Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mech#4]

Nice read. It's good to have stories that are overall happy without major drama. Some things I've read seem to have drama for the sake of it which gets a bit annoying.

[Great Order]

https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf

FIDE decides that transitioning means that you're to be stripped of your chess titles... If you're FTM. MTF is a-ok.

Also there's a two year ban on playing chess in gendered tournaments if you transition because... reasons.

I'm genuinely confused here, is the FIDE saying that there's a difference in intelligence between the genders?

[Strongpoint]

https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf

FIDE decides that transitioning means that you're to be stripped of your chess titles... If you're FTM. MTF is a-ok.

Also there's a two year ban on playing chess in gendered tournaments if you transition because... reasons.

I'm genuinely confused here, is the FIDE saying that there's a difference in intelligence between the genders?

Bolded part is factually incorrect

In the event that the gender was changed from a male to a female the player has no
right to participate in official FIDE events for women until further FIDE’s decision is
made. Such decision should be based on further analysis and shall be taken by the FIDE Council at the earliest possible time, but not longer than within 2 (two) years period.

Why they are doing this instead of allowing it instantly? Well, it is obvious. MONEY. It is better to check if some male GM is actually transitioning or decided to grab some easy cash in a women-only tournament. 2-years max is probably too much but they did write - the earliest possible time.

Is FIDE saying that women have a lower natural ability to play chess? No, it absolutely doesn't. For many years the official position of FIDE of why female players are worse on average is because they are given fewer opportunities.

But it is a damn fact that, on the top level, men play chess better than women. The highest-rated female player is 127th in the overall standing. The only thing to argue is why it is. Mysoginistic people are 100% sure that it is genetic, but Judit Polgar who was consistently in the top 10 in 1990s\2000s is good enough proof that it is unlikely a huge factor (if a factor at all)

Women-exclusive titles like WGM exist as a form of support for a marginalized group. They give access to female-only tournaments and that, among other things, means prize money.

[Starver]

...I'm all for support the marginalised, but by marginalising the even more marginalised..?

There are copious arguments all over the place, every which way, but given the lack of various 'key' points (alleged inherent strengths, as per the physical sports) there's a lack of reasoning here. And if there's an issue with transitioned people possibly ever detransitioning, it would seem more proportionate to nullify/footnote 'won whilst transitioned' titles as no longer consistent only upon having detransitioned, rather than "none of you now matter, like you had done - maaaybe we'll reconsider this again shortly", which was my reading on this, last night.


It just smells like conservative-reactionism, rather than any attempt to continue to adapt to unfolding reality. This is my view from outside the arena (chess, trans-ness or indeed femaleness), but the number of objections to this by actual women (including Lady Grandmasters[1]) suggests... something.


Frankly, I suspect it is (or should be) a more tactical move. But to whatever end, that's where I'm more confused.


[1] Which is a title that frankly makes me uncomfortable-by-proxy, though perhaps better than the other alternatives and I can't actually speak for the holders/aspirers for the title anyway.

[Frumple]

Why they are doing this instead of allowing it instantly? Well, it is obvious. MONEY. It is better to check if some male GM is actually transitioning or decided to grab some easy cash in a women-only tournament.

I mean. The eternal question pops up regarding shit propositions like that. Has that ever goddamn happened?

Has there ever, even once, been a case where a male GM decided all the abuse and frustration that comes from publicly claiming transitioning, nevermind the hellscreeching that would come from faking it, is worth the money from a tournament? Is there any grounds to think it would happen outside the delusions of transphobes?

[MaxTheFox]

https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf

FIDE decides that transitioning means that you're to be stripped of your chess titles... If you're FTM. MTF is a-ok.

Also there's a two year ban on playing chess in gendered tournaments if you transition because... reasons.

I'm genuinely confused here, is the FIDE saying that there's a difference in intelligence between the genders?

Apparently MTF isn't allowed too.

And as a chess fan, yeah this is just FIDE being conservatoids.

[Strongpoint]

Why they are doing this instead of allowing it instantly? Well, it is obvious. MONEY. It is better to check if some male GM is actually transitioning or decided to grab some easy cash in a women-only tournament.

I mean. The eternal question pops up regarding shit propositions like that. Has that ever goddamn happened?

Has there ever, even once, been a case where a male GM decided all the abuse and frustration that comes from publicly claiming transitioning, nevermind the hellscreeching that would come from faking it, is worth the money from a tournament? Is there any grounds to think it would happen outside the delusions of transphobes?

So, your alternative is that everyone should be allowed to compete in the women's category after a simple "I transitioned" with no checks, no proofs, no prerequisites, no anything?
Up to 2 years to check is clearly excessive, but no checks at all is inviting chaos.

And yes, there are grounds to think that people may try to cheat where money is involved. They always do. I have witnessed people cheating with their diagnosis for Paralympic sports for quite trivial amounts of money to get into a better category.

There is also a possibility of political statement, I can totally see chess players declaring themselves women and entering a tournament for pure trolling. Why not if it is not against the rules?


_________________

Frankly speaking, I am amazed. FIDE provided clear and quite liberal rules with a  transparent, completely allowed way of changing gender within FIDE rating system. Provide reasonable proof that you have transitioned and rules will apply to you according to your gender. It is all that FIDE asks for.  They even said that those are early rules and they recognize that they may require improvement.

And they are still labeled as transphobic conservatoids because there are SOME rules and limitations. FIDE is treated as if they somehow made the situation worse than it was before. At least it could be "We welcome that FIDE made an important step BUT it is not enough and THIS and THAT should be done, too."

NOPE. FIDE is treated as if they did some horrible attack on trans people.

[Rolan7]

Up to 2 years to check IS clearly excessive, yes.

All yesterday I had to listen to people complain "Oh, it's not technically a ban" and "UP TO 2 years!  It could be three days!" while also calling the "liberal coverage" biased and misleading.

It's a total mess.  Maybe FIDE really thinks that a lesser women's league will work better than it did in every other sport.  Running a chess tournament doesn't necessarily mean they're smart.  Maybe they don't know exactly what they're doing.  Same with this "waiting period".  Perhaps they're just really bad at transvestigating, and honestly need 2 years.

I was happy to be corrected though- from what I heard, women are allowed to compete in the real GM league (along with the Open, of course).  Apparently this is true for many sports, it's just exceptionally rare in competitive sports where even the slightest advantage means $$$.  So if we ignore all the expectations and social consequences, and their treatment of trans people, this is technically only a benevolent and feminist thing to have.

(Some sports prevent trans men from competing if they're on testosterone.  It doesn't matter if their T is still lower than other guys'- the fact they have to take it disqualifies them.  My dad claimed this was logical and got so suddenly upset that I dropped it.  A certain trans man is a sore subject for him, but I didn't realize he'd extrapolate that so much...)

[Frumple]

So, your alternative is that everyone should be allowed to compete in the women's category after a simple "I transitioned" with no checks, no proofs, no prerequisites, no anything?
Up to 2 years to check is clearly excessive, but no checks at all is inviting chaos.

I'd bet you 20 USD I've got laying around here somewhere it wouldn't invite chaos is they just went, "Yeah, you are what you say you are."

The "check", here, is that publicly announcing you're transitioned or transitioning is not a bloody small thing. You probably aren't going to need organizational regulations on managing that, because society is going to do that job for you well damn enough.

[voliol]

Wanting proof of a legal gender change is not a liberal stance. It is not the most conservative stance either - that would be not allowing members to change their gender in the records at all. I'd wager it is a diplomatic stance, not wanting to upset transphobic state A or B, nor trans accepting state C.

And the up to 2 year wait is ridiculous. Though from an outsider's perspective it is hard to say whether this is transphobia, or if FIDE is always embarrassingly slow in its bureaucratics. Does it take up to 2 years for them to accept a membership?

Also, what does the "until further FIDE’s decision is made" in section 3 mean? That after the FIDE has approved of a gender change, another decision is needed for the now-reregistered player to be able to play in women's events? Or does the decision refer to FIDE's initial decision to reregister a player's gender with "further" being relative to their legal gender change? Either alternative makes for a weird sentence, though honestly my reading comprehension might be bull.

[Starver]

[Three new replies, as I wrote this, and went hunting for links I decided to link. Quickly reading those three, I'm still posting what I put together, but of course am not replying to any of those and haven't seen the need to modify to include my direct reactions to them. Mostly in agreement with them, anyhoo...]

As I understood it (currently can't even find the BBC article I read this on[1]) indicated that anyone of any Trans status would basically be cut off (or ignored) for up to two years. And, amongst everything else, anyone who had any ranking as a woman, while competing as a woman (and having been AFAB), but was now a trans-man would retrospectively written out. As if future masculinity should disqualify their efforts.

So great is the male-advantage that apparently not only does one's natal masculinity over-ride complete top'n'bottom surgery plus hormones in this cerebral 'sport', but that the future reality of assuming extra masculinity makes everything a woman does effectively 'cheating'(!)... That's some really complicated 5D chess, for certain.

(Surely there's some good way to balance or compare these things, even if that were true.)


I support women's rights (under various needs) to establish man-free enclaves for various activities, but where someone has sufficiently becomes not-a-man then they surely earn/deserve the right to similar access to man-free environment. We can (and doubtless will) argue where that line of sufficiency exists for different circumstances (powerlifting, rape-crisis support, board games, video games, etc), but I don't understand ...or I do, but am very far from agreeing with certain opinions... why it is Ok for those who are already traditionally 'othered' to blanket-'other' yet another a sub-minority who would end up effectively exiled entirely from participation in any context.

If anything, I'd suggest unifying (fairly, taking into account opportunity if that's an identified thing) chessmastery of all levels. This isn't like tennis/etc where (apparently) there's no hope for equality and 'mixed singles' matches are considered an 'entertainment' that coupd certainly be taken as a humiliation for the loser (whichever one that is) if both players are even going to take it seriously. This was already a chess thing, anyway, for better or worse.

(Solutions of trans-class competition, with all the issues of para-competition classifications for a given 'impairement' but possibly pitting M2F vs F2M of various respective degrees as well as higher/lower levels of transition mixed within either individual category, would not be an 'answer', any more than just arranging for an adjudicated handicapping[2] system to make exceptional performances stand out exactly as much as they perhaps should do.)

It's all complicated but, for chess people, surely has a better outcome than I understand is currently under advisement.


[1] Their search system is terrible, a search for FIDE brings up an actual 25-year-old news report amongst other non-newsy stuff that's irrelevent. It doesn't appear under LGBT or Women category summaries, nor the Sport side-site (I'm confident I didn't see it there anyway), and all other searches.

[2] As in golf/horse-racing/time-trialling, and as applied to para/disability sport participation but not as in the reason for para/disability participation.

[Strongpoint]

So, your alternative is that everyone should be allowed to compete in the women's category after a simple "I transitioned" with no checks, no proofs, no prerequisites, no anything?
Up to 2 years to check is clearly excessive, but no checks at all is inviting chaos.

I'd bet you 20 USD I've got laying around here somewhere it wouldn't invite chaos is they just went, "Yeah, you are what you say you are."

The "check", here, is that publicly announcing you're transitioned or transitioning is not a bloody small thing. You probably aren't going to need organizational regulations on managing that, because society is going to do that job for you well damn enough.

Why the hell it is not a bloody small thing? What exactly can be done to a person who will openly go "I will legally change my gender to another one for two weeks to get benefits because there are no rules prohibiting me from doing so"?

Hey, if you give me enough incentive and an easy legal procedure to do this I'll "transition" back in forth as many times as necessary

We are not talking about faking transitioning which is not without cost, we are talking about not even needing to fake it because no proof is required

[Maximum Spin]

Why they are doing this instead of allowing it instantly? Well, it is obvious. MONEY. It is better to check if some male GM is actually transitioning or decided to grab some easy cash in a women-only tournament.

I mean. The eternal question pops up regarding shit propositions like that. Has that ever goddamn happened?

Has there ever, even once, been a case where a male GM decided all the abuse and frustration that comes from publicly claiming transitioning, nevermind the hellscreeching that would come from faking it, is worth the money from a tournament? Is there any grounds to think it would happen outside the delusions of transphobes?

There was a recent example a couple months ago, yes.

[MrRoboto75]

You'd think a game about pawns becoming queens would be more accepting.

[Starver]

Why the hell it is not a bloody small thing? What exactly can be done to a person who will openly go "I will legally change my gender to another one for two weeks to get benefits because there are no rules prohibiting me from doing so"?

Hey, if you give me enough incentive and an easy legal procedure to do this I'll "transition" back in forth as many times as necessary

This is when you review the 'accomplishments' of those who transitoned (to whatever degree), made  good profit from it then detransitioned. There are "bringing the sport into disrepute" rules that can be activated for anybody actually taking-the-proverbial in this way.

You don't just assume assume bad intent for everyone who makes an effort to change their status.

We are not talking about faking transitioning which is not without cost, we are talking about not even needing to fake it because no proof is required

In the long run, the proof is in the commitment. It all is. Even self-certification (available to various degrees in various jurisdictions) isn't just a case of hand-waving your status on a whim just like choosing a different jacket according to what the weather is on any given morning.


I imagine there are indeed those who would push things beyond what is strictly necessary, or even correct (and if not this way, then however else they can). But then there are those who will hold back and not act upon their true feelings if it means not having to battle against seemingly insurmountable opposition and actually have nowhere else to go.