The international chess federation known as FIDE has published new rules that state that a person whose “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”.

The new rules introduce the following changes:

  • Trans women cannot participate in the women’s category unless they are explicitly allowed in a case-by-case process that can take up to two years.
  • Trans men will be stripped of their titles achieved before their transition while trans women will retain their titles achieved before their transition.
  • In case a trans person is allowed to participate, their trans condition will be added to their files and communicated to events organizers.
  • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    as no logical sense can possibly be made of this, the only rational conclusion is:

    cruelty is the point.

  • chuso@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some people are questioning why there are gender-specific categories in chess.

    That’s a good question and my understanding is that there is only a female category and then the general one where both men and women can participate. The female one seems to have been created to encourage the participation of women due to the general one being monopolized by men.

    You may agree or not with that reasoning and I am not trying to take any stance on it, just trying to answer the questions on why they created a gender-specific category in the first place.

    I am not really into chess competitions and my understanding of this point is based on explanations I saw from others elsewhere, so I may be wrong.

    • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, these categories are not a reflection of physical (or in this case mental abilities) but to give women a chance to shine in a mostly male dominated field. The problem is that when one side has bias in it’s favor, or is simply more prevalent in the competition, they get way over-represented and it discourages people from the other side(s) to join in since it seem futile.

      I think maybe a good way to get rid of this problem is for competition to feature more categories. In chess, for example, you could have categories and tournaments like youngest, newest to the game, underdogs, etc. which are more likely to feature a variety of players.

  • LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is obvious that men, with they physically stronger bodies and larger frames, are better than women at chess. It would be unfair to them to compete with eachother, since the male brain is the bigger muscle. /s

    In all seriousness, I see absolutely no point in gender divisions in chess of all things.

    • branchial@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The gender division is because women on average are worse than men at chess and likely to be eliminated in a tournament early on if they manage to qualify at all.

      This is because chess is a boys club where men and boys get better training and have an easier time advancing and practicing then women.

      The best way to get better at chess however are tournaments, where you can play your equal under a stressful and emotional context. Since women can’t advance as well as men because of discrimination, they wouldnt be able to play tournaments making it even more difficult to advance their game.

      The women’s league are created so that women can play in tournaments, get practice, get better and be able to play in the big boy tournaments as well as a creating an environment where sexual harrasment, which is also a problem at the main tournaments, is mitigated.

      Edit TL;DR women’s league are there because women chess players typically get sidelined. Its basically affirmative action.

      • emma@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So a protected category for women only, because of social factors rather than inherent physical differences.

        This makes some sense to me based on my own experiences in other areas like mathematics and science competitions. The boys in my school who knew me were mostly alright but it was still a very strange environment to be a teenage girl in. I was always keenly aware of being an outsider. And it was so much worse in rooms full of strangers at competitions. Intimidating and overwhelming.

        For all that I was consistently at or near the top in our school, I always fell at the outside competitions. Felt horrible too, that I was letting everyone down. I was too young to understand the sexism at play so I just beat myself up about it and stopped participating.

        In general, I support protected categories for women. We haven’t come anywhere near far enough in reducing sexism to make them unnecessary. I don’t know if it’s a big enough issue with trans women in competitive chess to make this sort of ruling. It might have the balance wrong. But it would be good if there was more understanding of what these kinds of environments can be like for cis girls and women.

        • branchial@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Right, so the transphobic fear the FIDE has is that men might try to exploit a loophole by “posing” as trans. So they have these severe restrictions on who might be considered transitioned, why they will “alert” tournaments that someone is trans, why they require legal proof of transitioning before giving in and why they’re stripping trans men of their titles (so that if a cis man manages circumvent all these protection by successfully posing as a trans woman and having won all these titles transitions back, he no longer has them).

          It’s the same trans-panic as in so many other sport federations. Severe legislation hurting trans people trying to pre-empt a completely made up cheating scenario.

          edit: (hopefully) clarified the wording

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes sense, but… isn’t the “International Chess Federation”, the actual big boy tournament?

        • branchial@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it’s the federation which hosts many tournaments amongst them the “big boy tournament”, the World Chess Championship, and parallel to that the Womens World Chess Championship.

    • Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah. I was reminded of the sports “debate” as well. Chess is one of the sports where you wonder why they have a gender division in the first place. Are they afraid of loosing to trans people or women (cis and trans)?

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The women’s division exists because when the world of chess begrudgingly started to accept women at all, the massive amount of sexism discouraged women from actually playing and competing. So the other division exists to allow them to be acknowledged as players and be able to participate with a (reduced) amount of sexism driving women away.

        So same reason there are colleges for women and black folks, they were established because they were either excluded or driven out of existing institutions.

    • Gormadt@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course they are, the pieces are super manly in the men’s games. Made of concrete for extra ruggedness and painted manly colors, nothing bright or cheerful as far as the eye could see. And the chairs they sit in are also super manly no comfort at all. All played on a manly tactical chessboard. /S

      Seriously though this whole decision just screams “cruelty is the point” and no concept of equality.

      • Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m especially fascinated by the gendered difference in whether you get to keep your titles. So transitioning one way means you keep your chess muscles? But not the other? Transness itself isn’t the problem then?? I’d love to hear them attempt to justify that rule.

        • emma@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They seem to be applying the correct gender retroactively, with a key difference being that there’s a women’s protected category and an open category. Women, cis or trans, can play in the open category so change in gender status for someone who competed as if they were a man (and thus necessarily in the open category) is irrelevant to the titles.

          At present I’m inclined to disagree with this apparent retroactive application so I’m not defending this, just explaining my understanding of their thinking. It’s about open and protected categories. If it was men’s only and women’s only, it would be different.

  • HiDiddlyDoodlyHo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ah, yes, because being trans definitely has a bearing on whether or not you’re good at chess. These totally aren’t just explicitly transphobic policies enacted by bigoted old men. I would also like to point out that the current president of FIDE is the former deputy prime minister of Russia. Not that Russian people are all transphobic, but I wonder if some of Putin’s influence isn’t in this decision.

  • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Jesus christ do they not edit these things before they press release them? If a trans masc person comes out he’ll lose his titles in the women’s category, but if he detransitions he’ll get them back? Fantastic they came up with rules specifically for the less than 1% of people who detransition. If a detransitioner were to win titles, then transition then detransition. They had to get that out there lest anyone claim they’re being unfair 🙄

    What is the implication here?? That trans woman are not socially disadvantaged enough by misogyny to qualify as deserving access to the women’s category? Trans women. Quite possibly the most vilified people in society. Who suffer from the same systems of misogyny. If a cis woman had grown up in a society that prized female chess players would she also be excluded from the women’s category? If we’re considering some kind of “how discouraged from playing chess were you” based trans exclusionary rule, why is that same rule not being applied equally to cisgender women?

    I am so fucking tired of people acting like trans women have any kind of social advantage in literally any context. We meet hatred and violence at every single level of society. A trans woman playing in the “open” (see men’s) category of chess would face that exact same discrimination and hatred the moment she achieved any kind of recognition for herself. Look at any trans athlete. They act like we get deified or something, when the reality is the moment we achieve anything we’re essentially forced to retire immediately to stop the endless onslaught of hatred and harassment that is immediately directed at us.

    • StringTheory@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The misogyny is so hefty. “Men are inherently better at everything than women, women are inherently worse at everything than men. Trans women are men, therefore inherently better than all other women at everything and must be disqualified…”

      I wish I could remember the quote (and who said it) about how all the various forms of sex/gender/orientation hate boil down to misogyny. It was erudite and extremely effective.

    • RickRussell_CA@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I need clarification. What does “social advantage” have to do with chess performance, or the restricted competition class of women’s chess?

      • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the case of professional chess, the social advantage men have is not being relentlessly bullied, harassed, and condescended to for their gender. It should be quite obvious that this is not an advantage that a trans woman would have.

  • I’m going to lock this thread. There’s a lot of the same old tired arguments about trans women in women’s sports, and quite frankly, we have been getting a lot of reports on this. Especially now that it’s mostly run its course, it’s not really worth it to keep it open.

  • Peachy [they/them] @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s because only trans people can en passant. Too strong.

    No but seriously this is blatant transphobia. There’s no reason for this ruling. Stripping titles is just salt in the wound, wtf.

    • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s almost certainly transphobia, but it can also be considered misogyny because he’s implying that AMAB people have an inherent advantage over women.

  • ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Um … what does gender or gender identity have to do with advantages or disadvantages in chess. Of all competitions where this is absolutely meaningless, surely Chess has to be nearly top of that list.

  • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    See, I can see the arguments for this for like physical sports. And to be clear I fully support trans people but I can understand how being born male can give you certain advantages in physical sports that make it unfair towards women who were born female. I don’t know the right answer for how to handle it, but I can see how the complaints make sense.

    But fucking chess? Come on what the hell advantage do people amab have over cis women in chess? This is bigotry pure and simple.

    • fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason for gendered distinctions in chess is entirely social, ostensibly because boys are pushed toward chess more than girls. This ruling is entirely bizarre, imo

    • sarsaparilyptus@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their motivation essentially boils down to “We have to separate them to protect women from the terrifying power of the superior male intellect”.

  • Rentlar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Edit: In this comment I try to rationalize FIDE’s decision, but in my other replies I come to the conclusion that it hurts transgender people much more than it helps women as a group.

    The “open” tournament is where the best chess player among men, women, both, neither, and everything under the sun can compete. In my opinion, everything outside of that the “who’s the best X” is based on arbitrary conditions of what qualifies as X, and doesn’t reflect on whether people in group X are inherent any better or worse than anyone outside that limited group.

    Women and members of LGBTQ+ should be encouraged to join the chess world as it’s not a physical sport and anyone can become the best, so these rules support that. There should be a trans-person league as well if there’s sufficient interest, but FIDE has every right to make rules to limit who enters the “woman” tournament, without needing to imply that men are inherently better or worse than women at chess.

    I absolutely understand that this sounds like a TERF-y line of argument even though I strongly believe trans women ARE women and vice versa, there are TERFs among women who wouldn’t want to take up chess because the space is so dominated by male players by the numbers. The “case-by-case” view is arbitrary to me which I’d like to see a more transparent process, but I think at the end of the day FIDE can disqualify anyone out of any tournament for any reason and this at least provides an avenue for trans women to potentially participate. Rule 4.1 that trans men lose their titles of “best woman” is consistent with the idea that trans men are men, because post-transition they shouldn’t be considered women anymore, by my understanding.

    Anyways, I don’t mean to barge in to blindly spout transphobic views. In the spirit of healthy discussion I welcome people to disagree with me and give me insight on how FIDE can balance being more inclusive while promoting all genders to participate in chess.

    • UngodlyAudrey🏳️‍⚧️@beehaw.org
      shield
      M
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, this does sound very TERF-y. I have gotten three reports on this already in just ten minutes. FIDE’s ruling others us for no damn reason. Their argument boils down to “AMAB people tend to have more practice at chess”, which is a ridiculous reason to exclude us for.

      • Rentlar@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve thought about it for a bit, see my other reply to @EsteeBestee.

        I’ve ultimately come to the conclusion that really these rules are to protect the comfort of TERFs, and to be the most inclusive, FIDE shouldn’t concern themselves on what TERFs think a “real woman” should be like.

        I’ve made an honest attempt to find a rationale that supports inclusivity in FIDE’s decision but after some consideration I realize it weighs much more against transgender rights than it supports women’s rights.

    • EsteeBestee@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FIDE’s ruling on trans men shows they “think trans men are men” (they probably don’t actually, but that’s what the ruling implies), yet they then ban trans women from women’s competitions, meaning they don’t think trans women are women, by implication. This ruling isn’t consistent, isn’t fair, nor does it actually accomplish anything besides driving out a minority group who already have a tough enough time just existing in the first place. It’s also not even fair to trans men to strip their titles, as they likely won those titles when they didn’t know they were a man.

      The ruling here is in no way reasonable, IMO. It exists to hurt people and does nothing else. Trans women need women’s spaces just as much as cis women do and banning trans women from women’s spaces does not “protect the women” like some people cite for rulings like this, it just further alienates trans people. If someone gets bent out of shape because a trans person exists in the same space as them, they can go fuck themselves, that’s their problem, not a trans person’s problem.

      I heavily disagree with you saying “and this at least provides an avenue for trans women to potentially participate” considering before this ruling, trans women could already play in both women’s tournaments and open tournaments and now are banned from women’s tournaments. It’s the opposite of being inclusive. If you’re a trans woman, would you want to go play chess if you’re specifically told that you can’t play in women’s only spaces? No, you probably wouldn’t even start. This new ruling specifically exists to discourage trans women from competing by othering them and saying they aren’t woman enough to go play with the other women.

      The best way for the FIDE to be inclusive is to continue just having open and women’s spaces as usual and not fuck with trans people’s ability to exist in spaces consistent with their gender. There were no problems being caused before, this ruling isn’t fixing anything, it’s just hurting people.