LGBTAIitp Part 60: Still Going Strong

[Talakeal]

Thank you for the details. That was one of the events the twitter thread I mentioned was talking about.

[Anymage]

I mean every topic has uninformed people discussing it, and that is the hot topic in women's sports at the moment. If they are uninformed, surely it is best to point out their errors in their arguments, rather than make it about them as a person and their motives (which you can only ever guess at)?

"Uninformed" is ridiculously charitable to wide swaths of internet debate. The voices that get amplified are not the ones that are trying to exchange information in the hopes of improving their model of reality. You have a lot of people who are operating off of a completely different set of sources they consider authoritative, a lot of people who will outright lie to have "evidence" that backs their position, boatloads of people who are mostly interested in cherry-picking evidence that supports the narratives they want, and a culture that often considers annoying people until they go away in disgust as a win condition. Not to mention the sheer amount of times that people discuss certain issues as proxy issues for the point they really want to push; I'll again point out how rarely transphobes will discuss women's sports leagues when trans people are not topical, but will happily discuss any time a trans person is proximate to something bad happening. The overall focus does seem to be very much about trans people and why they're bad. (Whether that's part of a broader "trans bad because LGBT+ bad" or "trans bad because men bad" depends on the speaker.)

We could have a lot of discussion about how to defuse inflammatory voices while bringing more listeners to your own point of view. That requires a keen understanding of what proxy issues are being discussed and a willingness to go against inflammatory speakers who happen to be arguing specific points you agree with at the moment, though. Not going down a rabbit hole of whatever specific topic is being used to press the broader agenda at this particular moment.

Sporting bodies do discuss how they handle trans/intersex etc. Not publicly, but they do and it leads to the rules they have put in place. If those rules are working such that trans women don't have an advantage (as Rynjin seemed to say), then perhaps they have the rules right? What do you think?

If FIFA or the IOC were to come out, acknowledge that things like transgenderism, intersexuality, chimerism, and a host of other factors (including, if we're being honest, substances like steroids) caused them to place certain biochemical bounds on who could qualify for female events, I wouldn't be too bothered so long as those rules were expressed fairly. If anything I'd expect that trans women, who already take manufactured estrogen under medical supervision, to be less likely to be affected than cis women. I don't know how many rules exist and are currently enforced right now, but that's only because the whole kerfuffle about trans women in sports has only flared up relatively recently and there hasn't been enough time for measured talk that isn't pulled one way or another by political interests.

What has been seen is a lot of people who have tangential or no relationship to sporting bodies, making rules affecting people who have little or no relationship with actual competitive sports. (E.G: a school board commissioner trying to make rules about who is or is not allowed in girls' gym class.) Since the people and behaviors are a lot closer to the people passing bathroom laws, it's okay to look at the whole discussion in that light.

[Talakeal]

Hey look, coincidentally a transwoman just won a professional golf tournament for the second time in history, and bigots are coming out of the woodwork to denounce her (out of how many? I don't know, but I bet that its more than the 143 that would be the statistical average). It's funny, almost none of the rhetoric I am seeing actually claims she has an advantage, merely that she is a "biological man" and has no place in a women's league period.

This is pretty clearly not about fairness, but about erasure.

[Liquor Box]

I think a little more research needs to be done, because I think the research that's out mostly seems to say that trans women are proportionally under-represented in sports, and typically perform at or below the cis woman average. It remains to be seen WHY exactly this is; it could be just a generalized demographical disinterest in sports making trans athletes (when they're allowed to compete at all) fairly rare, but I feel like the "good" - if you can call it that - part of the general trans outrage is that if a trans woman (or women) meeting the standards already set had been blowing out records, even as a one-off fluke, we'd hear about it.

Everything I know of so far is similar to the marathon story that's being discussed. The trans woman athlete has a showing that is maybe kinda on the upper end of the record for cis women (but merely average or even below average for a male) and people blow it out of proportion.

I agree that it's something that needs to continue to be researched. I suspect that part of the problem is that the proliferation of trans persons who use drugs and surgery to change their bodies is relatively recent, meaning that current conclusions are a bit dicey.

So am I right that you support the current position of several sporting bodies, whereby trans women are allowed to compete, but must meet certain restrictions (testosterone levels etc etc), but think that exactly what those restrictions are need to be refined as better research conclusions become available. Because, if so, I think I agree.

I don't remember all of them, but there has to be a list somewhere. It's something I know has happened although it's not necessarily common. There is an example that happened in my lifetime: Zhang Shan winning the gold medal in skeet shooting in 1992:

Thank you for that. I can't understand the logic of segregating a sport like shooting.

"Uninformed" is ridiculously charitable to wide swaths of internet debate. The voices that get amplified are not the ones that are trying to exchange information in the hopes of improving their model of reality. You have a lot of people who are operating off of a completely different set of sources they consider authoritative, a lot of people who will outright lie to have "evidence" that backs their position, boatloads of people who are mostly interested in cherry-picking evidence that supports the narratives they want, and a culture that often considers annoying people until they go away in disgust as a win condition. Not to mention the sheer amount of times that people discuss certain issues as proxy issues for the point they really want to push; I'll again point out how rarely transphobes will discuss women's sports leagues when trans people are not topical, but will happily discuss any time a trans person is proximate to something bad happening. The overall focus does seem to be very much about trans people and why they're bad. (Whether that's part of a broader "trans bad because LGBT+ bad" or "trans bad because men bad" depends on the speaker.)

We could have a lot of discussion about how to defuse inflammatory voices while bringing more listeners to your own point of view. That requires a keen understanding of what proxy issues are being discussed and a willingness to go against inflammatory speakers who happen to be arguing specific points you agree with at the moment, though. Not going down a rabbit hole of whatever specific topic is being used to press the broader agenda at this particular moment.

You are talking about a different thing to me here. You seem to be talking about how to diffuse inflammatory voices. That's not the topic I'm addressing. I'm sure people on both extremes of the discussion are heavily invested and very sure they are correct, and perceive the other side as inflammatory. What I'm talking about is what the best way to address the complex and difficult issue (IMO) of trans women in women's sports. If there's a way I'm expressing my view which is inflammatory, I'm happy to address that, but talking about inflammatory things that other people might have said is notthe topic I'm on.

[Anymage]

You are talking about a different thing to me here. You seem to be talking about how to diffuse inflammatory voices. That's not the topic I'm addressing. I'm sure people on both extremes of the discussion are heavily invested and very sure they are correct, and perceive the other side as inflammatory. What I'm talking about is what the best way to address the complex and difficult issue (IMO) of trans women in women's sports. If there's a way I'm expressing my view which is inflammatory, I'm happy to address that, but talking about inflammatory things that other people might have said is notthe topic I'm on.

You're fine. I'm just highlighting how the topic has a lot of bad faith actors, and the discussion will be had in light of that fact. Your specific point (that relevant sporting bodies should gather information and then make their best judgements) isn't a problem. Especially if you also agree with the idea that exceptions should be specific carve outs due to overwhelming evidence, with the baseline for all other cases being treating trans people as their chosen gender.

[Liquor Box]

You're fine. I'm just highlighting how the topic has a lot of bad faith actors, and the discussion will be had in light of that fact. Your specific point (that relevant sporting bodies should gather information and then make their best judgements) isn't a problem. Especially if you also agree with the idea that exceptions should be specific carve outs due to overwhelming evidence, with the baseline for all other cases being treating trans people as their chosen gender.

I don't necessarily agree that evidence needs to be overwhelming, only a preponderance. It does strike me that scientific opinion is divided on this issue. People who think one thing think the science adequately debunk the 'bad faith actors' (to use your term) on the other, and vice versa. It may be that it becomes more settled in time, and we reach something approaching a consensus.

[Rynjin]

I agree that it's something that needs to continue to be researched. I suspect that part of the problem is that the proliferation of trans persons who use drugs and surgery to change their bodies is relatively recent, meaning that current conclusions are a bit dicey.

So am I right that you support the current position of several sporting bodies, whereby trans women are allowed to compete, but must meet certain restrictions (testosterone levels etc etc), but think that exactly what those restrictions are need to be refined as better research conclusions become available. Because, if so, I think I agree.

I definitely support the logic, but I will not pronounce wholehearted support of the exact methodology because to be honest I'm not sure exactly what metrics and restrictions they have in place or whether all of them are actually fair or not.

[TaiLiu]

Gotcha, we may have been. I was talking more to the hypothetical advantages that alarmists tend to try and assign to trans women, as "maintaining most of the advantages of being a man while presenting as a woman" or some such.

So in this hypothetical world where trans women lost zero muscle mass etc. post-transition, a trans woman and a cis woman of equal skill would be naturally "unequal". That dovetails into the idea that came up later that men are typically better suited to a lot of sports at the top level; football, basketball, wrestling, etc. There's an inherent physicality to a lot of these sports that creates a general imbalance.

It's an uncomfortable topic because it's a touchy one, and comes with baked in misconceptions that need to be addressed. Some deluded men will say "men are physically superior, no woman could beat a man at [sport]", which is where you get absurd things like 60% or whatever of men in a certain poll said they could take a game in a set off of Serena Williams, which is extremely silly.

But it's also worth noting that it is still a fact that women athletes in a lot of sports struggle to meet the same performance metrics as their male counterparts, hence the mostly segregated leagues.

It's easiest to judge this objectively in asynchronous sports, or however you'd like to call them. I dunno if there's a particular title. But sports where people are competing for a record rather than direct head-to-head competition. Stuff like sprinting, for example. The men's 100 meter dash record is 9.58 seconds, while the women's is 10.49, for instance. The latter has stood since 1988, and is equivalent to the men's record from 1911.

There's an inherent gap at the very highest levels that seemingly cannot be overcome by training and skill, and "the wall" for women athletes comes much sooner in a lot of sports. The exception is primarily "sports" which I'd classify more as skill-games; billiards, shooting, bowling, etc. which to my knowledge don't have any particular sex or gender-based gap in performance

So in the hypothetical world where trans women retained all or even a significant portion of that statistically-higher-on-average physicality, it would present issues with fairness.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. This helps a lot.

It's still pretty difficult for me to see why trans women would overwhelmingly (or even totally) dominate if they did have statistically-higher-on-average physicality. I could see them being statistically overrepresented, maybe.

It's also unclear why it would be unfair for a woman to have these advantages. Michael Phelps famously produces less lactic acid than most and has an unusually large wingspan. As the author says: "Competitive athletics are full of biological advantages, both massive and minute: I held multiple swimming records as a kid because of a glitch in my hip that granted me a sublime breaststroke."

Sorry if I am being vague, but again specific examples are likely to go against forum rules.

Immigrants. Vagrants / Nomads. Refugees. Religious converts. People who marry into a family / tribe. Heck, even people who transfer in from different schools, teams, or departments.

There is a human tendency to view these newcomers as outsiders who are not "really" part of the group they are joining and stealing space and or resources for the people who already "belong" to the group.

Obviously its not a universal, but it is a shockingly common viewpoint.

Oh, I see. Something like us versus them or in-group versus out-group. Yeah, it's a common feeling for sure.

I don't remember all of them, but there has to be a list somewhere. It's something I know has happened although it's not necessarily common. There is an example that happened in my lifetime: Zhang Shan winning the gold medal in skeet shooting in 1992:

Wow. That's just naked misogyny.

Hey look, coincidentally a transwoman just won a professional golf tournament for the second time in history, and bigots are coming out of the woodwork to denounce her (out of how many? I don't know, but I bet that its more than the 143 that would be the statistical average). It's funny, almost none of the rhetoric I am seeing actually claims she has an advantage, merely that she is a "biological man" and has no place in a women's league period.

This is pretty clearly not about fairness, but about erasure.

Yeah, those are broadly my feelings, too. It's not about fairness or women's rights, it's about transmisogyny and transphobia.

[Rydiro]

It's still pretty difficult for me to see why trans women would overwhelmingly (or even totally) dominate if they did have statistically-higher-on-average physicality. I could see them being statistically overrepresented, maybe.

The top of a field usually behaves differently from the average, statistically speaking. Minor average advantages usually lead to overrepresentation at the top level. This has to do with statistics and distributions.

For example, 1/3rd of women and 2/3 of men are above 170cm in height. A ratio of 1 woman to 2 men.
When you look at height above 185cm, its 1% women versus 30% men. That is a ratio of 1 woman to 30 men.

So the more you go to the extremes, the more pronounced the statistical effects of average advantages become. Usually.

[Rynjin]

The top of a field usually behaves differently from the average, statistically speaking. Minor average advantages usually lead to overrepresentation at the top level. This has to do with statistics and distributions.

For example, 1/3rd of women and 2/3 of men are above 170cm in height. A ratio of 1 woman to 2 men.
When you look at height above 185cm, its 1% women versus 30% men. That is a ratio of 1 woman to 30 men.

So the more you go to the extremes, the more pronounced the statistical effects of average advantages become. Usually.

Pretty much. Top athletes are by their nature unusual. You have to assume that everybody at that level is ridiculously skilled, and are roughly even on that front. So their edges are going to come from minor physical anomalies. Michael Phelps is a good swimmer because he has technique; he's a GREAT swimmer because he has a freakish mutant physique that gives him muscle distribution perfectly suited for swimming and webbed fingers.

[Liquor Box]

I see that swimming is intending to introduce a new category called the open category, in which trans people (as well as other non-binary) people can compete.

It's not clear to me whether (and how) they will stop normal men from entering the category and dominating it. Either entering both the men's race as well as the 'open' race, or men who don't quite qualify for the men's category entering the open category instead.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-...rlin-world-cup

What do people think of that as a solution?

[enderlord99]

I know this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but...

"Ace people can still have and/or want sex" is not a necessary defense of ace people. Don't treat it as one.

[Kesnit]

Sidenote: Transgender and cisgender (and their abbreviations) are adjectives. No hyphen needed (also "transwoman/transman" with no space is often considered offensive).

Wait, what?? I've seen (and been using) transman since I came out 17 years ago.

Yeah, exactly. I see them as adjectives, not prefixes.

Cis- and trans- are prefixes. The first time I saw them was in an organic chemistry class in college. They literally mean "same side" and "opposite side."

Calling someone a transgenderwoman, on the other hand, is a problem. Transgender is an adjective. But transwoman is grammatically correct.

[gomipile]

Wait, what?? I've seen (and been using) transman since I came out 17 years ago.



Cis- and trans- are prefixes. The first time I saw them was in an organic chemistry class in college. They literally mean "same side" and "opposite side."

Calling someone a transgenderwoman, on the other hand, is a problem. Transgender is an adjective. But transwoman is grammatically correct.

Are you in the UK? It's mostly a problem there.

Most of the people I've seen avoid using, say, "transwoman" have been doing so in solidarity with the struggle of trans people in the UK.

[BisectedBrioche]

Wait, what?? I've seen (and been using) transman since I came out 17 years ago.



Cis- and trans- are prefixes. The first time I saw them was in an organic chemistry class in college. They literally mean "same side" and "opposite side."

Calling someone a transgenderwoman, on the other hand, is a problem. Transgender is an adjective. But transwoman is grammatically correct.

Trans- and cis- are indeed prefixes, however in this usage they've been used to form the words transgender and cisgender.

Trans and cis in this case are informal abbreviations of those words, not prefixes.

[TaiLiu]

The top of a field usually behaves differently from the average, statistically speaking. Minor average advantages usually lead to overrepresentation at the top level. This has to do with statistics and distributions.

For example, 1/3rd of women and 2/3 of men are above 170cm in height. A ratio of 1 woman to 2 men.
When you look at height above 185cm, its 1% women versus 30% men. That is a ratio of 1 woman to 30 men.

So the more you go to the extremes, the more pronounced the statistical effects of average advantages become. Usually.

Sure, that seems plausible. I'm not sure it follows that trans woman would dominate if women's sports were more open, though.

I know this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but...

"Ace people can still have and/or want sex" is not a necessary defense of ace people. Don't treat it as one.

Sure, that seems right.

Cis- and trans- are prefixes. The first time I saw them was in an organic chemistry class in college. They literally mean "same side" and "opposite side."

Yes, that's right. But cis- and trans- are modifying "gender" or "sex." They aren't modifying "man" or "woman" or "person." Similarly, in "premature infant," pre- modifies "mature" and not "infant."

Hence "transgender woman" or "transsexual man," not "transwoman" or "transman." (And not "preinfant.")

Calling someone a transgenderwoman, on the other hand, is a problem. Transgender is an adjective. But transwoman is grammatically correct.

I agree that it's correct, but probably for different reasons than you do. As you know, I think it's strange grammatically. But trans people (like yourself) have used it and do use it. Which makes it correct.

I think "transperson" is an uncommon variant of "trans person," but I'm actually not sure. Playing with Google's Ngram Viewer and Google Trends suggests that "transperson" was about as common as "trans person" a couple of decades ago, but "trans person" seems commoner now. Curious if you or others have better data on this.

[TaiLiu]

Vaguely related: here's some transphobia in the chess world that's been happening recently.

[Coppercloud]

Vaguely related: here's some transphobia in the chess world that's been happening recently.

Wow, that's awful. Hopefully this decision will be abrogated before it comes into effect but anyway it sucks. Though it raises the question of why chess was gender-split in the first place? Genuine question by the way, if anyone here is knowledgeable about chess history.

[DeTess]

Wow, that's awful. Hopefully this decision will be abrogated before it comes into effect but anyway it sucks. Though it raises the question of why chess was gender-split in the first place? Genuine question by the way, if anyone here is knowledgeable about chess history.

As far as I could find it is mostly for demographics reasons. Far more men play competitive chess than women (I saw a number somewhere of only 15% or so of the competitive chess players being women), which results in more men at high levels than women at high levels, which means an open tournament would consist mainly of men. The creation of a women's league was to encourage women to take it up and giving them the opportunity to play in a environment with other women.

In other words, the creation of a women's league had nothing to do with men having an advantage at chess, and more just to encourage women (aka, a minority in the game) to play. Which makes this whole decision by the group governing tournaments even more horrible, as in addition to trying to drive a minority out of the game, they are also indirectly declaring they think people born male (AMAB? sorry, not up-to-date on the proper terms, apologies if I stated this in a way that was unintentionally insulting) have an intelligence advantage over cis-women.

[Anonymouswizard]

I know this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but...

"Ace people can still have and/or want sex" is not a necessary defense of ace people. Don't treat it as one.

What about the fact that non-ace people can actively desire not to have sex? Not that I think I've used it, but I do so what frequently end up arguing against 'men always want sex' statements and so it's probably what I'd default to.

Are you in the UK? It's mostly a problem there.

Most of the people I've seen avoid using, say, "transwoman" have been doing so in solidarity with the struggle of trans people in the UK.

Most trans people I know here either don't care about the lack of space or actively write it as a single word, but that might be because I'm a degenerate Southerner, mahogany mahogany.

[Coppercloud]

Spoiler: Hidden to spare some space

Show

As far as I could find it is mostly for demographics reasons. Far more men play competitive chess than women (I saw a number somewhere of only 15% or so of the competitive chess players being women), which results in more men at high levels than women at high levels, which means an open tournament would consist mainly of men. The creation of a women's league was to encourage women to take it up and giving them the opportunity to play in a environment with other women.

In other words, the creation of a women's league had nothing to do with men having an advantage at chess, and more just to encourage women (aka, a minority in the game) to play. Which makes this whole decision by the group governing tournaments even more horrible, as in addition to trying to drive a minority out of the game, they are also indirectly declaring they think people born male (AMAB? sorry, not up-to-date on the proper terms, apologies if I stated this in a way that was unintentionally insulting) have an intelligence advantage over cis-women.

Thanks for the reply! That's about what I thought. Which is still unsatisfying to me, as I don't think segregation is of any help at all.

Basically, if I understand the current system correctly, a woman in an unsegregated chess club/association/whatever won't be able to compete alongside most of the people she trained with, which doesn't help with motivation, and she will be in an even more masculine space since woman have their own clubs/associations/whatevers. So she is more or less forced into a "women-only" club, which might be miles further from her home because there are fewer women than men in high-level chess. How was any of this supposed to help with representation?

It just seems to me like the process creates unnecessary logistic issues. Feel free to correct me, either for my unfounded speculation or for my poor command of English.

[The_Snark]

Thanks for the reply! That's about what I thought. Which is still unsatisfying to me, as I don't think segregation is of any help at all.

Basically, if I understand the current system correctly, a woman in an unsegregated chess club/association/whatever won't be able to compete alongside most of the people she trained with, which doesn't help with motivation, and she will be in an even more masculine space since woman have their own clubs/associations/whatevers. So she is more or less forced into a "women-only" club, which might be miles further from her home because there are fewer women than men in high-level chess. How was any of this supposed to help with representation?

It just seems to me like the process creates unnecessary logistic issues. Feel free to correct me, either for my unfounded speculation or for my poor command of English.

You're not entirely wrong, but it's worth clarifying that chess tournaments aren't segregated in the sense of having a men's league and a women's league; most tournaments are open to anyone who can qualify. In practice, however, most of these open events are still overwhelmingly male-dominated, and that's a self-reinforcing tendency because a community where 19 out of 20 people are men tends to be pretty unwelcoming to anyone who isn't. The women's tournaments exist to give women a place to play where they don't have to deal with that. It's not ideal, but I'm not sure there's a good alternative - the demographic bias isn't something we can just decide to end.

[Coppercloud]

Yep, it's one of those complicated conundrums that an internet weirdo with no prior knowledge of the topics at hand like myself cannot solve in just five minutes of thought. Maybe even ten wouldn't suffice!

I understand the need of safe spaces, I just fear that the very existence of a separate women's league might give a pretext to toxic people to go all "You don't belong here, there's a separate league for women". But at the end of the day, gatekeepers and bigots will always find a "reason" to argue.

It just seems weird, logistically, to have two leagues when there doesn't seem to be any intrinsic performance advantage. Plus, as always, the question of how trans and intersex people are treated by the rules. Hence my preference for the seemingly simplest solution, but then again, I don't know anything about the subject.

[DataNinja]

I understand the need of safe spaces, I just fear that the very existence of a separate women's league might give a pretext to toxic people to go all "You don't belong here, there's a separate league for women". But at the end of the day, gatekeepers and bigots will always find a "reason" to argue.

Yeah, those toxic people don't really need a pretext - in general, they'll be just as "you don't belong here", period. Even if not in those exact words, it's very easy for communities to make people who they don't feel belong extremely uncomfortable. I speak from experience.

[137beth]

The German Chess Federation, the French Chess Federation, the US Chess Federation, and the English Chess Federation all announced they will be ignoring the FIDE's new guidelines.

[TaiLiu]

Wow, that's awful. Hopefully this decision will be abrogated before it comes into effect but anyway it sucks. Though it raises the question of why chess was gender-split in the first place? Genuine question by the way, if anyone here is knowledgeable about chess history.

Yeah, I dunno. It surprises me, too.

The German Chess Federation, the French Chess Federation, the US Chess Federation, and the English Chess Federation all announced they will be ignoring the FIDE's new guidelines.

Glad to hear!

[Liquor Box]

The German Chess Federation, the French Chess Federation, the US Chess Federation, and the English Chess Federation all announced they will be ignoring the FIDE's new guidelines.

Given that some national associations have disagreed with the FIDE approach, I wondered if FIDE might be be based in Russia (and therefore have a Russian perspective on issues like these) since Russia is so dominant in chess. But it's not, it's Swiss. Interesting that they've taken such a different perspective from those other Euro/Anglo countries.

[Lissou]

It's a complex issue (the reason for female-only chess, not the recent thing about excluding trans women while also excluding trans men, that's just plain stupid). Girls aren't really encouraged to pursue chess. When they do it's often despite everyone rather than with their support. Then they go through hoops and are told every step of the way that they don't belong. So many of them don't make it as far as men do. And those who do have to deal with decades of receiving less support and less encouragement than they would have as boys. Then the enter tournaments and because of the discrepancy they have basically zero chance getting a title. Like, the best female player right now is ranked behind over 100 men.

So they created female-only tournaments to try and encourage women, tell they it's okay for them to play chess too, that they're welcome, that they can do it in a place where they won't have to deal with sexist remarks and so on. But those don't get as much funding, don't get as much attention, and so the whole thing gets perpetuated in a different way. It becomes a "lesser tournament" if you will. And you're in a position where female players can join the open tournament and know there probably won't get anywhere or join the female tournament and get titles that people won't respect much.

Any solution needs to make changes that are so big, we can't just hope for them to happen but they would cost a fortune to implement by "force". I mean it's basically the definition of the long-lasting consequences of a systemic discrimination even once we try to fix said discrimination.

So long story short, that's why there are separate tournaments and it's difficult to know if it's helping or hurting in the long run.

[BisectedBrioche]

Given that some national associations have disagreed with the FIDE approach, I wondered if FIDE might be be based in Russia (and therefore have a Russian perspective on issues like these) since Russia is so dominant in chess. But it's not, it's Swiss. Interesting that they've taken such a different perspective from those other Euro/Anglo countries.

It's more likely that those individual countries have antidiscrimination laws that would make the policy unenforceable.

I know for a fact that the English association tweeted that excluding trans women would run afoul of the Equality Act in a few ways. Even aside from direct discrimination against trans folk, it would require the disclosure of personal information to enforce, plus the implication that trans men would only get their titles back if they de-transitioned could easily be seen as any number of violations, especially if bans on conversion therapy go through.

[LaZodiac]

It's a complex issue (the reason for female-only chess, not the recent thing about excluding trans women while also excluding trans men, that's just plain stupid). Girls aren't really encouraged to pursue chess. When they do it's often despite everyone rather than with their support. Then they go through hoops and are told every step of the way that they don't belong. So many of them don't make it as far as men do. And those who do have to deal with decades of receiving less support and less encouragement than they would have as boys. Then the enter tournaments and because of the discrepancy they have basically zero chance getting a title. Like, the best female player right now is ranked behind over 100 men.

So they created female-only tournaments to try and encourage women, tell they it's okay for them to play chess too, that they're welcome, that they can do it in a place where they won't have to deal with sexist remarks and so on. But those don't get as much funding, don't get as much attention, and so the whole thing gets perpetuated in a different way. It becomes a "lesser tournament" if you will. And you're in a position where female players can join the open tournament and know there probably won't get anywhere or join the female tournament and get titles that people won't respect much.

Any solution needs to make changes that are so big, we can't just hope for them to happen but they would cost a fortune to implement by "force". I mean it's basically the definition of the long-lasting consequences of a systemic discrimination even once we try to fix said discrimination.

So long story short, that's why there are separate tournaments and it's difficult to know if it's helping or hurting in the long run.

Incidentally this is why there's practically any gendered sports at all. Thanks for explaining it very well!