Print

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

[McTraveller]

I feel like the solution here is: no divisions, just a single competition environment. You aren't in the top of humanity, you aren't gonna win.  Sorry if you can't compete with the pros.  Basketball? Yeah sorry unless you have mad shooting skills or something you're not competing with the 7-foot giants.  Chess? Unless you have a mutant brain, you aren't competing.

Interestingly this doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality, just artificial divisions/brackets in competitions.

[TD1]

Technically a fair system, but in practice it'd probably discourage participation among the groups which, frankly, would not be represented. Women aren't gonna feature highly in the arm-wrestling lists, and besides which not every competition is between the superlatives in society.

I'm more in favour of multiple competitions across the spectrum of humanity than one competition between the min-maxed of society.

As a potentially incendiary (for this thread) statement: but yea, where there are categories based on sex we shouldn't let gender determine diddly-squat.

[Strongpoint]

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.

When someone applies for disability benefits, you don't just assume bad intent and check if they actually have a disability...

When someone applies for a position of a neurosurgeon you don't just assume a fraud, let them work, and then, if they kill somebody... After all, why would anyone pretend to be a neurosurgeon?


It is exactly the same logic.

If you claim that you are X and want to get some right, benefit or privilege associated with this status, you should prove that you are actually X. Merely stating "I am X" is not enough. It is how human society works. At least how it should work.

[Starver]

...in the UK "checking if you deserve to have disability benefits" is a sore point, to many who do (yet, because they can "walk 10 metres" on the day of the test or "have been known to have a day without pain" are denied them - or for some reason it appears they're tested for everything but the blindness that causes them life difficulties). But that's just irrelevent to this.

As is the continued assertion that self-certification is ever the totality of the right to access a privilidged pigeonhole. self-certification is just the statement of intent. To what extent that intent is accepted and catered for is a matter of the next stage(s) of the process, ideally. In some instances, considerations may indeed allow that person to operate within their target gender (e.g. be immediately relisted in the company directory under your new identity), in others you would be required to effectively undergo medical intervention (e.g. have sanctioned levels of the relevent hormones, at the very least, to be able to compete in physical events).

Between these, somewhere, would lie the case of chess. Should.

And the confusion seems to be as to why such apparently exclusionary (and somehow retrospective) changes are necessary. Even if you want to stop any random Hank Manly from sitting across a chessboard from Barbara Flighty and asserting that they (both) are playing for "women's points". Or however it is decided that this works.

I suggest no solutions here, but try to explain why one absolutist opinion is as ridiculous as the other.

[MaxTheFox]

I feel like the solution here is: no divisions, just a single competition environment. You aren't in the top of humanity, you aren't gonna win.  Sorry if you can't compete with the pros.  Basketball? Yeah sorry unless you have mad shooting skills or something you're not competing with the 7-foot giants.  Chess? Unless you have a mutant brain, you aren't competing.

Interestingly this doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality, just artificial divisions/brackets in competitions.

Yeah, this.

Also, becoming a super GM in chess isn't as much intelligence (though you need to have this specific kind of intelligence, pattern recognition, be above average) as playing chess for hours a day since like 4 years of age. I'd wager that parents are less likely to do that to girls than to buys for a variety of reasons. That's why there are few female super GMs.

[Strongpoint]

I feel like the solution here is: no divisions, just a single competition environment. You aren't in the top of humanity, you aren't gonna win.  Sorry if you can't compete with the pros.  Basketball? Yeah sorry unless you have mad shooting skills or something you're not competing with the 7-foot giants.  Chess? Unless you have a mutant brain, you aren't competing.

Interestingly this doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality, just artificial divisions/brackets in competitions.

It is a totalitarian "solution" that will hurt millions to... to achieve what exactly? Is it just to avoid a modest amount of problems caused by the fact that when there are categories, people will disagree on who goes into which category?

For example, as much as I dislike the corrupt mess of Paralympic sport, it is far better than saying all people with disability - Nah, guys and girls, you don't have any right to compete. And if you dare to make your own league\competition you'll deal with the Law (if you ban anything, you need to enforce it, otherwise it is not a ban)


Let's say FIDE goes tomorrow for "Alright, pals. From now on. No more women-only tournaments under FIDE." Do you think no one else will try to organize women-only tournaments? And then we'll still have transwomen wanting to compete there. Problem stays.

[Frumple]

Let's say FIDE goes tomorrow for "Alright, pals. From now on. No more women-only tournaments under FIDE." Do you think no one else will try to organize women-only tournaments? And then we'll still have transwomen wanting to compete there. Problem stays.

It's remarkable how difficult it would be to phrase that worse. Women wanting to compete in a competition for women is a problem, alright. Not with anyone competing or wanting to compete, but it damn sure highlights a problem

[Maximum Spin]

Let's say FIDE goes tomorrow for "Alright, pals. From now on. No more women-only tournaments under FIDE." Do you think no one else will try to organize women-only tournaments? And then we'll still have transwomen wanting to compete there. Problem stays.

It's remarkable how difficult it would be to phrase that worse. Women wanting to compete in a competition for women is a problem, alright. Not with anyone competing or wanting to compete, but it damn sure highlights a problem

The problem is that different people mean different things by "women", and having different definitions for words isn't wrong, it just indicates you are not speaking the same dialect.

ETA: You know, honestly, I think the only viable conclusion to draw here is that chess is technically a sport and therefore this discussion should have been banned under the OP rules. Let me just check who's to blame for starting it... *cough*

[Strongpoint]

Let's say FIDE goes tomorrow for "Alright, pals. From now on. No more women-only tournaments under FIDE." Do you think no one else will try to organize women-only tournaments? And then we'll still have transwomen wanting to compete there. Problem stays.

It's remarkable how difficult it would be to phrase that worse. Women wanting to compete in a competition for women is a problem, alright. Not with anyone competing or wanting to compete, but it damn sure highlights a problem

Maximum Spin answered for me. The reality is that people have different opinions of who goes into the category "women chess players". You may dislike it but it is the REALITY. And people will need to reach a compromise. Or not and then some group will stay unsatisfied believing that they deserve more. It is called politics.

If you expect that the majority will accept all demands of the minority and completely bend backward... I have news for you. It is not how human society works. Try compromises and persuasion.

And as I said, I see FIDE rules change as very pro-trans, as something that gives more opportunities for transgender chess players and something that goes against desires of a lot of national chess federations and many players. I find it INSANE that it is under flak for not going straight for "OK, anyone can change their chess gender any moment they please!"

[Maximum Spin]

I spent a long time adding this in as an edit to my post and then I saw that you'd posted after me, so I'm gonna put it here to make sure people see it.
Edit more:
I noticed this line in the process:

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

This is not true.
The rule says that, if you are a "woman grandmaster" (or whatever), and you choose to register as a man, then, no longer being a "woman", you cannot, obviously, be a "woman grandmaster" anymore. Since "woman grandmaster" is scored on a lower threshold than "grandmaster" due to female players having generally lower scores, you aren't a plain old unqualified "grandmaster" either, unless you have qualified for that separately. However, the "woman" category titles can be exchanged for unqualified titles of equal or lesser score; for example, a "woman grandmaster" is equal to the unqualified "FIDE master" level and can be converted into it freely. The "woman" titles are also restored if the player decides to register as a "woman" again. If the player has unqualified titles already, those titles are not changed. This is pretty straightforward and difficult to question: a "woman grandmaster" must be a "woman", by definition. There are no "man" qualified titles - the unqualified titles are actually open to anyone - so there are no titles to change if someone who was registered as a "man" becomes registered as a "woman".
Wouldn't the problem actually be if someone who was no longer registered as a "woman" were still called "woman grandmaster"?

[Starver]

I find it INSANE that it is under flak for not going straight for "OK, anyone can change their chess gender any moment they please!"

I find it insane that THIS is your interpretation of it. You seem convinced of it, though.

[MaxTheFox]

All this kind of discourse, over a year or so, accomplished to me is change my opinion to "there should be no gender segregation in sports altogether". Yeah it does mean that in many sports women don't have a chance to be "the best", but you don't see a separate league for short people in basketball, or slow-footed people in the 100m sprint, so why does it matter? Not everyone can be "the best", that is a fact.

[Maximum Spin]

All this kind of discourse, over a year or so, accomplished to me is change my opinion to "there should be no gender segregation in sports altogether". Yeah it does mean that in many sports women don't have a chance to be "the best", but you don't see a separate league for short people in basketball, or slow-footed people in the 100m sprint, so why does it matter? Not everyone can be "the best", that is a fact.

Paralympics too?

I mean, I'm completely fine with this in theory, but as long as there's money to be made offering female leagues — and there will definitely always be money to be made for sufficiently bouncy sports, at least — people are going to organize them, unless you plan on shooting them for it.

[Strongpoint]

All this kind of discourse, over a year or so, accomplished to me is change my opinion to "there should be no gender segregation in sports altogether". Yeah it does mean that in many sports women don't have a chance to be "the best",

Let's assume this will be done. The IOC will gather and say - No more male\female separation! It is an outdated sexist idea. The goal of the sport is to find the strongest among all humans.

But what do you propose to do when other entities will start organizing leagues and competitions for women? Make it illegal?

but you don't see a separate league for short people in basketball, or slow-footed people in the 100m sprint, so why does it matter? Not everyone can be "the best", that is a fact.

We do see weight categories in many sports. Exactly because otherwise a 60kg guy wouldn't be able to meaningfully compete in boxing or weightlifting. Why it is not done in more sports? Not as large of a difference and no demand from athletes and\or spectators.

[MaxTheFox]

I mean, I'm completely fine with this in theory, but as long as there's money to be made offering female leagues — and there will definitely always be money to be made for sufficiently bouncy sports, at least — people are going to organize them, unless you plan on shooting them for it.

Let's assume this will be done. The IOC will gather and say - No more male\female separation! It is an outdated sexist idea. The goal of the sport is to find the strongest among all humans.

But what do you propose to do when other entities will start organizing leagues and competitions for women? Make it illegal?

Let them be, I suppose. My gut says they will have less support than the "official" option because people flock to official things. If it doesn't work out and the IOC starts falling apart then I guess go back to the drawing board. Worth a try!

Paralympics too?

We do see weight categories in many sports. Exactly because otherwise a 60kg guy wouldn't be able to meaningfully compete in boxing or weightlifting. Why it is not done in more sports? Not as large of a difference and no demand from athletes and\or spectators.

Paralympics are fine, most disabled athletes can't compete in any kind of entertaining or safe way against able athletes-- imagine if a soccer team had the goalie be on a wheelchair. Same for weight categories in combat sports like boxing. Real life isn't Punch Out!! and a physically small person doesn't stand a chance against a larger fighter. In other sports there's not as much of a difference, even in basketball it is mitigable to an extent (at least mitigable enough to approach fairness) unless you have dwarfism or something.