Trans players in chess

Remove the category of women altogether.

Have an open category and nothing else - and FIDE, work on slowly abolishing women titles (while trying to figure out a solution so that people that already hold those titles don't lose them.

When you start separating people you're only pushing the idea that men and women are in different skill levels in chess.

I recognize you're not implying any argument about superiority of any kind but I want to give a defense of the women's category in response and part of that, since people in this thread have already suggested otherwise, includes responding to these criticisms.

The women's category exists to give women a track separate from men where they are substantially less likely to face intimidation, harassment, sexually inapropriate, or discriminatory behaviour. Women are not inferior to men in chess. No country or race's people are inferior to another's in their ability to play chess. The circumstances of each country, the ability for people to have the luxury of playing chess, and who gets that treatment, explain all of these differences.

When one looks at the history of chess in countries, a patern often emerges where masters from privledged backgrounds teach prodigies from privledged backgrounds, and those prodigies become masters. The amount of prodigies and masters fluctuates with time but is often directly tied to the ability to play top level games convienantly, to play them often, or to even be educated to play chess from a very young age through being able to afford lessons. The soviet school in many regards thrived because many of this caliber of player had their education subsidized and were largely collected in a few cities. America meanwhile has always struggled with the issue that players from rural regions often can not attend tournaments, and until Fischer's victory over Spassky the American chess scene was crumbling.

When one looks at underdeveloped nations and into the backgrounds of chess players from those regions, one will find this patern presenting itself alongside other factors. Singapore, Japan, and Korea all have few Chess masters, while China and India have a significant amount. This is explained by a preference in the former for Go or Trading Card Games amongst most youth, and in the latter two the rise of chess follows explainable social trends (in india a generation of players male and female inspired by Anand, and in China Xie Jun's performance at the 1991 Women's world championship inspired a wealth of young players which include many of the strongest female players in the world like Hou Yifan, Ju Wenjun, and Tan Zhongyi to name the most known examples).

Chess in many regards and in many places is like football in that it rouses some level of nationalism and patriotism, and such victories even in the women's category can inspire growth or government investment into the game which pay dividends in the future for the game. The women's category is flawed and would not exist in an ideal world, but for now it is the main avenue to help bridge the gap between the proportion of men to women in chess. Other things such as the Netflix show 'The Queen's Gambit' likewise had a widescale effect of bringing many women into the game. One of the main reasons that women do not often perform as well as men in Chess, even when adjusted for ratios, is that it is rare for girls to be given chess lessons from a young age like many men are. In China where the one child policy occured, this resulted in many educating their daughters in chess without distinction (I am a chinese historian, and this occured in regards to many aspects of society) due to the lack of siblings and the changing norms around women in the country. Proponents of biological differences, I doubt, actually think Hou Yifan or the Polgars would be significantly better players had they been born male - what allowed them to shine was their having been raised with the game. Yifan started playing chess when aged 3 and benefited from her father being a magistrate able to afford chess tutoring. The polgars had a chess teacher as their father and helped them cultivate their talents with the game from a young age. This is true of almost every top level player, as few are able to reach GM without coming from wealth, recieving tutoring, or being the child of a chess player able to train their children.

Part of the problem is also that many women simply do not want to play chess over other pursuits. This is true of many male dominated hobbies (tabletop war gaming, trading card games, model kits, etc) and it is both a matter of socialization (women will be picked on for liking masculine things and vice versa) as well as either experiences with or fear of harassment, marginalization, discrimination, etc. and all of this applies to Chess. The womens category exists to prevent women from entering chess, and subsequently leaving due to these experiences or worries - and this same theory applies to trans girls as well.

@greenteakitten said in #120: > Remove the category of women altogether. > > Have an open category and nothing else - and FIDE, work on slowly abolishing women titles (while trying to figure out a solution so that people that already hold those titles don't lose them. > > When you start separating people you're only pushing the idea that men and women are in different skill levels in chess. I recognize you're not implying any argument about superiority of any kind but I want to give a defense of the women's category in response and part of that, since people in this thread have already suggested otherwise, includes responding to these criticisms. The women's category exists to give women a track separate from men where they are substantially less likely to face intimidation, harassment, sexually inapropriate, or discriminatory behaviour. Women are not inferior to men in chess. No country or race's people are inferior to another's in their ability to play chess. The circumstances of each country, the ability for people to have the luxury of playing chess, and who gets that treatment, explain all of these differences. When one looks at the history of chess in countries, a patern often emerges where masters from privledged backgrounds teach prodigies from privledged backgrounds, and those prodigies become masters. The amount of prodigies and masters fluctuates with time but is often directly tied to the ability to play top level games convienantly, to play them often, or to even be educated to play chess from a very young age through being able to afford lessons. The soviet school in many regards thrived because many of this caliber of player had their education subsidized and were largely collected in a few cities. America meanwhile has always struggled with the issue that players from rural regions often can not attend tournaments, and until Fischer's victory over Spassky the American chess scene was crumbling. When one looks at underdeveloped nations and into the backgrounds of chess players from those regions, one will find this patern presenting itself alongside other factors. Singapore, Japan, and Korea all have few Chess masters, while China and India have a significant amount. This is explained by a preference in the former for Go or Trading Card Games amongst most youth, and in the latter two the rise of chess follows explainable social trends (in india a generation of players male and female inspired by Anand, and in China Xie Jun's performance at the 1991 Women's world championship inspired a wealth of young players which include many of the strongest female players in the world like Hou Yifan, Ju Wenjun, and Tan Zhongyi to name the most known examples). Chess in many regards and in many places is like football in that it rouses some level of nationalism and patriotism, and such victories even in the women's category can inspire growth or government investment into the game which pay dividends in the future for the game. The women's category is flawed and would not exist in an ideal world, but for now it is the main avenue to help bridge the gap between the proportion of men to women in chess. Other things such as the Netflix show 'The Queen's Gambit' likewise had a widescale effect of bringing many women into the game. One of the main reasons that women do not often perform as well as men in Chess, even when adjusted for ratios, is that it is rare for girls to be given chess lessons from a young age like many men are. In China where the one child policy occured, this resulted in many educating their daughters in chess without distinction (I am a chinese historian, and this occured in regards to many aspects of society) due to the lack of siblings and the changing norms around women in the country. Proponents of biological differences, I doubt, actually think Hou Yifan or the Polgars would be significantly better players had they been born male - what allowed them to shine was their having been raised with the game. Yifan started playing chess when aged 3 and benefited from her father being a magistrate able to afford chess tutoring. The polgars had a chess teacher as their father and helped them cultivate their talents with the game from a young age. This is true of almost every top level player, as few are able to reach GM without coming from wealth, recieving tutoring, or being the child of a chess player able to train their children. Part of the problem is also that many women simply do not want to play chess over other pursuits. This is true of many male dominated hobbies (tabletop war gaming, trading card games, model kits, etc) and it is both a matter of socialization (women will be picked on for liking masculine things and vice versa) as well as either experiences with or fear of harassment, marginalization, discrimination, etc. and all of this applies to Chess. The womens category exists to prevent women from entering chess, and subsequently leaving due to these experiences or worries - and this same theory applies to trans girls as well.

Nomoreusernames

@Relmcheatham said in #121

Part of the problem is also that many women simply do not want to play chess over other pursuits. This is true of many male dominated hobbies (tabletop war gaming, trading card games, model kits, etc) and it is both a matter of socialization (women will be picked on for liking masculine things and vice versa) as well as either experiences with or fear of harassment, marginalization, discrimination, etc. and all of this applies to Chess. The womens category exists to prevent women from entering chess, and subsequently leaving due to these experiences or worries - and this same theory applies to trans girls as well.

In all my experience, girls are always the first to mock boys that play these games. Women fancy the footballers, not table top war gamers, so the "nerds" who do things which are not football, are their prime targets for ridicule. Pretending that a boy who enjoys chess, video games, table top games etc. has not been subject to mockery and derision: is not naive, it's political spin doctoring.

@Relmcheatham said in #121 >Part of the problem is also that many women simply do not want to play chess over other pursuits. This is true of many male dominated hobbies (tabletop war gaming, trading card games, model kits, etc) and it is both a matter of socialization (women will be picked on for liking masculine things and vice versa) as well as either experiences with or fear of harassment, marginalization, discrimination, etc. and all of this applies to Chess. The womens category exists to prevent women from entering chess, and subsequently leaving due to these experiences or worries - and this same theory applies to trans girls as well. In all my experience, girls are always the first to mock boys that play these games. Women fancy the footballers, not table top war gamers, so the "nerds" who do things which are not football, are their prime targets for ridicule. Pretending that a boy who enjoys chess, video games, table top games etc. has not been subject to mockery and derision: is not naive, it's political spin doctoring.

Relmcheatham

@Nomoreusernames said in #122:

@Relmcheatham said in #121

In all my experience, girls are always the first to mock boys that play these games. Women fancy the footballers, not table top war gamers, so the "nerds" who do things which are not football, are their prime targets for ridicule. Pretending that a boy who enjoys chess, video games, table top games etc. has not been subject to mockery and derision: is not naive, it's political spin doctoring.

Nothing I said denies that this exists or that your personal anecdotes are invalid. They aren't mutually exclusive with what I claimed, they are just not relevant to the point I was trying to illustrate.

The post is in defense of the women's category - so I detailed a variety of reasons why women are underrepresented at the top level of chess, why they choose not to play chess, etc and why having a womans category helps to alleviate this. The group of women you describe in your post that make fun of men that play chess are not the sort who would play chess anyway. I'll add that some men who play sports likewise make fun of people who play chess - but that is similarly not relevant to what is being discussed.

There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women in chess to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess. I am sure there are anecdotes, but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way - from men towards women. A woman in chess has to deal with many players actively asserting they are intellectually inferior to men - which has been done in this forum thread repeatedly already - at a minimum.

@Nomoreusernames said in #122: > @Relmcheatham said in #121 > > > In all my experience, girls are always the first to mock boys that play these games. Women fancy the footballers, not table top war gamers, so the "nerds" who do things which are not football, are their prime targets for ridicule. Pretending that a boy who enjoys chess, video games, table top games etc. has not been subject to mockery and derision: is not naive, it's political spin doctoring. Nothing I said denies that this exists or that your personal anecdotes are invalid. They aren't mutually exclusive with what I claimed, they are just not relevant to the point I was trying to illustrate. The post is in defense of the women's category - so I detailed a variety of reasons why women are underrepresented at the top level of chess, why they choose not to play chess, etc and why having a womans category helps to alleviate this. The group of women you describe in your post that make fun of men that play chess are not the sort who would play chess anyway. I'll add that some men who play sports likewise make fun of people who play chess - but that is similarly not relevant to what is being discussed. There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women *in chess* to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess. I am sure there are anecdotes, but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way - from men towards women. A woman in chess has to deal with many players actively asserting they are intellectually inferior to men - which has been done in this forum thread repeatedly already - at a minimum.

Nomoreusernames edited

@Relmcheatham said in #123:

There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women in chess to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess.
So where were you when the world's top chess streamers were inventing and promulgating false rumours about a teenage boy wearing sexual devices to chess tournaments? Were you jumping on the bandwagon like Yoshi was?
but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way
This is arrogant and hypocrite! Imagine it was Anna Cramling or another girl that was falsely accused of wearing anal beads to a chess tournament. Do you think the people that did that would have a career? The protections for girls are much higher than for boys!
Just because it doesn't serve your purposes to recognise when young boys are being ridiculed, or even sexually harassed, you choose to ignore it for your political agenda. Your agenda is not only biased, it is toxic!!!

@Relmcheatham said in #123: > There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women *in chess* to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess. So where were you when the world's top chess streamers were inventing and promulgating false rumours about a teenage boy wearing sexual devices to chess tournaments? Were you jumping on the bandwagon like Yoshi was? >but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way This is arrogant and hypocrite! Imagine it was Anna Cramling or another girl that was falsely accused of wearing anal beads to a chess tournament. Do you think the people that did that would have a career? The protections for girls are much higher than for boys! Just because it doesn't serve your purposes to recognise when young boys are being ridiculed, or even sexually harassed, you choose to ignore it for your political agenda. Your agenda is not only biased, it is toxic!!!

Relmcheatham

edited

@Nomoreusernames said in #124:

So where were you when the world's top chess streamers were inventing and promulgating false rumours about a teenage boy wearing sexual devices to chess tournaments? Were you jumping on the bandwagon like Yoshi was?

This is arrogant and hypocrite! Just because it doesn't serve your purposes to recognise when young boys are being ridiculed, or even sexually harassed, you choose to ignore it for your political agenda. Your agenda is not only biased, it is toxic!!!

Yosha does not represent all trans people. They are the most notable and outspoken trans person in chess, but this does not mean that when yosha is wrong on something entirely unrelated to trans people that it means yosha speaks on behalf of every single trans person (and they were not spreading around any of the buttplug rumors afaik). Yosha is not perfect, but when they are in error it's not an excuse to levy at all trans chess players - that's ridiculous. Yosha misunderstood and misrepresented chess data, they weren't hansen or nakamura who were actively laughing about the sex toy rumors on streams and spreading it around, and they weren't Magnus or a particular other chess site that dropped the ball entirely.

And no, it is not hypocritical. What grounds do you have to try and peddle a false equivalency that young girls face the same problems in chess as young boys just because young boys get picked on by girls who don't have any interest in chess? Bullying is bad regardless, but you're entirely missing the point of how one is on a completely different scale. Your counterexample is an instance where a trans person didn't even make a sexual joke or harass hans - but guess how many people harassed yosha after that video with sexist and transphobic remarks.

> @Nomoreusernames said in #124: > So where were you when the world's top chess streamers were inventing and promulgating false rumours about a teenage boy wearing sexual devices to chess tournaments? Were you jumping on the bandwagon like Yoshi was? > > This is arrogant and hypocrite! Just because it doesn't serve your purposes to recognise when young boys are being ridiculed, or even sexually harassed, you choose to ignore it for your political agenda. Your agenda is not only biased, it is toxic!!! Yosha does not represent all trans people. They *are* the most notable and outspoken trans person in chess, but this does not mean that when yosha is wrong on something entirely unrelated to trans people that it means yosha speaks on behalf of every single trans person (and they were not spreading around any of the buttplug rumors afaik). Yosha is not perfect, but when they are in error it's not an excuse to levy at all trans chess players - that's ridiculous. Yosha misunderstood and misrepresented chess data, they weren't hansen or nakamura who were actively laughing about the sex toy rumors on streams and spreading it around, and they weren't Magnus or a particular other chess site that dropped the ball entirely. And no, it is not hypocritical. What grounds do you have to try and peddle a false equivalency that young girls face the same problems in chess as young boys just because young boys get picked on by girls who don't have any interest in chess? Bullying is bad regardless, but you're entirely missing the point of how one is on a completely different scale. Your counterexample is an instance where a trans person didn't even make a sexual joke or harass hans - but guess how many people harassed yosha after that video with sexist and transphobic remarks.

ReallyLowELO

Forgive me if I am wrong, but this topic seems to be pushed down in the list of forum for me, whilst all the rest is in order of most recent comment, making it harder to find. Not sure if trying to artificially silence a topic is the best way to go about pushing a narrative, but then again... I would appreciate it if anyone happened to know how the list of forum topics is normally done, or if this is just a strange coincidence given quite a few comments have already been deleted.

Buny77

@Nomoreusernames Just google Brian Eley!! abuse is all part of the same problem if you really care??!!!

Buny77

If anyone wants here wants to sound clever and troll !! Please stop and think for a minute or longer if you are a bit slow!!! For all the people/children who have suffered RL abused in chess and of course it goes far beyond the chess world:((((

TjoffenPD

@Relmcheatham said in #123:

The post is in defense of the women's category - so I detailed a variety of reasons why women are underrepresented at the top level of chess, why they choose not to play chess, etc and why having a womans category helps to alleviate this. The group of women you describe in your post that make fun of men that play chess are not the sort who would play chess anyway. I'll add that some men who play sports likewise make fun of people who play chess - but that is similarly not relevant to what is being discussed.

There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women in chess to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess. I am sure there are anecdotes, but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way - from men towards women. A woman in chess has to deal with many players actively asserting they are intellectually inferior to men - which has been done in this forum thread repeatedly already - at a minimum.

Female chess players, like women in any other profession or field, interact with men in numerous aspects of their lives without requiring gender segregation. Whether in educational settings, workplaces, or other competitive environments such as academia or other sports, women face similar dynamics and challenges. These spaces have adopted more integrative and inclusive strategies rather than segregation to combat sexism and harassment, indicating that integration can be achieved without exclusive categories.

Gender segregation in chess can inadvertently reinforce the notion that women need special accommodations to compete with men, which can perpetuate sexist attitudes. In other fields, women compete directly with men, and success in these areas helps normalize gender equality. By competing in the same category, women demonstrate their capability and resilience, challenging stereotypes and biases directly. Besides women competing in the same category as men can serve as powerful role models, inspiring other women and girls to pursue chess. This visibility is crucial for challenging stereotypes and encouraging broader participation.

The root causes of sexism and sexual harassment are cultural and environmental factors. Addressing these issues within the chess community—such as implementing strict anti-harassment policies, providing education on gender sensitivity, and fostering a supportive and respectful culture—can be more effective than segregating categories. These measures can create a safer and more inclusive environment without resorting to separation.

Interaction in mixed-gender environments allows for the building of diverse support networks. Women who engage in the same competitive categories as men can gain allies and advocates across genders, leading to a more united and inclusive community. This can be instrumental in combating sexism and harassment through collective support and advocacy.

Many fields have successfully integrated women without the need for separate categories, demonstrating that effective anti-sexism strategies do not rely on segregation. For instance, in the tech industry, women are increasingly participating in mixed-gender hackathons, conferences, and competitions. Efforts to promote inclusion focus on mentorship, visibility, and cultural change rather than separation.

@Relmcheatham said in #123: > > The post is in defense of the women's category - so I detailed a variety of reasons why women are underrepresented at the top level of chess, why they choose not to play chess, etc and why having a womans category helps to alleviate this. The group of women you describe in your post that make fun of men that play chess are not the sort who would play chess anyway. I'll add that some men who play sports likewise make fun of people who play chess - but that is similarly not relevant to what is being discussed. > > There is no equal pedastal to suggest that men are harassed by women *in chess* to nearly the degree that the barriers I described and the established male-oriented culture of chess have likewise impacted women in chess. I am sure there are anecdotes, but it is clear that sexism and sexual abuse in chess is directed one way - from men towards women. A woman in chess has to deal with many players actively asserting they are intellectually inferior to men - which has been done in this forum thread repeatedly already - at a minimum. Female chess players, like women in any other profession or field, interact with men in numerous aspects of their lives without requiring gender segregation. Whether in educational settings, workplaces, or other competitive environments such as academia or other sports, women face similar dynamics and challenges. These spaces have adopted more integrative and inclusive strategies rather than segregation to combat sexism and harassment, indicating that integration can be achieved without exclusive categories. Gender segregation in chess can inadvertently reinforce the notion that women need special accommodations to compete with men, which can perpetuate sexist attitudes. In other fields, women compete directly with men, and success in these areas helps normalize gender equality. By competing in the same category, women demonstrate their capability and resilience, challenging stereotypes and biases directly. Besides women competing in the same category as men can serve as powerful role models, inspiring other women and girls to pursue chess. This visibility is crucial for challenging stereotypes and encouraging broader participation. The root causes of sexism and sexual harassment are cultural and environmental factors. Addressing these issues within the chess community—such as implementing strict anti-harassment policies, providing education on gender sensitivity, and fostering a supportive and respectful culture—can be more effective than segregating categories. These measures can create a safer and more inclusive environment without resorting to separation. Interaction in mixed-gender environments allows for the building of diverse support networks. Women who engage in the same competitive categories as men can gain allies and advocates across genders, leading to a more united and inclusive community. This can be instrumental in combating sexism and harassment through collective support and advocacy. Many fields have successfully integrated women without the need for separate categories, demonstrating that effective anti-sexism strategies do not rely on segregation. For instance, in the tech industry, women are increasingly participating in mixed-gender hackathons, conferences, and competitions. Efforts to promote inclusion focus on mentorship, visibility, and cultural change rather than separation.

greenteakitten

@Relmcheatham

While as a female chess player, I understand what you mean about harassment...but iirc (I'm probably wrong so fact check me) the women's section was created to get more women into chess because there were no women in chess. To encourage women to play, they introduced women titles with lower ratings so that women could also get a title but faster. Of course, there was some sexism involved in it too but that's basically why.

If we go off of the idea that there is no difference between women and men in chess, then why do we need to continue to segregate? Why do women need to be kept separate so we don't experience harassment instead of teaching the men not to harass?

While I certainly understand your argument over segregation, I feel as if it's a really quick "band-aid" way of doing things. I would rather argue for just removing segregation altogether (after all, there is no men's category of chess, so there's no point in segregating anyhow) and just slowly integrating the titles so that they aren't separate anymore.

Even if separate women sections are supposed to help, they in many ways do make sexism worse as people assume that the reason they exist is because women aren't as good at chess (I've been told this is the reason they exist before, and I'm not the only one that's been told this).

@Relmcheatham While as a female chess player, I understand what you mean about harassment...but iirc (I'm probably wrong so fact check me) the women's section was created to get more women into chess because there were no women in chess. To encourage women to play, they introduced women titles with lower ratings so that women could also get a title but faster. Of course, there was some sexism involved in it too but that's basically why. If we go off of the idea that there is no difference between women and men in chess, then why do we need to continue to segregate? Why do women need to be kept separate so we don't experience harassment instead of teaching the men not to harass? While I certainly understand your argument over segregation, I feel as if it's a really quick "band-aid" way of doing things. I would rather argue for just removing segregation altogether (after all, there is no men's category of chess, so there's no point in segregating anyhow) and just slowly integrating the titles so that they aren't separate anymore. Even if separate women sections are supposed to help, they in many ways do make sexism worse as people assume that the reason they exist is because women aren't as good at chess (I've been told this is the reason they exist before, and I'm not the only one that's been told this).

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

Trans players in chess