Trans players in chess

@felixnothus said in #108:

That's not exactly analogous to this situation here though is it.
It's more like banning all people who insist on not being scanned for transmitting devices before tournaments.
You know that people say "Just trust me I"m being honest" isn't going to cut it.
You need quality assurance. You need to prove that you qualify as a transwoman and just claiming you are one, doesn't qualify you as one.
If all people named Hans all of sudden said "You can't scan me just trust me I'm being honest" then we probably should just ban all people named Hans.

If that really is a problem, then maybe FIDE could require that you prove that you have identified as a woman for at least 6 months or something like that. I don't know what the best way to stop bad actors is, but I do know that it is much better to allow a few bad actors to slip through the cracks than to ban trans women entirely.

But they aren't excluded entirely and you know that.
They can totally compete in open tournaments right?
It's not like they're saying trans people can't compete, they just can't compete within the womens section, because they don't qualify as women, just as non GM's can't compete in GM tournaments because they don't qualify as GM's.

That is true, but the entire purpose of women's sections is to make the game more welcoming to women. Why should some women be made to feel unwelcome simply because they are trans? Now you could make the argument that women's sections are no longer necessary and should be abolished entirely. Ideally everyone would be treated equally and women's sections would not be necessary. Sadly, I don't believe this to be the case, but it would be a reasonable argument to make. However, arguing that women's sections are necessary to make women more welcome, but saying that trans women should be excluded makes no sense, unless you are arguing that trans women should be made to feel unwelcome, which is of course a terrible thing to argue.

IF anything, if you think trans people deserve to compete in a social category, a trans category would be the fairest thing to do, because they qualify as a transwoman.

Sure, you could make a separate category for trans people, but trans women should still have the option of playing in women's sections, because they are women.

You know damn well the answer to that is no because.... transwomen aren't allowed to compete in womens tournaments so of course the answers no.

There literally hasn't been the opportunity for it to happen.

I was under the impression that that wasn't always the case, but perhaps I am mistaken.

So if you want to argue that legitimate transwomen should be able to compete in womens tournaments, you need to come up with some way of proving that someone is legitimately trans.

Again, if this turns out to be a problem, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. I think it probably won't be a big issue though, because men have no inherent advantage over women in chess. Also note that excluding trans women from women's sections does not solve the issue of men pretending to be women to gain access to women's sections, because a trans man could pretend to be a women. In fact, if they don't check birth certificates or whatever (I don't know how it works), certainly anyone could pretend to be a women.

But as we can see... there really is no way of doing this because the difference between a transwoman and man pretending to be a transwoman is literally impossible to tell because aside from being committed enough to get surgery...

Surgery doesn't change your gender. Some trans people get surgery because they are not comfortable with their body, not because they are trans. Other trans people are perfectly comfortable with their body. Both are equally legitimate.

transwomen and men pretending to be trans, are indistinguishable.

As I have said before, I don't foresee men pretending to be women being a problem. If it turns out I am mistaken, then maybe FIDE could implement some restrictions like 3 people have to testify that you are indeed a women or something like that. It would be unfortunate if they had to do this, because it would create hassle, but again, I don't really think it will be necessary.

Also, I just can't help but notice you don't want to acknowledge non binary people should also qualify as women if trans people are allowed to qualify as women.
Seriously, how is that supposed to be handled, because claiming to be non binary is literally that... all you gotta do is claim you are non binary and like magic, you are non binary. Surely, non binary people deserve to also play with transwomen in womens tournaments, right?

This isn't just about transwomen, right, non-binary people also are just as legitamite as trans, right?

True, and honestly I don't see why non-binary people shouldn't be allowed in women's events. Are they discriminated against in chess as women are? I don't really know but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, especially for more fem-presenting non-binary people. I don't see any harm in including them in women's events, though.

@AsDaGo said in #151:

If that really is a problem, then maybe FIDE could require that you prove that you have identified as a woman for at least 6 months or something like that. I don't know what the best way to stop bad actors is, but I do know that it is much better to allow a few bad actors to slip through the cracks than to ban trans women entirely.

As mentioned, saying "trans women banned entirely" isn't true. They're banned from competing with women but not from competing in chess.
But if you can show many any examples where transpeople have been excluded from competing in open tournaments just for being trans, and you might have a point and I'll be right there with you fighting for the right for transpeople to compete in open tournaments because they are for everyone.

That is true, but the entire purpose of women's sections is to make the game more welcoming to women. Why should some women be made to feel unwelcome simply because they are trans? Now you could make the argument that women's sections are no longer necessary and should be abolished entirely. Ideally everyone would be treated equally and women's sections would not be necessary. Sadly, I don't believe this to be the case, but it would be a reasonable argument to make. However, arguing that women's sections are necessary to make women more welcome, but saying that trans women should be excluded makes no sense, unless you are arguing that trans women should be made to feel unwelcome, which is of course a terrible thing to argue.

I disagree with it being the entire purpose.
It's one of the reasons there is a womens section.

Another reason is that if there were only open tournaments, and only the best of the best got to win prize money- it would almost exclusively go to males, because the best of the best is almost exclusively males.

It's women who want to compete against other women that makes a womans category necessary- if the elite women felt they could compete with the elite men they would just play in the open category and ignore the womens category, and women such as Judith Polgar do exactly that.
But the vast majority of women elites know they dont have a chance against the male elites and want to have a chance to win prize money and the best chance they have for that is when they compete against each other exclusively.

Sure, you could make a separate category for trans people, but trans women should still have the option of playing in women's sections, because they are women.

With all due respect and love and care, I disagree that transwomen are women- transwomen are transwomen.

Transwomen do not have the same functions and experiences as women do.
Transwomen cannot get pregnant. Transwomen don't experience what women experience in terms of societal pressures, transwomen don't experience the same kinds of harassment from males, transwomen don't have the same biological functions of females such as menstrual cycles, body structure which goes right down to the bones, and they don't have the same mental circuitry as women. (Sure you could argue there are similarities in mental circuitry that might closely align with womens, I'll grant that- but the same can be said of homosexuals that don't identify as trans, and they don't think they are women.)

Transwomen, FEEL that they are women. But that doesn't make them a woman.
The form and functions of a transwoman does not qualify them as women.
It qualifies them as transwomen.

Once again, I say this with love and all due respect, but FEELINGS do not qualify you to be something otherwise anyone who FEELS they are a GM should be able to play in GM tournaments.

You need to qualify as that thing to participate as that thing. You need to have the qualities of that thing.

I was under the impression that that wasn't always the case, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Well the whole argument here is that transwomen are not allowed to compete with women in the womens section and they want that right to so because they have never been allowed to before so... unless you can prove otherwise, that does seem to be the case. Feel free to correct me if it's not.

Again, if this turns out to be a problem, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. I think it probably won't be a big issue though, because men have no inherent advantage over women in chess. Also note that excluding trans women from women's sections does not solve the issue of men pretending to be women to gain access to women's sections, because a trans man could pretend to be a women. In fact, if they don't check birth certificates or whatever (I don't know how it works), certainly anyone could pretend to be a women.

Look, if you want to argue for the right for transwomen to play with women, then crossing the bridge when you get to it is a terrible take because you're going to need to convince the rest of the chess world that this is not going to be an issue and that every stop will be taken to ensure such a thing is unlikely to happen, it needs to be proven to all involved that measures are in place to stop such things from happening.

Also, saying that men have no advantage over women in competitive chess is simply not true at all- its only true if you're looking at the average player.
But we're not talking about average players- were talking about the elite players. The best of the best players. The best of the best, the top 100 players in chess- Almost exclusively always men. There are a few exceptions to this such as Judith Polgar, but shes in the minority of minorities.
If men have no advantage over women in chess then you would expect to find more women cracking the top 100 more consistently in roughly equal percentage to the amount of women that are playing chess vs the amount of men playing chess.

If you look at every competitive esport that exists where both men and women are allowed to compete against each other and physical advantages mean nothing- once again you will find its just men that dominate the top spots.

Evolutionary psychology suggests this is because men are designed to be more competitive from body strength to mental ability, and no, that's not saying that EVERY MAN is better than EVERY WOMEN in any sport- Its saying that when it comes to competition and competitive drive and ability- when it comes to the very top of the top, men will dominate because there are just more men that exist on the genius level of ability than women. There are genius women that can compete with and are better than the vast majority of males- but on the scale of probability, there's just going to be more men than women that have that level of genius.

The average man vs women in a sport though? Yeah sure they will work out to be about equal, no arguments there but thats not the argument.

Surgery doesn't change your gender. Some trans people get surgery because they are not comfortable with their body, not because they are trans. Other trans people are perfectly comfortable with their body. Both are equally legitimate.

Yeah, sure and agree, but thats what I'm saying, what is there to distinguish those from who are legitimately trans, from those aren't that just want to win a competition and think they can do so by setting themselves up against competitors they normally wouldn't get to play against but know they have an advantage over?

You don't need to transition to be trans thats the whole point and so being able to distinguish those who are legitimate from those who aren't is practically impossible because being trans is about FEELING a certain way and there's no way to know what someone REALLY is feeling without being that person feeling it.

As I have said before, I don't foresee men pretending to be women being a problem. If it turns out I am mistaken, then maybe FIDE could implement some restrictions like 3 people have to testify that you are indeed a women or something like that. It would be unfortunate if they had to do this, because it would create hassle, but again, I don't really think it will be necessary.

Just looking at any other sport where transwomen have been allowed to compete shows this does happen and to think it wouldn't happen in chess is wishful thinking.
You want transwomen to be able to compete with women, then you need to be able to assure people its only the legitimately trans that are participating.
Without that assurance, the whole thing falls apart very fast.

True, and honestly I don't see why non-binary people shouldn't be allowed in women's events. Are they discriminated against in chess as women are? I don't really know but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, especially for more fem-presenting non-binary people. I don't see any harm in including them in women's events, though.

Then in that case, where non-binary is simply something where you decide to change your gender based on your current feelings... anyone can compete as non binary because once again... other than someone declaring they are non binary, there is no way to tell is someone truly is because its just about how someone feels and theres no way to know how someone feels without being that person.

So how do you stop non-legitimate non-binaries from competing?

Allowing these things opens flood gates where bad actors can thrive easily destroying the reputation of the game and competition.
You need to be able to proove to people that these are not going to be issues, and you can't just do things based on wishful thinking if you want it to happen, you need to do it on a level where there is practical measures in place to minimize the bad actors so that everyone involved feels the competition is fair and equal.

As far as I can tell, there really is no way to do this because this all boils down to ONE THING and ONE THING only- The right to compete in something because you FEEL that you should have that right and NOTHING ELSE.

And if its only about feelings being what legitimates someone being able to compete, then no one truly knows what someone else is feeling and there is no way to know if someone is actually truly feeling those things.

As such, FEELINGS should not be a factor in deciding what is fair competition- QUALIFICATIONS are the only thing that we can measure withouyt any bias or uncertainty and so that's what we have to work with in order for things to be fair as possible for everyone involved.

Otherwise all you are doing is opening floodgates to the opportunists to take prizes away from events where they don't qualify from people who do qualify.

Sad, I know, it really sucks, but that's the reality you're all facing right now and need to work out how to deal with.

But still... there's always open competitions that everyone IS welcome to compete in and so maybe focus on what you can have instead of what you cannot and you will be so much happier in the long run.

@Relmcheatham

I don't expect that removing the women's category will solve the problem overnight, as there needs to be a cultural change which is attained through persistent educational effort. However the sole existence of such a category undermines all future efforts as I'm positive the general perception is that the existence of the women's category is predicated on the assumption that women are worse at chess than men rather than on goals of promotion and inclusivity.

Drawing parallels to policies such as Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives, we can see how similar efforts, despite their noble goals, have led to unintended negative consequences. The emergence of terms like "Affirmative Action hire" or "Diversity hire" carries a stigma that suggests individuals in these positions are less qualified, even when they are not. This stigmatization not only undermines the achievements of the individuals it intends to help but also reinforces prejudiced attitudes.

While significant progress can be made in changing cultural perceptions of women and reducing sexism, it's important to recognize that biases such as sexism, racism, and xenophobia are deeply ingrained in human psychology. These biases, rooted in our evolutionary history, are part of the broader "friend or foe" mechanism that helped early humans navigate social complexities. As such, these biases are not easily eradicated and require long-term efforts spanning generations, if not centuries, to significantly diminish.

Understanding this, we must focus on strategies that promote integration and interaction across genders, as these are proven to reduce prejudice over time. Creating environments where men and women compete as equals fosters mutual respect and breaks down stereotypes. While cultural change is gradual, it is through persistent and inclusive practices that we can make lasting progress.

By removing the women's category, we emphasize that chess, like many other fields, should be a meritocracy where individuals are judged solely on their abilities. Just as fields like medicine, law, and technology have integrated women without separate categories, chess can do the same. Successful integration in these fields shows that when given equal opportunities and support, women can excel alongside men, challenging and changing societal perceptions in the process.

@TjoffenPD said in #154:

There are already meritocracies that exist that show that when it comes to top performing players, its always dominated by men.

And no, before anyone crowing about sexism and saying that its not true that men are better than women, if thats your take on what is being said then you're not paying attention and trivialising the issue.

Esports for example, where all that matters is your literal performance and ability to play at a top level.
There are no gender segregation in esports and yet all the top performers are almost always men.

No woman's team has ever won in these competitions in the history of esports.

Fields like medicine, law and technology don't have competitions, and so if its not a competitive environment, women are just as capable or even better than men because its not about who is best its about being able to do the job.

But when it comes to competition, evolutionary psychology suggests men are designed to compete at a higher level than women when it comes to elite levels. It's just how nature has designed us.

Its not to say that women can't be exceedingly good and if not better than the majority of casual players. I know many women who dominate the leader boards in pub games like counter strike and valorant and poker, for example.

But when it comes to fighting for a top prize? It's almost always men that seem to rise to the very top.
The women that do get to the very top and can compete with those top men are exceptionally rare and even then it seems they can never get to the very top. Take Judith Polgar for example. She's probably the only woman who stands a chance against Magnus Carlson, but she never got to the top.

And now shes stopped playing competitively, that will probably never happen.

The truth is, if you don't have a womans category , then there just aren't many women who are ever going to experience being the top of their league and win prizes and have incentives to keep playing, and you'll see quickly interest fade from such women who do want to play competitively.

This seems to be true across almost every competitive sport.

It's not that women are bad at competition, it just seems evolution has decided not to design them to be able to get past a certain point that allows them to compete fairly against the top men.

If we don't acknowledge the biological and evolutionary facts, no amount of DEI and affirmative action will ever change that and competitive sports will forever be biased towards men winning everything and women getting pretty much nothing for the efforts.

But that's why chess is such a beautiful game- There are open competitions for everyone to compete and see where they stand in the world as a whole, should they so desire, but there are special divisions so that those who want to stand a fair chance against their peers can do so as well.

Most esports don't do that and we can clearly see when it comes down to pure meritocracy, it's just men who reap the rewards and women are left in the dust.

And if that keeps happening, why would women want to compete professionally if there's no incentive to do so?

Yes, it's totally wrong to say that women aren't as good as men on the whole, because I know plenty of women who can kick my ass at all my favorite games and I don't feel angry that they can do so- but I'm not a top level competitor, I'm just a hobbyist.

Women who put in the effort will be easily able to wipe most men players, so of course women can compete with men if those men aren't top level competitors.

But at the top, it's a completely different game and the men that make it to the top have an evolutionary advantage that isn't given to many women (and to be fair, its not given to most men either- but its seems to be mainly men who do get it).

That's all it is.

So if you want to scare off and discourage women from playing your favorite game, all you have to do is give rewards based on merit alone and all the women will disappear to find something they feel they have a better chance at succeeding in.

@felixnothus

Right now the discussion about the women's category is based on assumption that there is no inherent difference in chess ability between men and women.

If there is, there should be a separate category like in any other sport where males have advantage over females (i.e. activities that involve strength, agility etc.).

I believe it can be at least attempted to be proven scientifically by taking the same ELO categories of men and women and compare the average accuracy/centipawn loss per group and compare the results.

@greenteakitten said in #147:

@Relmcheatham

While I can see your argument, I still feel that it kind of places the responsibility on FIDE and women, rather than rooting out the cause of the problem in the first place - sexism and sexual harassment.

By slowly abolishing the women's section (obviously it would have to be slow to allow people to transition) we would be able to get the same inclusive environment you were talking about.

If, like you said, Hou Yifan is not an exception, than surely we should let all the mini Hou Yifans show people that think they aren't capable that they are.

But instead we're keeping them in the Women's Section. Why not abolish the Women's Section? Then you'll be able to root out the sexists.

Likewise I see your argument, I will just clarify that I think the most change possible would have to be external to chess (economic state of a country, access to and affordability of tutors, social norms for girls, etc) and that FIDE and national federations can only do so much.

Also yes transwomen are allowed in the womens section in many countries, including the US. I can go out today and compete in the womens section of a tournament because I went through the process to have my gender marker changed.

The US Chess policy was firmly established in 2018, and FIDE's in 2023 but the practice did exist beforehand because trans people existed well before these policies. Even under the Franco regime FM Natalia Vives played in women's tournaments. Without a guiding formal policy, often what happens is that a trans individual would present their new ID to their federation who would handle it on a case by case basis. Given how sensitive and private of a thing it was prior to the last decade and a half it is hard to find examples as it would not have been something to disclose.

Transwomen have been competing in womens tournaments for half a century, showing that yes there already has been the opportunity for a bad faith actors to try and game the system, and yet that doesn't actually happen. The only times such a thing generally happens is when the bad faith actor is explicitly doing so to undermine trans people or to protest against the guidelines being too open.

@TjoffenPD said in #156:

@felixnothus

Right now the discussion about the women's category is based on assumption that there is no inherent difference in chess ability between men and women.

If there is, there should be a separate category like in any other sport where males have advantage over females (i.e. activities that involve strength, agility etc.).

I believe it can be at least attempted to be proven scientifically by taking the same ELO categories of men and women and compare the average accuracy/centipawn loss per group and compare the results.

It's heavily implied by the bell curve difference between the IQ differences between the sexes that males have higher representation in both the upper and lower strata of IQ and that's what we see in chess and every other esport where physical strength doesn't matter, that is either a major coincidence or there may actually be substance to the idea that elite men will have an advantage over elite women in sports where mental acuity is the deciding factor.

It doesn't make a difference on the average player, but when you get the top, it makes a huge difference.

Its consistent with the fact that the top 100 chess players are always almost men all the time.

If you're going to ignore the bellcurve then you're ignoring a big part of evolutionary psychology and what nature does.

Take some time to learn about it and its implication in competitions of mental acuity.