World chess organization bans transgender players from women's events because of "unfair advantages"
15 Likes
Why though? Why insert all this ugly complexity at all? Why not just let trans women compete as women, trans men compete as men, and anyone who has transitioned after winning a prize gets to keep that prize as a part of their pre-transition life?
17 Likes
Jealousy 
9 Likes
That must be it, because I am fucking awesome.
17 Likes
12 Likes
Or they’re just misogynists
12 Likes
When it comes to Chess, Russian influence is THE factor… always.
This is dumb and bad and it shouldn’t be happening. It’s fucking chess. There’s no need to overthink this decision, it’s wrong.
6 Likes
Edit: others upthread said what I said better and more succinctly. This ruling is terrible, as all things TERFy are.
6 Likes
To add, I think it’s worth pointing out that not a single one of these sports or games is actually being taken over by trans people. All these calls for cis women’s leagues, somehow never named that, are based on pure hypotheticals about trans women being different. That alone should be enough to clue people in that their real motivation is not being fair to anyone.
In my experience trans people do have some advantage in one area – understanding gender, since few cis people have had to consider it as much. I wish we could defer to the actual experts on it.
13 Likes
It’s probably been said somewhere above in the 50+ comments - but the only reason matches are separated by sex is too many men would lose their shit if they lost to a woman.
12 Likes
The same thing that most organizations based around assigned sex do – ignore them and hope they go away.
10 Likes
Yep, Mindy beat you to it.
9 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.
“inter-gender differences emerge only under stereotype-reactivating conditions“
“Our results also reveal that the within-gender differences that derived from academic specialization (STEM vs. HUM) are larger than those observed between genders.”
“Given their high replicability, males-females’ differences in MRT performance have been traditionally regarded as “sex differences” in visuospatial competence that arise from brain specializations imposed by the organizing actions of testosterone during prenatal development (Grimshaw et al., 1995; Baron-Cohen, 2004; Kempel et al., 2005; Peters et al., 2007; Vuoksimaa et al., 2010) and/or from the sexual division of labor in human early evolutionary history (Silverman and Eals, 1992; Silverman et al., 2007). However, despite its popularity both inside and outside the scientific realm, the empirical evidence that supports these views is far from conclusive (Fausto-Sterling, 2003; Jones et al., 2003; Jordan-Young, 2010). Indeed, there is a poor correlation between visuospatial abilities and the indirect indices of prenatal testosterone exposure (Puts et al., 2008) and the “sex differences” regularly observed in this cognitive domain are moderated by subjects’ age (Geiser et al., 2008; Titze et al., 2010), experience and training (Uttal et al., 2012) as well as by task-related factors [e.g., time constrains (Voyer, 2011; Maeda and Yoon, 2013; kinds of stimuli (Alexander and Evardone, 2008; Ruthsatz et al., 2017)]. Furthermore, the biological and socio-cultural factors traditionally assigned to sex and gender are irremediably entangled and, in practice, it is not possible to separate their relative contribution to males and females’ behaviors as they form a complex set of intertwined influences, referred to as sex/gender (Fausto-Sterling, 2003; Kaiser et al., 2009; Springer et al., 2012). Accordingly, the study of behavioral and cognitive similarities, and the differences between females and males, require more complex and integrative formulations than those provided by traditional categorical divides (e.g., male vs. female; biological vs. social, etc.), and should incorporate the interactions among predisposing, experiential and situational variables (Jordan-Young and Rumiati, 2012; Springer et al., 2012; Rippon et al., 2014).“
“ Results
Explicit Beliefs and Implicit Associations
H1: The participants, especially those of groups with gender-major stereotypic combinations, will hold explicit beliefs and implicit associations that preferentially link science to males and humanities to females.”
“ Our main results can be summarized as follows: (1) university students hold explicit beliefs and implicit associations that preferentially link science to males and humanities to females; (2) participants’ science-related beliefs and associations vary according to an academic specialization (STEM vs. humanities) per gender interaction; (3) under experimental conditions specifically aimed to nullify or counteract these participants’ stereotypic beliefs and associations, academic specialization was the only relevant predictor of 3DMRT performance; (4) when the received experimental instructions reactivated participants’ stereotypes on gender-visuospatial abilities, explicit beliefs and, more significantly, gender-science implicit associations, were able to affect 3DMRT performance; (5) changes in confidence mediated these effects and academic specialization moderated them.”
To cut to the chase - sexism exists in the design of experiments and affects the results of those poorly designed studies.
Or - you got sexism in my science and the differences between women and men in spatialization studies are more artifacts of the design than meaningful. The differences within the subgroups men & women are way larger than between them.
Culture matters. Because we’re humans.
14 Likes
I once house sat at a house that was used every Wednesday to hold Mensa meetings, even while the owner was out of town.
I sat at the top of the stairs and listened in on the first one while I was sitting.
I am completely unsurprised
12 Likes
Tons of science papers support this.
And interestingly…
5 Likes
