World chess organization bans transgender players from women's events because of "unfair advantages"

[CoyoteDen]

BUT IT’S CHESS!

Yes, I know there is a distinct women’s league in FIDE. I don’t care. It is still an entirely non-physical competition. You can’t make any kind of argument there are biological sex based advantages here.

[Kilkrazy]

If it’s true that human brains are plastic and adapt to circumstances, then it may be true that there is no fundamental difference between male and female brains. If so, then the Chess ruling is stupid because it’s based on gender role presentation.

[TornPaperNapkin]

This is such a good point. I feel like I personally forget brains work that way even sometimes tbh. It’s so natural too. Like, our muscles change depending on how we treat and how we train them, our bones, our skin… why not also our minds?

I’ll go further and just say that there is also not even any real consensus afaik on how much of the condition of the “male” or “female” brain results from immutable biological laws and how much is conditioned by how we are treated from the moment we are noticed in this world. I don’t know if there ever will be either, but I’ll probably be late hearing about it.

I find a lot of times people make logically sound arguments about this based on facts they assume to be true, but those facts are often questionable at best and not much more than common folk wisdom about the sexes.

For instance, how important is the kind of spatial reasoning the people are testing for to actually being successful as a competitive chess player? Should I even assume that a difference found here is relevant because I can imagine it might be somehow? Should I assume it is more relevant than other possible factors?

[anon29537550]

@TornPaperNapkin

I’ll go further and just say that there is also no real consensus on how much of the condition of the “male” or “female” brain results from immutable biological laws and how much is conditioned by how we are treated from the moment we are noticed in this world.

Here is an interesting take on that, hypothesizing that the differences are due to societal norms and expectations rather than innate differences.

Meet the neuroscientist shattering the myth of the gendered brain

I have to say, this is not the general consensus in the field, but it has not been disproved either. Regardless of nature vs nurture, it is unquestionably true that you get better at what you practice doing. I do not accept that women are inherently weaker chess players (or mathematicians, musicians, poets, etc.) than men. I do find it very likely that driving women out of selected fields with misogyny and low expectations will result in lower performance overall among women. But that is on us men. Purely and simply, we broke it, we need to fix it. And this is not the way to do that.

[TornPaperNapkin]

I’ve known so many women who were amazing at such things and channeled it into “feminine” things like sewing or crafting for instance. How on god’s earth can we be both “natural seamstresses” and “inherently inferior at spatial reasoning…” How?

It really pains me to think about the extent to which our best scientific knowledge on a subject relies on assumptions that just fundamentally don’t even make actual sense and aren’t based on much more than “things my grandfather believed were true…”

[anon67050589]

Or even just the change in societal perception from when secretaries in business/finance were men to when it became a pink collar job. Or computer programmers, once women, but now somehow mostly tech bros.

[anon61221983]

@CoyoteDen

You can’t make any kind of argument there are biological sex based advantages here.

The argument misogynists make is not only are women weaker, we are also less logical, less intelligent, and less capable in any number of fields as men. That’s their whole thing. That men are superior in every way. But none of that is true, even the part of physical prowess. I’m guessing that plenty of women can regularly clean the clocks of many men in many sports. Because it’s not just about being physically larger, or whatever. It’s often about strategy, training, and talent, too. Even the more brutal sports.

And they do not believe that trans women are women, so they think that they’ll be better than women.

But none of this new, and I can’t believe that what misogyny is and how it works in the world needs to be explained yet again… But people also have to explain on a regular basis just how this wave of transphobia is a very, VERY bad sign about our society and where it could be headed. But here we are.

@anon29537550

Here is an interesting take on that, hypothesizing that the differences are due to societal norms and expectations rather than innate differences.

That would make sense…

@anon29537550

I do not accept that women are inherently weaker chess players (or mathematicians, musicians, poets, etc.) than men

[Tribune]

I would like to think the MRI of your brain would initially resolve as words. “Repository of Wonderful Things. Warning: may cause madness in lesser beings”

[ClutchLinkey]

@anon29537550

I do find it very likely that driving women out of selected fields with misogyny and low expectations will result in lower performance overall among women.

And the subset of men who think this is great is so small, yet so powerful. They’re ruining it for all the rest of us.
Not just women, but also all those men who are best suited for nurturing professions, like nursing or early education, or childcare, but get “encouraged” out of those by the macho male minority.

[IronEdithKidd]

@anon29537550

I do find it very likely that driving women out of selected fields with misogyny and low expectations will result in lower performance overall among women.

I would extend this to lowered performance in the field. Period. Due to the excessive expectations women are burdened with, removing us from any given field leaves it more open to middling and/or mediocre men. Same thing happens when people of color are driven out of any particular field. This all boils down to white men protecting their hegemony at all costs.

@ClutchLinkey: as always, patriarchy hurts us all.

[awfulhorrid]

@Tribune

I would like to think the MRI of your brain would initially resolve as words.

Awww, thank you!

Edit: To be clear, this is me blushing at praise! I realized this gif could be open to other interpretations.

[socialclimber]

@Scurra

I understand that part of the problem here is that FIDE has only two sorts of events - “Open” (which can be entered by anyone) and “Women” (which can only be entered by women.) Strictly speaking, it doesn’t have “Mens” events (unlike, say, soccer or tennis or whatever.)
And the latter events were only created because the men were so toxic in a competitive environment that the women didn’t feel safe.

So it sounds like the two categories we really need here are “toxic” and “friendly”. If a player’s behaviour causes them to be transferred to the “toxic” category, then they would lose any titles held in the “friendly” category.

[moortaktheundea]

@jimr1603

The existence of Open and Women’s comps implies that there is some difference in chess-playing ability between sexes.

No, it actually doesn’t, any more than the lack of world champion during the interregnum implies everyone became really bad at chess for two years or that drugs suddenly changed their ability to effect the outcome of chess matches in 1999. The existence of women’s tournaments are tied to the incredibly well known problem of misogyny in the competitive chess world. The fact that this high profile news slid allegations of FIDE’s mishandling of sexual assault and harrassment out of center stage is just a weird side effect I’m sure. I’ll point you to the commentary by former US champion and FIDE grandmaster Jennifer Shadade on the matter, already posted upthread.

@jimr1603

So the premise, that they need to work out where trans (and intersex) competitors fit, is valid.

Again, not really. They tie the system to whether the transition was before or after someone was registered with FIDE so any mythical advantage could still be used.

@jimr1603

The little I know of pro-level chess, I know that endurance is a factor.

Endurance is a factor. I’ve never even heard the allegation that women’s brains process glucose differently, so the endurance in question isn’t some kind of settled matter. Also considering the other sports that look at endurance as a primary concern, like ultra-marathoning the advantage could easily go the other way. You establish the actual harm first, before excluding people.