Transgender women banned from women's chess events

The point is that it's exactly the same as the "refusing to bake a cake for gay couple" case. It's not about the actual premise, it's to create a precedent to allow further and continued prejudice and discrimination against a marginalised community. First they can't compete in "physical" sports. Then they can't compete in any kind of activity. First they can't use bathrooms of the gender they identify with. Then they aren't allowed to use public bathrooms at all.

One state in the US undertook to enact new laws barring trans state employees from receiving healthcare coverage relating to their transition. Do you know how many trans people would have actually been affected by that? One. The actual cost to the state was negligible, compared to the over a million dollars spent litigating it. It was purely to spite the individual for who they are.

Many of the US states creating laws to ban trans high school athletes from competing have likewise single digit numbers of trans athletes in consideration, compared to the thousands of cis athletes. In many cases the trans athletes are not even winning competitions so it's clearly not due to an apparent competitive edge. Following from my earlier point about it just being a way to get the wedge in the door, this also has cut both ways as one notable trans wrestler was barred from competing in mens wrestling competitions because he was trans. He was forced to compete in womens wrestling where he did perform better. Do you think this is "fair"?

It's always just the first step and the fact that you all buy into it at every turn and defend it is dismaying to say the least. Not to mention in ever case, logically inconsistent other than the logical consistency of it being a way to discriminate against a minority community.

Many of the US states creating laws to ban trans high school athletes from competing have likewise single digit numbers of trans athletes in consideration, compared to the thousands of cis athletes. In many cases the trans athletes are not even winning competitions so it's clearly not due to an apparent competitive edge.

He was forced to compete in womens wrestling where he did perform better. Do you think this is "fair"?

I think before scrapping sex-based categories entirely, I'd probably want to understand exactly why women are so underrepresented in chess, because it all depends. If it's due to biological disadvantage, I think sex-based categories are useful just as they are in other sports. If it's due to systemic social and cultural barriers, I'd rather work on removing those barriers to the point that women become well represented, instead of just plastering over the problem with sex-based categories or female quotas. If it's due to women innately being less interested in chess, I don't think that's a problem that even needs solving. I suppose FIDE probably has better understanding of all of this than we do though.

One thing I don't understand though, is the idea that categorisation by biological sex is deemed to be exclusionary to trans people. A trans woman can still compete in all the mixed-sex chess tournaments, and is still able to earn any of the gender-neutral titles. They're eligible for all the same things that all other biological males are, so how are they any more excluded?

I think that we could maybe do both but maybe that’s me being unreasonably optimistic.

I can see how it can exclusionary.

Yeah I mean if that’s what the FIDE have decided then be it but it doesn’t really make sense to me.

Sorry I didn't understand what you mean. Do both of what?


It doesn't seem to me that trans people are being prevented from participating in the sport. They're eligible to participate in the same way that any other member of their biological sex would be, instead of the opposite biological sex. That's how it works for all the rest of us, isn't it? I can't go and compete in a women's-only tournament either. So in what way would you say this is exclusionary towards them?


Which part are you saying doesn't make sense to you? The fact that a women's category exists at all? Or the fact that the women's category is based on biology rather than identity?

I think before discussing whether trans-women should be able to participate in a women's event, the more fundamental issue to consider is whether we even need women's events in the first place. We have sex-segregation in other sports for obvious reasons, but in chess there are plenty of men and women who are evenly matched, and there's no reason why they shouldn't compete together. As such, most chess competitions are mixed and most titles are gender-neutral. Why not make them all like that?

Well, the fact of the matter is that chess is still an extremely male-dominated sport. There has never been a female World Champion. Only one woman has ever been in the world's top 10, and only three have ever been in the world's top 100. I don't really know why. Maybe women are innately less likely to be interested in a game about war and battle, or they might face sociocultural barriers to entry, or there may be some small advantage in being biologically male after all. (It's interesting to note that women tend to fare better against men in online chess where they aren't told their opponent's gender, compared to over-the-table chess). Whatever the reasons, it still seems that in order for a woman to reach the same level as a man in elite chess, she needs to be more exceptional than he does.

I suppose we have women's events and titles because FIDE has decided that it's worth recognising and rewarding females for being just as exceptional, even if it doesn't actually result in them reaching the same level as men. It may also be a way of encouraging women into chess and increasing their visibility and representation. It's still a somewhat debated issue though. Some women reject titles like "WGM" (Woman Grandmaster) and consider them patronising. Some people believe that women's only events might lower the ambitions of women from competing against and matching men at the highest level. I don't really know enough about this to form a strong opinion myself.


My view is this: If we are to have women-only events and titles, then it makes more sense for the eligibility criteria to be based on something objective (e.g. biological sex) rather than purely being a matter of self-identification. Self-identification just means that men can become eligible simply by saying they're trans, even if they're not really. In that case the event may as well just be billed as gender-neutral, because that's what it effectively is. Eligibility criteria don't mean much if anyone can just unilaterally decide that they've met them, with no challenge or verification. The same goes for any other special category.

The point is that it's exactly the same as the "refusing to bake a cake for gay couple" case. It's not about the actual premise, it's to create a precedent to allow further and continued prejudice and discrimination against a marginalised community. First they can't compete in "physical" sports. Then they can't compete in any kind of activity. First they can't use bathrooms of the gender they identify with. Then they aren't allowed to use public bathrooms at all.

Make chess mixed sex (scrap open vs female categories) and encourage more women to play chess but as I said I could be unrealistic here.

They don’t identify as male but female hence why I can see it being exclusionary for them to not take part in women’s sports (the genuine/most transwomen) despite me mostly agreeing with sporting bodies that transwomen shouldn’t take part in women’s sport (due to unfair biological advantages and how those unfair biological advantages makes the game unequal for ciswomen).

The fact that I don’t see the justification for banning transwomen in women’s chess. Unlike for other sports as a fail to see what unfair (biological) advantages transwomen would have over ciswomen in a sports like chess unlike in sport such rowing, cycling or swimming. Also the fact that a woman category exists at all could also be a part of it.

I’m not opposed to people being grouped based on biological sex if that’s what sporting bodies want to do but you might as well do it for every sport that this point if even for a sport like chess biological sex is an issue (transwomen playing against ciswomen is an issue).

I can see the argument in favour of having separate male and female tournaments to encourage more women to start playing chess, but I don't see what difference barring transwomen would make.

Transwomen make up a tiny percentage of the population. It is really going to make a huge difference, in terms of numbers?

Not unless there's a significant advantage which doesn't seem likely in chess.

For other sports like sprinting for example it would make a difference because the advantage is very significant. I posted this example in another thread:

In the list of the best 10,000 sprinters in the world, around the top 2000 fastest are men and the full list includes around 1% of women. So imagine that every year one elite man out of the 10,000 was allowed to compete in the women's category. They would automatically be in the top 100 (most likely much higher) and there would be a 20% chance that the man would be faster than every woman in the world and win most races.

Is there that advantage in chess?

A quick Google found a UK study which suggested a potential, but small, advantage male players have over female players but it doesn't strike as something that would make a practically difference.

I can see the argument in favour of having separate male and female tournaments to encourage more women to start playing chess, but I don't see what difference barring transwomen would make.

Transwomen make up a tiny percentage of the population. It is really going to make a huge difference, in terms of numbers?

It probably wouldn't make much difference if transwomen competed in female tournaments.

I think the issue is that if you allow transwomen to compete, you're also effectively allowing any male person (trans or not) to compete if they want to, as there's no way to tell the difference between a man and a transwoman other than just taking their word for it. And if some men are willing to lie about being trans in order to get into these "easier" tournaments and win the prizes on offer, that could well end up making quite a difference to the women they were intended for.

We've already established that there is no significant advantage between men and women intelligence-wise, so how is this easier?

Also the prizes for women's tournaments are (unfortunately) much lower than their men's counterparts for some inane reason, so I don't see how this is advantageous either.

It probably wouldn't make much difference if transwomen competed in female tournaments.

I think the issue is that if you allow transwomen to compete, you're also effectively allowing any male person (trans or not) to compete if they want to, as there's no way to tell the difference between a man and a transwoman other than just taking their word for it. And if some men are willing to lie about being trans in order to get into these "easier" tournaments and win the prizes on offer, that could well end up making quite a difference to the women they were intended for.

Not necessarily. You could impose restrictions on access to the tournaments to make it harder for people to lie.

We've already established that there is no significant advantage between men and women intelligence-wise, so how is this easier? Also, the prizes for women's tournaments are (unfortunately) much lower than their men's counterparts for some inane reason, so I don't see how this is advantageous either.

There are always going to be people who prefer to cheat in order to get ahead. You cannot penalize a whole group for it. Even more ironically, all the major chess cheating incidents I can recall have been done by men.