- cross-posted to:
- sports@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- sports@hexbear.net
With these new rules, FIDE has managed to
- Imply the mental inferiority of women
- Validate the existence of transgender men
- Destroy the integrity of awards record-keeping
- Call transgender women men
Very nice, FIDE, incredible mental gymnastics performance! 👏 Add them to the ever lengthening sports federation shitlist.
Woman here, and genuinely, I don’t know what’s right.
I can recognise that m>f after puberty gives someone a strength advantage but at the same time it’s hard enough having to transition without feeling even more marginalised by being banned from sports.
Maybe there needs to be just a women’s and open category to recognise the strength handicap that cis women have for certain activities and allow anyone to compete in open, but then there’s the challenge of prize money, viewers etc etc between the two that also needs to be managed appropriately.
At the end of the day, someone isn’t going to be happy and for that there is no good solution, but we need to be doing our best for cis and trans athletes to make sure everyone has a chance to compete in the sports they live.
Chess? Banning trans competitors is fucking idiotic and the chess federation can fuck right off with that implied notion of women being less capable.
I’m fairly certain that this is already the case, and what’s being done here as well. Specifically that there isn’t a “men’s” category, there’s open, and there’s women’s. In chess specifically it’s a strange situation. My understanding is that the existence of “women’s chess” isn’t due to any inferiority of play (though there’s undoubtedly some sexism in its origin) but rather as a way to entice women to play and grow the sport. There’s no restrictions on a woman being granted the grandmaster title, but a man can’t hold a Women’s Grandmaster title.
Not keeping your women specific titles as a trans man at least tracks for that. As to not being able to compete as a trans woman I don’t really see the point. I could see an argument for resetting your ELO because there is a lower ELO pool in women’s chess (due to population, nothing enforced) and your ELO could be unduly skewed, but idk. That’s kinda getting beyond my competitive chess knowledge
Tldr; this is probably dumb and misguided, but maybe not as hostile as the headline first looked to me
Hang on a sec…
This is the sort of thing that is said in these conversations, as if it is simply fact. A common sense truth that we all agree on.
But it’s not. Transgender women might retain some advantage after transition, but they also might not. That is something that is intensely studied, and hotly debated. Results have been found to support either hypothesis, and may differ from sport to sport. It’s not cut-and-dry in the slightest.
I think I read in a study somewhere that after transition, a trans female retains a certain amount of muscle mass and strength for a minimum of 2 years after transitioning. I’ll try to find the study and link it when I’m on the computer.
That said, there is absolutely nuance to be had here, and the chess organization is being both transphobic and sexist at this point 😮💨
That’s why I said that the evidence is highly mixed. I’ve seen multiple studies that conclude that there is no reason to believe trans women retain advantage, but I also don’t doubt that you have seen the results you say you have either.
Then it gets even more complicated with, what kind of strength are we talking about? And for what sport? There are even arguments made that increased bone size and density, paired with female-range muscle strength that trans women at least approach if not reach after a few years of transition, may represent a net disadvantage for transgender women.
I just wanted to call out the one of the incorrect assumptions that even well-meaning folks make when talking about transgender people. Because they’re really quite common unfortunately.
100%.
I’d like to interject that it’s not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.
I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women’s competitiveness…
One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis… but what we seek to validate “fairness” is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.
I mean yes and no, some studies don’t find evidence of competitive advantage. Some do. So, yes I agree that interpretations are mixed, but also evidence, between studies. And then interpretations of the entire body of evidence are mixed, but I personally don’t think that those interpretations are of much relevance, this is a discussion that has to happen at a more granular level of each sport.
I actually think I’ve seen that one, yeah. One of the reasons I mention “what kind of strength”, and how that’s going to differ for each sport. But yeah, in that case, an exclusion period of two years, is not unreasonable at highly competitive levels.
Yeah, I agree 100% here. We should expect a roughly proportional number of transgender women to be successful.
But literally any single example of a transgender women succeeding is enough to have people crying “but they’re a man!”. Because, for a lot of people, they really just wanted to call trans women men, the whole sports thing is mostly just pretense.
Exactly. I recently watched Lance Armstrong go off on a silly survival TV show about how trans folk should not be allowed in men/women’s sports and try to defend it with a truly pointless argument of “unless there’s overwhelming proof” bullshit.
He almost got voted off the show for that rant alone. If it weren’t on Fox, he would have.
The last person I want to hear from about fairness in sports is Lance Armstrong. Bloody hell, lol
No shit. Especially on a silly celeb survival show hosted by Will Shatner.
It might help you to understand that there has been a lot of study in many sports (for the very reason of your uncertainty).
Apparently, testosterone level (not birth gender) is the effective indicator of expected performance. In all women’s sports that allow trans competitors, trans individuals need to test **lower ** testosterone levels than are naturally allowable in cis women.
The issue is this. For someone trans to be willing and able to power through all the bullshit, they need to be uniquely dedicated and talented (or they’d just not do it). What that means is that unsurprisingly some trans individuals are absolutely phenomenal at a given sport.
Ultimately, there’s the problem. “We” seem to think a m>f individual doesn’t have an unfair advantage ONLY if they lose. So we’re not looking for the average or variance of skill, only the fact that there exists a trans individual that shines. It’s hard not to look at a trans woman winning and say “see, that’s what happens when someone born male competes with a woman in this sport”. But it’s also unscientific, as the science says trans women compete with comparative attributes to cis women.
Yeah, there’s no real defense to the two being separated in any league.
In most sports the men’s group is technically open. Most women just don’t succeed because of the sheer difference in physicality.
The solution is easy, just open more categories ciswomen, transwomen and anyone who identifies with the female gender. Same for men. Done.
I just don’t think there’s a blanket answer, that doesn’t involve invasive poking and prodding. There’s always going to be somebody unhappy.
Any pro-trans decision, like just opening it up and having ability ranked categories is in danger of sidelining women’s sports. But… they are anyway…
England have just reached the women’s World Cup final in Australia. I look out the window right now, and I don’t see a single England flag. For the men’s tournament last year there was so many flags about you’d think we’d just crowned a new king on St George’s Day. People were playing “Three Lions” for the 13th major tournament in a row. And we did fucking rubbish in that compared to the ladies.
It’s strange the these people “protecting women’s sports” are completely absent when it comes to supporting them.
It’s really not strange at all when you consider the fairly obvious fact that it was never about protecting women’s sports, but instead about finding a way to hurt trans people that plays well in the media.
Seriously, find me a conservative whose railing against trans women in sports that has actually attended a WNBA game, or is watching every game of the women’s world cup. I’m sure they exist, but I’d be surprised if even 5% of the people who act like the world will end if trans women are allowed to compete in sports have ever actually expressed interest in womens sports. And hell, I’ll bet the number who have actively made fun of womens sports before this became a hot topic is a hell of a lot higher lol