I’m saying that in chess there is no advantage or disadvantage between sex (or gender for that matter) because it is not a physical game.
No I was saying that for chess you can’t since there’s no unfairness or difference in advantage to playing chess as a man or as a woman.
Ugh, why do they feel the need to even write these rules in the first place? I can almost guarantee you there’s like, five trans people who are even registered to play chess. Why go to so much effort to block such a fraction of a percent of people anyways?
Whenever I read articles like these, I substitute “trans” for a different minority, such as a racial or ethnic minority, and it really puts it in perspective.
I remember when Utah made a huge deal about it in women’s sports. And someone like the Utah governor was against it, saying he’d never seen so much hate around something so little. He told his colleagues that in the entire state, only four trans youth were even playing registered sports, and most were JV, not even going to competitions. It’s sad to see people so stoked by hate for something so…mundane. :/
The same people claiming transwomen would ruin women’s sports were celebrating when the U.S. women’s team lost the World Cup.
I’ve been on Lemmy for a couple of months now - best comment I’ve read so far. You absolutely nailed it.
I guess you can look at it from various angles:
-
At first, I thought it was sexist to separate genders in chess competitions to begin with. Like, it’s not weight lifting or boxing, as
you*others *(oops) said. Why does it matter what I have in my pant(ie)s as I move my pawn to e4? -
But I imagine female players weren’t as great at the start, considering they didn’t get to compete with the best of the best for years like males could, so it would have been unfair to throw them into a pool of lava to outswim such asbestos sharks as Kasparov. So alright, let them have their own kiddie pool until they grow their own prodigies.
-
But it’s been decades. Does it really matter what gender they are? If not: stop separating them. If it does, that assumes male and female brains are built different (I doubt that, but I’m in no way an expert, so let’s assume). At least different enough to differ in chess skills. Now, if I’m a dude, I play chess competitively for 20 years and then I go through a surgery, does it change anything at all in terms of chess skills? AFAIK hormone therapy takes some time, so it’s not like I could turn into a dudette overnight. Even if I do, what does it change about my neural structure? So I start in a new female chess competition because I consider myself a female. It’s just me, nobody else out of the 200 contestants, so what does it matter? Now, if the above is true, I start with a noticeable advantage - an advantage over 199 other conestants.
-
However, I started the whole reasoning process by assuming female and male brains are noticeably different in terms of chess performance. If that is not true, why are there still separate women’s and men’s events?
I’m sure there’s more to it, and I’m just not informed well enough, so the question is honest, and I’m actually curious.
The older I’ve gotten, the more I’ve noticed how similar people are, regardless of gender. Sure, different genders might approach problem-solving differently, but I’ve had great teachers that were both men and women. Some of my best professors have been women.
Maybe they have different gender pools for scholarships or something, but even going back to the original thing…trans people make up a fraction of a percent most likely. I don’t see this really becoming a problem. Spend your energy on making chess more appealing for everyone or something.
I also don’t know much about brain development by gender, though aside from the speed of development (women develop faster than men), I can’t imagine there’s really that much of a difference once everyone hits puberty.
I was thinking the same of the brain stuff, BUT: the ‘fraction of a percent’ argument may get irrelevant (at least in the general sense) quite fast if (and I’m going to exaggerate a lot here) you put a dinosaur in a chicken coop with 9999 other chicken. The dinosaur is just .01% of the population, so it shouldn’t be a problem. Similarly, if instead of chess you take wrestling and let one male heavy weight champion put on a tutu and start in a 100 contestant female competition, he may ram through everyone, regardless of how small fraction of the population he is. But again: speaking specifically about chess, I also find it ridiculous that they barred transgender women from female chess events.
-
Because the point is to eschew hatred towards people who are different. Since they can’t have a “no black people” rule anymore, they target another vulnerable minority community.
Because Amy Scnider now owns all the women’s jeopardy records?
Take what you want from that, I don’t really have an opinion on trans people in pure intellectual competitions.
Why are men and woman separated in chess??
Traditionally chess has been a men’s game, and female adoption is limited. The creation of an exclusive women’s division is to generate a pathway to success for women, even if it’s known to have a lower ceiling compared to men. Basically, it is to foster the game in females.
There is literally no disadvantage to being female in chess.
Making a female only division is a form of soft sexism through low expectations.
Next thing you will be patting them on the head and condescendingly praising them for doing so well.
We are not discussing the physical advantages. We are discussing about career advantages.
In some countries it is actually advantageous to be female when attempting to get into STEM at college , there is additional talent identification and tuition at high schools with the girls in STEM programs that makes sure that girls who have an aptitude for STEM are identified and offered additional tuition, coaching and mentoring above and beyond what boys would receive (who’s STEM grades have on average fallen over the last 20 years. Since school budgets have not grown but additional programs that favor girls have been mandated the funds to run those programs have come at the expense of the general programs that have been cut back and underfunded resulting in a two tier education system with girls occupying the upper tier while feminist misandrists doggedly deny that a gender gap even exists)
So yes , there are advantages , but now how you think . And egalitarians have been looking on with increasingly despair as a new gender gap is emerging that mirrors the old gender gap almost exactly.
So there should be no barrier to entry for females in chess.
(This post is explicitly anti-sexist , for those that need it spelled out to them. What I am suggesting is that education budgets need to be beefed up so that nobody’s education is suffering)
You know what, I also hate these women’s only scholarships and accelerated education programs too, but I was just speaking the way of the world, not my opinions.
Based on my position in STEM education as a lecturer I am not allowed to have opinions. (Not until I receive full prof.)
Why does men being around affect their liking of chess? Why does anyone care if they like chess or not? It’s a board game you sit at a table playing. If they want to play board games with other people, it really shouldn’t matter who those other people are.
That isn’t the problem. The problem is how it has been naturally male-dominant makes it naturally unfriendly to other groups in the first place.
Not everyone is comfortable with this. By a large margin. The dedication of an event for women only creates that comfort zone.
This situation, and I humbly state I mean no fallacy, is strikingly similar to STEM education. Nobody is preventing them from joining, nobody cares if anyone likes it or not, but the fact that it is dominated by a specific group in the “open” field makes it less appealing to the other groups.
Alright, so woman want to have a woman’s only chess club to dominate their club with a gender because they feel the regular club is dominated by another gender. Id assume though, woman could play in the normal club dominated by men if they choose to? All seems silly. Part of the appeal of board games or videos games is that it’s a battle of the minds. A 10 year old kid can win against 300 lb MMA fighter. We can’t really help that naturally less men want to learn to bake, while less woman want to learn to hunt, can we? It should be open though to whoever. I think excluding a transgender woman on this is wrong, she has no advantage. It seems plain hurtful, and id think the woman who say they feel excluded from the main league should be able to empathize. I can understand physical competition, but that’s just my opinion.
Come to think about it, maybe it’s probably similar to how weight classes work in martial arts, except that the point of this is to guarantee that women can progress somewhat within their careers.
Of course I do not agree that we need to elevate or celebrate them to the level of grandmasters.
In a specific case of transgenders, I understand that transgender women are excluded until an official statement of medical or psychological evaluation has been made, to prevent cases where men illicitly transition just to play in these, and pardon my sexism, weaker leagues.
How can it be like weight classes? What are you measuring? In a tournament people play, the winners move forward. Doesn’t matter what’s in the pants. If ya lose, you’re welcome to keep playing with whoever else you want. Is the woman’s chess league saying men have an advantage in chess? Chess is about memorizing a bunch of different outcomes. I dunno, don’t have much interest in it myself, but if I was a woman and wanted to be the best in the world, I’d want to play against the best. There’s plenty of dudes that get their ass kicked in the men’s league. Should they make a separate league so they can win it? Are men just better at everything? Even board games? Or do men just care more? I’ve seen the graph that says men are more likely to have geniuses, but also more likely to be retards. Is that where it comes from? Does everyone have to be good enough to be a grandmaster to play? Cause I’d have to guess there’s a handful of superstars and the rest just play. But I don’t follow it.
Again, you are missing the point. It’s that the point of a protected space for women is to promote women’s participation in chess, not to overly tout their position over others.
And no, this does not have to do with the intelligence curve. It’s entirely about careers and participation.
Men and women aren’t separated, at least not usually. Its a woman’s category and an open (everyone) category. Is almost completely opposite of sexist, gives women more opportunities to succeed.
Edit: link to a larger discussion on this topic
Women experience a fair amount of harassment in the open league. They aren’t forbidden from participating, but the environment discourages it, so they set up a women’s league too.
If there wasn’t widespread cognitive damage amongst a fair bunch of male players and organizers, they could implement a far more sensible solution: punishing harassment.
And the real reason is because women don’t do well against men. They get dominated except for a very small minority. So I orde for women to have more parity, they have women’s chess A biological man competing with them is, statistically, a huge advantage.
I hope this is a joke. if it is, add “/s”
Do you have any papers backing this up?
Tradition would be my first guess.
There’s a very simple explanation to this, sexism.
And that answer is wrong
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Clarifications and comments (some pre emptive)
Chess has a women’s category to boost participation and spotlight female players.
Women can and do compete in the open category, which allows men and women. However, currently the highest rated women perform under the super closed “Super GM” level, so they participate in the tournaments that are less prestigious but fitting their rating. Male players like IM Eric Rosen also participate in such tournaments.
The best female player in history , Judit Polgar was 8th best in the world when taking both genders into account. There’s nothing stopping women from reaching the elite level in open chess. She even participated in the candidates tournament which decides who gets to play against the world champion for the world champion title. Unfortunately she didn’t perform too well, but it’s not because of her gender, she was basically beaten 2-1 (plus draws) by a male competitor, just like the other contestants in the round she was eliminated.
At her peak she had 2735 Elo points, making her 55th highest rated person in the history of organized chess. This is higher than one of the actual challengers to the crown, Nigel short.
Regarding the rulings:
-
No one is going to pretend to be a woman, in order to convert the person’s identity with fide, they are required to have government issued paperwork saying they have transitioned. It’s not worth it.
-
it’s funny that male to female transgender people are not regarded as women by this ruling, hence cannot participate in women’s events, but female to male transgender people also forfeit their women’s titles as they are not seen as women either. (To be fair, they can convert them to open titles, and get them back if they detransition officially)
So according to FIDE, transitioning from a man to a woman doesn’t make you a woman, you are considered a man, but also, transitioning from a woman to a man makes you a man, so you are also not considered a woman.
Seems paradoxical. You’d think they’d pick one and stick to it.
Also: chess does have physical advantages, but they seem to be reletive and not competitive. Most high level players have some sports regimen as it helps increase cardiovascular efficiency, but size of competitor doesn’t seem to matter as seen by David Bronstein and Mikhail Tal. Ian Nepomniatchschi intentionally lost weight for the world championship, and his ratings grew as a result.
Remember that whales are not necessarily more clever than humans even though their brains are huge in comparison.
So according to FIDE, transitioning from a man to a woman doesn’t make you a woman, you are considered a man, but also, transitioning from a woman to a man makes you a man, so you are also not considered a woman.
This is only confusing if you assume the two categories are equal, one for each gender. The anyone category has more relaxed rules. They could make a men-only category that is just as strict as the women-only category, but what for?
There is no men only category, there are only open (any gender can participate) and women’s (only women can participate).
The thing I find funny is how they treat transmen and transwomen differently. Like, if they want to say transwomen aren’t men , and they can’t participate in women’s events, they should also say that transmen aren’t men and can keep their women’s titles.
Gender is a spectrum, not one or the other. The women’s category excludes people in the middle. If you understand that, there is no inconsistency.
No, you can’t have men’s only categories. The only viable options are open (men+women) or women (just women). It would be horribly sexist to just have a men’s only division apparently 🙄
-
I don’t think it’s a issue in chess. Unless they have to run 100m while holding the chess board.
They consider trans women men, and men are smarter than women. That’s what it implies anyway.
Removed by mod
Being good at chess isn’t about being “smart”, a lot of top chess players will tell you as much. It is however about things like spatial awareness and pattern recognition, and some studies have demonstrated those traits to be, on average, stronger in male subjects. I’m sure evidence to the contrary exists though.
Or chess boxing
What? Is this real? Are the men and women not competing together? It is not a physical competition. Why the separation?
Currently, the top women don’t come close to the top men. Considering how few female chess players are in comparison, it’s not a surprise.
Having a women’s league means you can have chess news about women’s tournaments and champs and give them some visibility.
Currently, the top women don’t come close to the top men
because they’re excluded at all levels, lets not pretend it’s because women aren’t as good and need “protecting” from the “superior” men.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, they don’t compete with men, but they still have women’s league and women from that league don’t come close to men (not all, ofcourse).
Could making united league deter women even more? Very possible.
I am not against, but still I think a strong bump in women’s chess league with marketing, money, better condition would be great, before possible merging.
Currently, women would just suffer with results for long time.
Unfortunately Chess doesn’t seem as healthy and open for that, and that is just sad.
I feel like if you really wanted to know you could easily look up the barriers that women face in chess (and in all sports), and I honestly don’t feel like spoon feeding you such basics, so I’m going to just paste my other reply here and leave it up to you to start educating yourself if you really want to:
The solution to men harassing women (and generally making them unwelcome, as they do) should not be to segregate women though, it should be to discipline men.
Which leads me to the real reason why women are segregated (because clearly isn’t about their safety or their inclusion) - because the men involved would have an absolute breakdown if they were beaten by a woman (not a problem exclusive to chess, either).
The reason there’s a women’s league in the first place is so they don’t get harassed by the men (ostensibly).
So while on the surface, a gendered League is stupid, there are real world reasons for the separation.
This decision might / maybe / could be an extension of that reasoning. But very likely it’s not, and it’s just more bullshit anti trans policy.
The best way to prevent harassment is not bigoted segregation by gender, but in fact punishing or banning people who harass others.
Yes, but to do that the organization would have to accept that the sexism is wrong and have the motive to do something about it.
Totally. But, you know, some people are idiots.
If that’s the reason, I’d imagine trans women would be the most likely to be harassed by the cis men who are harassing cis women.
The solution to men harassing women (and generally making them unwelcome, as they do) should not be to segregate women though, it should be to discipline men.
Which leads me to the real reason why women are segregated (because clearly isn’t about their safety or their inclusion) - because the men involved would have an absolute breakdown if they were beaten by a woman (not a problem exclusive to chess, either).I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what’s going on here. There is an open league and a league restricted to women only.
Without a women’s league, there are fewer women seen playing, which reinforces the perception that it’s not a sport for women, which creates this feedback loop leading to a smaller pool of women playing chess, thus fewer grand masters who are women. I see value in creating more space for women in chess to create more opportunities for following generations.
I don’t like excluding trans women. I can imagine an argument that we’re not ready for this until we get to a place where we don’t think to distinguish between trans and cis women. A women’s league in 2023 that a young cis girl is watching that had 3 cis women and 97 trans women, still may look to that young girl like a league for trans women, and not a league for all women that they can see themselves competing in. Personally, I enjoyed watching a marginalized gender eSports competition, and I don’t think the presence of trans women invalidated the impact it could have inspiring young cis girls to pick up gaming.
or they could just like… Not allow harassment.
Really the game is chess, you shouldnt even need to see your oponent, so it could be all done online.
Chess was pretty much perfected decades ago - now all the tournaments thrive on is psyching out your opponent, which they’ve made women an easy target by isolating them. No wonder they statistically do worse
Everyone make way! The White Knight has arrrrived!!
“Chess was pretty much perfected decades ago…”
Go to fucking BED Elon wannabe
Love how I got 6 notifications and like 5 are you
deleted by creator
I do other things too :(
Do you really have to ask…? It’s so obviously a bigoted decision, if real.
well this just doesn’t even make any fucking sense at all
This isn’t like running or something where men have a significant advantage physically over women just make it mixed gender and be done with it people can claim whatever gender they want and chess can avoid getting into a politically charged firestorm
Except because of some factors, that’s exactly the case. There have been around 2000 grandmasters ever. Only around 40 are women. Don’t ask me why, I’m not touching the topic with a 10 meter pole.
Probably because there have been a lot more make chess players in general historically. It’s still a long way from an even split today and was probably even more imbalanced.
It’s the exact same reason as the one behind the gender disparity in STEM fields
No it isn’t. Genius distribution is different between men and women but STEM isn’t populated solely, or even significantly, by geniuses
There have been many studies done on the factors that are relevant. There are near irrefutable mounds of evidence.
However, the biggest brained take on this is,
I’m not touching the topic with a 10 meter pole.
Please use some punctuation, your comment was really hard to read.
Having said that, I agree
Sorry dude adhd man
There is already an open division there is just also a womens division to provide additional support and opportunities for women in chess.
deleted by creator
Your comment is completely illogical. Transgender females would not be allowed to play in the female division, only the open division (everyone is allowed there).
deleted by creator
