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.

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.

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    2204·
    1 year ago

    Silly question, why does chess, a mental activity, need gendered leagues?

    • jsveiga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1329·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10335·
      1 year ago

      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

      • bhmnscmm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        313·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
          44·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • bhmnscmm@lemmy.worldEnglish
            131·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
              45·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • bhmnscmm@lemmy.worldEnglish
                10·
                1 year ago

                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).

          • silentdon@lemmy.worldEnglish
            61·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
              157·
              1 year ago

              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?

        • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.worldEnglish
          33·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • maino82@lemmy.caEnglish
        34·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Quokka@quokk.auEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Actually women are just better at seeing colour and for them what looks like the same pink to us is actually 17 different shades.

      • crowsby@lemmy.mlEnglish
        173·
        1 year ago

        And on average, they only start out with 80% of the pieces of the men’s set.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      405·
      1 year ago

      Have you met chess bros?

      I can see why women would want their own league.

    • Deestan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      287·
      1 year ago

      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.

          • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
            112·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • DrRatso@lemmy.mlEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • who8mydamnoreos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      177·
      1 year ago

      So women can play chess without the added mental burdens that come along with being a women in a male dominated space.

    • ex_redditor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      43·
      1 year ago

      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

    • whataboutshutup@discuss.onlineEnglish
      47·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Zapdrive@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13327·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • UlrikHD@programming.devEnglish
      927·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          659·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • UlrikHD@programming.devEnglish
          556·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • TitanLaGrange@lemmy.worldEnglish
            42·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            520·
            1 year ago

            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?

    • Hazdaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      204·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Iteria@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        111·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • CaptainBuckleroy@lemm.eeEnglish
      124·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1328·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Anonymousllama@lemmy.worldEnglish
        511·
        1 year ago

        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)

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.netEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          It’s not an “actual source”, it’s a shit source. N=16, really? Barely qualifies as a study.

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          Providing a source doesn’t make a statement unchallengeable, especially if the source is deeply flawed.

      • Sethayy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        82·
        1 year ago

        This just in: throughout all of history women were never involved in politics; somehow relates to them being bad at chesd

        • nuxetcrux@lemmy.worldEnglish
          43·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Sethayy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            42·
            1 year ago

            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

            • nuxetcrux@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • nuxetcrux@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    848·
    1 year ago

    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”.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafeEnglish
      353·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ours@lemmy.filmEnglish
        142·
        1 year ago

        America supporting fascists, because they are anti-communist, has looooong history.

            • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • Kara@kbin.social
      19·
      1 year ago

      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 FIDE

    • Rose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      1 year ago

      No wonder the “gender change” wording of their new rules is so similar to the new Russian law that essentially bans transitioning.

      • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.worldEnglish
    671·
    1 year ago

    None of y’all are getting it. Trans women have an unfair advantage in chess because they can turn the king into another queen.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      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

    • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • volodymyr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • aluminiumsandworm@kbin.social
    6414·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.worldEnglish
    528·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Shanedino@lemmy.worldEnglish
      179·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Pogbom@lemmy.worldEnglish
        23·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.worldEnglish
          101·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
      20·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        62·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          We are not discussing the physical advantages. We are discussing about career advantages.

          • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.networkEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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)

            • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              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.)

      • Stinkywinks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Stinkywinks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Stinkywinks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • lunaticneko@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.worldEnglish
        610·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    381·
    1 year ago

    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:

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    • morphballganon@mtgzone.comEnglish
      61·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        91·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • morphballganon@mtgzone.comEnglish
          37·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Anonymousllama@lemmy.worldEnglish
        93·
        1 year ago

        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 🙄

  • chk232@lemmy.worldEnglish
    439·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think it’s a issue in chess. Unless they have to run 100m while holding the chess board.

    • starlinguk@kbin.social
      399·
      1 year ago

      They consider trans women men, and men are smarter than women. That’s what it implies anyway.

      • static_motion@programming.devEnglish
        32·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    352·
    1 year ago

    What? Is this real? Are the men and women not competing together? It is not a physical competition. Why the separation?

    • wwaxen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      401·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        1218·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • spiritusmaximus@kbin.social
          53·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            73·
            1 year ago

            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).

    • PunnyName@lemmy.worldEnglish
      397·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • donuts@kbin.social
        182·
        1 year ago

        The best way to prevent harassment is not bigoted segregation by gender, but in fact punishing or banning people who harass others.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        91·
        1 year ago

        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).

      • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.worldEnglish
        113·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • carbonari_sandwich@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Sethayy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        35·
        1 year ago

        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

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.worldEnglish
    325·
    1 year ago

    Plenty of enlightened gents hitting the thread here to rubbish the need for a women’s category whilst simultaneously demonstrating the need for a women’s category

    • floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      This place feels more like Reddit every day. Incidentally I notice also that Lemmy has inherited Reddit’s rule that every commenter is assumed male until proven otherwise. For a few days this place seemed like it might turn out different. Oh well.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Double_A 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?

        Rbmellor Tf are they in separate groups for? Don’t girls know how sexy they look playing cheers?

        System_glitch 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.

        Two others I recall have been since been removed

        Etc

    • Smk@lemmy.caEnglish
      171·
      1 year ago

      The environment around men favors them to be stronger than women. If there were no women’s category, there would only be men playing chess and very very few women and that would sucks.

      • MegaUmbreon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s to give the top women a platform, for young girls to see people like them on the TV and make them believe they can do it too. If enough young girls start playing and keep playing, there should be plenty of female players that can compete with the best men in short order. There are also women’s titles that have lower requirements than men’s. It’s a pretty controversial thing; some women refuse to take the “lesser” WGM title over the open IM title.

        I’m not saying this works or I agree with it, but that’s the thinking.

        • Smk@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          To be honest, the girl’s category may not be as useful as it used to be but in certain country, it definitely is still very useful.

          If transwomen wants to compete, compete in open. In my opinion, this has nothing to do whether or not a transwomen is a women but with the environment a person is growing in.