The International Chess Federation (FIDE) says it is temporarily banning transgender women from competing in its women’s events.
The FIDE said individual cases would require “further analysis” and that a decision could take up to two years.
The move has been criticised by some players and enthusiasts.
Many sports governing bodies have been working on policies towards transgender athletes, but chess does not involve comparable levels of physical activity.
This is a disturbing and insulting decision to both cis-women as well as transgender men and women.
Besides the decision itself, here are some additional “gems” that show its backwardness:
Transgender men who transition after winning women’s titles would see those titles “abolished,” the federation said, while holding out the possibility of a reinstatement “if the person changes the gender back to a woman.”
“If a player has changed the gender from a man into a woman, all the previous titles remain eligible,” the federation said.
And, if it wouldn’t be so sad, this here would have me roling on the floor. It seems, FIDE has not reached 2023 yet… (It also sadly shows that even some women are still stuck in the 1950’s)
A top global chess official Friday called for more research into whether factors such as hormone levels and physical endurance might have an impact on players’ abilities at the male-dominated game. Her comments came after the world chess federation was heavily criticized for its decision to block transgender women from official women’s events. (…)
(…)“What is still not clear is if the hormonal levels do influence the competitiveness in chess,” Reizniece-Ozola said by video from Latvia’s capital, Riga. “There is no serious research or scientific analysis that would prove one or the other way. There are speculations, but no more than that.”
One of the reasons why so few women play chess and the reality of what female chess players had and have to fight against:
UK MP Angela Eagle, who was a joint winner of the 1976 British Girls’ Under-18 chess championship, said: “There is no physical advantage in chess unless you believe men are inherently more able to play than women - I spent my chess career being told women’s brains were smaller than men’s and we shouldn’t even be playing.”
“This ban is ridiculous and offensive to women,” she added.
Edit: removed redundancy
Jfc, you’d think that people so deep into a game that is touted as being an intellectual pursuit would be able to use their brain better than that.
I think it’s because it’s touted that way. Men who are pro-patriarchy or toxically masculine are kind of notoriously prestige selfish and love to narrow the playing field of women because their perceived masculinity is threatened by any notion of equality.
This is why my local game shop holds girls nights for Magic the Gathering. It’s not that women are inherently worse at the game, it’s because the open play harassment and terrible behaviour drives a lot of women out of the hobby before they have the chance. Trans women are absolutely subject to this same misogyny because they represent to these douches the same threat. They can never be allowed to be proven superior in any fashion because of all the mysoginistic /transphobic beliefs that they are mentally ill and/or weaker because they do not agree being bearded chest pounding ape children is the apex human form. The prize of prestige must be protected from falling into the hands of someone who will “immasculate” them so they rig the fucking game so their precious dick wagging contests never damage their fragile masculinity. To have someone who isn’t masculine win is to damage the prestige itself.
Chess champions get treated like geniuses so of course this particular psychosis applies.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691400261X
This study is very interesting, evidently Georgian chess has been historically equal.
Is posting the same link 3 times in the same thread enough?
No, here are some more:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01828.x
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00665.x
Facts and scientific studies are critical in our understanding of reality. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method. I think you might benefit by taking a more dispassionate approach to the things about the world you don’t like or wish to change.
You sure have assumed a lot from my simple question. I said nothing about the data that you posted, just the fact that you posted the same thing 3 times…
deleted by creator
No, it’s quite possible that I am wrong about the terminology. I just thought it was odd to see the same link posted multiple times. I am not a woman, so I would have to leave that question to them. I was just here for the interesting headline.
Equally interesting study comes to the conclusion: gender differences in chess go back on the overrepresentation of men in chess in general
Article on the research: Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It’s Not Biological)
I don’t have access to what seems to be the actual study, but maybe you do: Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains
Yes, I found the participation rate argument very sound.
I wonder what else might be similarly biased?
I think the culinary domain is very interesting for it’s seemingly paradoxical take that, at home, women not only belong but are far more capable than men in the kitchen, but as soon as the endeavor becomes competitive and professional, men traditionally (not always, of course) gatekeep the professional kitchen because suddenly talent and taste aren’t enough, one must be an officer in Escoffier’s army, quick to abuse yourself and others while wearing a silly hat.
Yes, I found the participation rate argument very sound.
I wonder what else might be similarly biased?
Two examples come to mind:
-
Medical test subjects are predominantly if not exclusively male. So any new medication on the market are tailored for the physis and metabolism of a male body while the same medication might have different effects (including side effects) when it comes to women.
-
Scientific findings are often based on male bias, e.g. the remains of a high status person were declared being male. Only decades later with new technology was it possible to determine it was in fact a women. (See the Ivory man)
But this conversation would deserve its.owm thread. The OP post is regarding how women (cis and transgendered people) are treated in chess. The absurdity of backwards thinking and unfairness when it comes to treating women and men as assigned at birth. I’m not sure, if you missed the part where transgendered men are stripped of their titles when transitioning to male, while people transitioning to female are allowed to keep theirs.
This goes so much deeper. Like another commenter posted: “institutionalized patriarchy”
This is awesome! Thanks for the info
-
I have no clue about chess, but why is there a separation between genders?
From what I’ve gathered it’s about making chess more accessible to women, since a very large majority of chess players are men, which can be uncomfortable. Which makes the ban even more ridiculous.
Okay, but why does it make women uncomfortable? It’s chess.
I understand enough about biology that AMAB people typically have more muscle mass, but unless we are talking about chess boxing (personally, I wouldn’t step into a ring with any boxer, I would actually be killed), separating divisions by gender as opposed to skill level is stupid at best. Banning trans people is outright bigoted. There is no question. Unless the chess grand masters or whoever had that stupid idea think women are just, what, less strategically minded? Do they think women are more stupid than men? Why ban trans women AND strip them of their awards? Nah, this is bigotry in action.
I was referring to the ratio of men making women uncomfortable. I 100% disagree with the ban.
Yes. I do not understand why women are uncomfortable. Is it a vocal point by the competitors, or are the ruling body making assumptions because “woman fragile?”
I dont know how it is now but for a long time men in professional chess have been condescending at best when women play. They simply did not take women seriously and made it well known to female players.
And these dickheads were thrown out for unsportsmanlike behavior? Nah, instead, let’s put women in a bubble to protect them instead of encouraging positive behavior. It’s still stupid and bigoted.
Edit: If you can throw someone out for unsportsmanlike behavior in a MTG, YGO, or goddamn Pokemon TCG tournament, you can throw someone out in chess. These people need to get with the times.
Oh man, where to start.
It’s great that you’re asking these questions. Just don’t make the mistake that many people in the majority do: Ther’s a half-sinked boat. The people under the water are gasping for air, everyone is saying “for the love of god, those people are suffering!” and those at the top are like “huh? I don’t see the issue from here…”
Just because you don’t belong to the group the assertion is made about, doesn’t mean there is no issue.
If we have established that, then all is good.
Now, why would women be uncomfortable? Because chess is a brain “sports.” I’d rather call it game. And many smart men, but many smart men have an unconscious bias against women. They may not realize it, but they’d mansplain, talk down or ignore valid points. Are all smart men like that? Of course not! But you don’t need all of them to be like that. It only needs to happen enough times.
It’s like all-women gyms. Are they a statement about all men being creeps? No. But many women, unfortunately, get harassed enough times in co-ed gyms to say “you know, what, I’m done. I’ll stop going to the gym. Fuck that! What’s that? An all-woman gym? Sign me up!”
And of course, not all women are the same. Many women have the strength and endurance to tell all those guys off over and over and be fine. But I won’t blame those women who don’t want to go through that.
(And yes, I don’t agree with the ban either. It’s so ironic…)
deleted by creator
I’d say this is a textbook example of the Patriarchy at play here. Use of institutions to systemically undermine women’s agency.
I just never thought that an international Chess organization would be the one to do it.
Yikes!
