Anonymous wrote:I wish the whole trans issue would just go away. Why is there more talk of trans stuff in the last three years than there was in the last 50?

What is the transgender stance on “Gender Reveal” ceremonies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The International Chess Federation is banning trans-women from competing in women's chess tournaments. A woman who holds a chess title and then transitions to male will have their title "abolished." However, if the gender change is from male to female the titles will remain intact.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/sport/fide-bans-transgender-women-chess-spt-intl/index.html

When restrictions are placed on trans-women competing in something like swimming, I at least understand the rationale. Hormones can arguably provide a physical advantage for biological males who transition to become women. (Although my understanding is that the evidence for this is not as robust as one might think.) But what the hell is the rationale here for chess? You don't need a big old bicep to move the bishop across the board.

Only one woman (Judit Polgar) -- but 133 men -- has ever achieved a chess rating above 2700.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating

There are likely many reasons for this, but certainly one is that chess has not been seen as a traditional feminine activity. The reason there are (occasional) women's chess tournaments is to try to encourage women to study the game. Having a transwoman compete in a women's tournament would defeat this purpose. (Nearly every top-ranked chess player has been a child prodigy, i.e. when most transwomen are still male.)

But isn’t also a simple fact that if a woman rarely competes against the top tier of men in tournaments there is no way she can rise to the top tier?

Anonymous wrote:The International Chess Federation is banning trans-women from competing in women's chess tournaments. A woman who holds a chess title and then transitions to male will have their title "abolished." However, if the gender change is from male to female the titles will remain intact.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/sport/fide-bans-transgender-women-chess-spt-intl/index.html

When restrictions are placed on trans-women competing in something like swimming, I at least understand the rationale. Hormones can arguably provide a physical advantage for biological males who transition to become women. (Although my understanding is that the evidence for this is not as robust as one might think.) But what the hell is the rationale here for chess? You don't need a big old bicep to move the bishop across the board.

Only one woman (Judit Polgar) -- but 133 men -- has ever achieved a chess rating above 2700.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating

There are likely many reasons for this, but certainly one is that chess has not been seen as a traditional feminine activity. The reason there are (occasional) women's chess tournaments is to try to encourage women to study the game. Having a transwoman compete in a women's tournament would defeat this purpose. (Nearly every top-ranked chess player has been a child prodigy, i.e. when most transwomen are still male.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chess is generally a coed sport, but there are categories for men and for women for a reason. Right? Since there are those categories, then they should be upheld and supported.

The majority of chess tournaments are open to all participants regardless of gender. Very few, if any, international tournaments are restricted to men, but a few are restricted to women, most prominently the Women's World Chess Championship and the Women's Chess Olympiad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#

I don't think there's any very good reason for the categories. Just tradition and inertia. Certainly not a rationale that provides any compelling reason for going out of the way to exclude trans-women. The cost/benefit here is almost entirely on the cost side of the ledger.

The reason that womens-only spaces like this exist are due to historic discrimination and unwelcoming environment. That still exists in areas like chess. But excluding transwomen doesn't make any sense, because they also belong to a marginalized group.

You mean black males should also play in the Women category because they are marginalized?

And what about short whites?

CNN seems to have fewer details than Erin has. From what she's written, it sounds like this org is basically saying all trans people are men. lol.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/international-chess-org-trans-women

Transgender men must relinquish their women-category titles after transitioning.

Transgender women can keep their previous titles.

Transgender women have “no right to compete” in the women’s division.

Anonymous wrote:The International Chess Federation is banning trans-women from competing in women's chess tournaments. A woman who holds a chess title and then transitions to male will have their title "abolished." However, if the gender change is from male to female the titles will remain intact.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/sport/fide-bans-transgender-women-chess-spt-intl/index.html

When restrictions are placed on trans-women competing in something like swimming, I at least understand the rationale. Hormones can arguably provide a physical advantage for biological males who transition to become women. (Although my understanding is that the evidence for this is not as robust as one might think.) But what the hell is the rationale here for chess? You don't need a big old bicep to move the bishop across the board.

What you are saying is that there should be just one competition for all, regardless of sex.

Fair point. Why not? Is there some law requiring separate categories for men and women?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the whole trans issue would just go away. Why is there more talk of trans stuff in the last three years than there was in the last 50?

Same. Why do they even have to address this? Just keep whatever rules are currently in place. I don't care, do you?

It is an issue because some people want to change the definition of women from adult human females to adult human females or people who want to be females. The current rules address women, which is why it is an issue now.

The proper definition isn't as simple as a lot of people think. Whether someone is a woman and why it matters depends on context in a lot of situations. There are biological components and gender components. I think this is a good illustration. If you say that the distinction between man and woman in, say, swimming is a biological issue because testosterone gives biological males a lot of advantages, I think that's pretty defensible. But if you say it's a biological issue in chess, that doesn't make much sense. Maybe it's a cultural issue -- men are unwelcoming to women in chess or maybe women are not encouraged to study and play chess nearly as much as men are. But, if it's a cultural issue, then you have to look a lot harder at questions of gender than questions of biology.

Chess is not a sport in which having gone through male puberty is an advantage or disadvantage. Isn’t there a rating system that groups and ranks competitors? That’s all they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the whole trans issue would just go away. Why is there more talk of trans stuff in the last three years than there was in the last 50?

Same. Why do they even have to address this? Just keep whatever rules are currently in place. I don't care, do you?

It is an issue because some people want to change the definition of women from adult human females to adult human females or people who want to be females. The current rules address women, which is why it is an issue now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, so misogynist and stupid.
There shouldn't be gender categories in chess to begin with!

You've got that backwards. Women's categories aren't misogynist, they are pro-woman. In sports and in chess.

It’s misogynist in this case because the rationale seems to be that transwomen have an “unfair advantage” over ciswomen. That’s not true.

Anonymous wrote:I wish the whole trans issue would just go away. Why is there more talk of trans stuff in the last three years than there was in the last 50?

Same. Why do they even have to address this? Just keep whatever rules are currently in place. I don't care, do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the whole trans issue would just go away. Why is there more talk of trans stuff in the last three years than there was in the last 50?

Trans people have become more visible in the last several years. This has led to them being accepted and demonized a lot more. I don't know which of those is chicken and which is egg.

It has also become a proxy war over gender relations generally. The people who want to exclude trans people from things tend to also be people who want society to enforce gender roles more rigidly for cis-men and cis-women. The people who want to be more welcoming of trans people tend to also be people who want society to relax or abandon gender roles.

Trans people have become more numerous. The numbers have skyrocketed. That's why they are more visible, there are many more than there were 5 years ago, and many many more than there were 10 years ago.

Oh I don’t know. I wouldn’t say that 1.6% of U.S. adults is very high. The visibility has grown mainly because of the silliness about bathroom use and now sports. I agree with OP that there is a fairness argument in sports that require physical strength, but otherwise, who cares? It’s no skin off my back how people dress and so forth.

Anonymous wrote:So, so misogynist and stupid.
There shouldn't be gender categories in chess to begin with!

You've got that backwards. Women's categories aren't misogynist, they are pro-woman. In sports and in chess.

So, so misogynist and stupid.
There shouldn't be gender categories in chess to begin with!