Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992368#Comment_120992368

One Eyes Jack using one nutter who was fined for his comments to try argue that FIDE think Women's titles are inherently less valuable than Open ones.

That’s not the argument I was making with that example. I gave the reason why I presented it as an example, just one, of the attitude towards women chess players that puts girls and women off playing chess.

If I’d known you were going to be that picky, I’d have gone straight to the source:

https://www.fide.com/docs/regulations/FIDE%20Title%20Regulations%202022.pdf

cdeb

I'm fully aware of the ratings thresholds for the various titles, thanks; I've mentioned them throughout my posts.

And the table still doesn't back up your argument that Women's titles are considered less valuable. In fact, you can clearly see that a WGM is more valuable than a CM and as valuable as an FM - the point I've been making all along. And you can clearly see why a WGM would convert to an FM in this situation, and a WIM to CM.

And by the way, that's the table for direct title awards, which are exceptional circumstances, especially at GM/IM level, because they only apply in a very limited range of tournaments - but it again shows me that you're just googling for things without really understanding what you're talking about. Most titles are achieved either by reaching a rating threshold (FM/CM/WFM/WCM) or by reaching rating threshold and getting a number of norms (usually three - for GM/IM/WGM/WIM)

And you were trying to use the example to back up your point that Women's titles are considered less valuable. But it was only one nutter who was fined for his views. To say that you were now using it to show "the attitude towards women chess players that puts girls and women off playing chess" is pure revisionism.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992462#Comment_120992462

It’s not revisionism, it’s exactly what I said it was in the first place.

We’re talking about the value of titles here, so that W in the second column is what matters, as it distinguishes women’s only titles from titles which are open to all. This is why there’s controversy over the new rules which will mean that some players who were previously eligible, will not be eligible for women’s titles, and the women’s titles which they were awarded, will be abolished.

That’s an example of revisionism.

cdeb

There's no controversy at all. Women's titles are for women only. If you decide you're a man, then how on earth can you have a title that is for women only? As I said before, you can't have your cake and eat it.

And your original post on Smirin started "It’s a fact that the women’s titles are considered less valuable by FIDE. Bad English might explain how one could give this commentator the benefit of the doubt that English is probably not his first language and something may have been lost in translation:" - so you absolutely cannot now claim you were talking about "the attitude towards women chess players that puts girls and women off playing chess". You never mentioned anything of the sort - until you decided to revise your view now.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992539#Comment_120992539

The controversy I was referring to was the introduction of the new rules and what they will mean for players who are transgender.

And holding a woman’s title doesn’t make any bit of difference whatsoever to whether an individual says they’re either a man or a woman. By that logic Ladie’s Beach in Salthill is only for ladies, except in reality it’s not, because it’s just the name of the place, or the title, if you will (and you’re not too picky, you just want to go for a swim 😂).

Interesting history behind the name though:

Jane Hogan and Maude O’Donohoe recall one young woman's rebellion against the rules sometime in the mid 1960s, when she swam up to the male section at Blackrock and left her bikini top on a flagpole.

https://afloat.ie/watersport/open-sea-swimming/item/51961-galway-s-blackrock-men-only-bathing-ban-recalled-in-culture-night-documentary

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992539#Comment_120992539

That's exactly the point that Sharron Davies made; that sex categories exist for a reason, irrespective of debates over advantage.

https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1692081470829891598?t=RNC43aEqTem4KNQ0-dzSBg&s=19

cdeb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992610#Comment_120992610

Nobody said "holding a woman's title makes any bit of difference to whether an individual says there a man or a woman". What they have said is if you're a man, you can't have a Women's title, which are reserved for women only. Which is a very different thing.

And there's no controversy here.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992637#Comment_120992637

But you asked this -

If you decide you're a man, then how on earth can you have a title that is for women only? 

I was explaining how it’s entirely possible to do so. FIDE decided to change that, and that’s why people are kicking off.

cdeb

You explained nothing though, other than to say "Holding a woman’s title doesn’t make any bit of difference whatsoever to whether an individual says they’re either a man or a woman.", and I've shown why that's not the point that's being made.

You might think the beach bit was a clever analogy, but it wasn't really. It was completely irrelevant. There's not really much more I can say on that. As a point, it was so vacuous as to not really require any further rebuttal.

So again - if you decide you're a man, you're not eligible for a Women's title. That should be fairly straightforward. No controversy there.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992775#Comment_120992775

So again - if you decide you're a man, you're not eligible for a Women's title. That should be fairly straightforward. No controversy there.

I understand the point you’re making, I was only answering your question as to how it’s possible to do so. The same issue arises if a woman who holds a woman’s title declares that they’re a man - they can no longer hold the title, and following that, if they delare they’re a woman, they get their title back!

The policy isn’t straightforward, and that’s why the issue arises. Sure, I understand that you can say there’s no controversy and it should be straightforward, but it’s not. It’s probably pointless, but this is the actual policy, it’s quite detailed:

https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992700#Comment_120992700

Lots of things are "possible", but that doesn't make those possibilities ethically right.

I don't believe in arguing for the sake of contrarianism. I believe in arguing from the sake of facts, for the sake of what's right.

Women's sport deserves more than academic-style debates that minimizes their right to fairness and equality in sport.

cdeb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992861#Comment_120992861

The absurdity of getting your title back if you decide you're a woman again obviously highlights the absurdity of deciding your gender in the first place.

But what your argument comes down to is "Why not let Women's titles be available for men too? After all, a man can be on Ladies' Beach"

That's not an argument worthy of much discussion to be honest.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992879#Comment_120992879

What sporting organizations must do is dispense with the idea of "gender" to begin with; a subjective social construct. Instead, sport should only -- and I mean only -- segregate sport on the basis of biological sex; an objective criteria.

No fake and deliberately disingenuous sleight of hand that attempts to fuse these two words together ("gender" and "sex", as if they mean the same thing). Because they don't; it's chalk and cheese. Anyone selling the idea that they belong to the same category are either liars or delusional.

Thankfully sporting organizations have woken up from the folly of that which was sold to them, all at the expense of women's sport. We need remaining sporting bodies to grow a collective spine, to stand up against what can only be described as bullying, misogyny and gaslighting (all of which masquerades as "human rights").

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992879#Comment_120992879

Well no, that’s not quite it, as the new policy only applies to people who are transgender. I’m cynical about the introduction of the new policy because like I said earlier- to me it just looks like FIDE bandwagoning to promote chess as a sport.

In practical terms I don’t imagine it will have any great impact on the popularity of the game itself. Just seems like a pointless move tbh. There are far better ways to promote the game and increase its popularity among girls and women than what they’ve just done.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992941#Comment_120992941

...as the new policy only applies to people who are transgender.

Who cares?

Transgender people have a biological sex, too.

What they want to identify as in their spare time should be respected, but it's totally irrelevant to what sporting category they belong to.

Sexuality; music interests; veganism; gender identification; sport interests; fashion style; preferred types of wardrobe -- all are irrelevant to the sporting category a person should compete in.

Look, I don't even believe for a second you believe this nonsense. I think you're arguing for the sake of it, to be contrarian. You got my response, so I failed. And so I'll leave it there.

cdeb

It looks like FIDE bandwagoning to promote chess? Of all the bizarre comments you've had on this subject so far - the revisionism, the random things you found on Google, the arrogance in telling me what the governing body of a game I play internationally thinks or what you think makes a good player (you said earlier that "There’s no differences between the sexes in terms of their ability, the dominance of males at Grandmaster level is simply because chess is a more popular game among boys and men than girls and women." - but that's arguably not true as women players are very under-represented at the top echelons compared to their involvement in the game in general) - this one takes the biscuit.

This is an issue that sports organisations are dealing with worldwide - that's literally the point of this thread. Increasingly, they are siding on sex as the divider and sod gender - and that's great; that's the logical step. Chess is just doing what other sports are doing, but you think it's a cynical ploy to promote the game among women and girls in particular?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992970#Comment_120992970

Who cares? Ayn Rand?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992973#Comment_120992973

There was no arrogance whatsoever in what I actually did, which was to point out to you that FIDE places less value on the women’s titles. I don’t care if you’re Gary Kasparov.

I never said what I thought makes a good player, I said there was no difference between the sexes in terms of their ability. You can certainly argue the reasons why women are underrepresented at Grandmaster level relative to their participation rates, and you did to be fair give a couple of reasons which are reasonable in explaining the discrepancy.

Then you’ve gone from “there’s no controversy here” to telling me that this is an issue that sports organisations are dealing with worldwide and suggested that I think it’s a cynical ploy to promote the game among women and girls in particular, when what I actually suggested was that it was a move to promote chess as a sport. I already made the point that there’s considerable disagreement over whether it is or it isn’t a sport.

I also made the point that there are better ways to promote the game and increase its popularity among girls and women than what they’ve just done. You’re probably aware that chess is experiencing something of a rise in popularity in its online form, and with this latest move FIDE could well have shot themselves in the foot. No controversy though 😒

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992990#Comment_120992990

Governing sporting bodies clearly, which explains why more and more are turning against this insane ideology by the month.

What is currently being proposed by some quarters makes religion look reasonable by comparison.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992970#Comment_120992970

Who cares?

More to the point - who doesn’t care? Clearly you do care, I’m guessing you care a lot, so when it comes to chess at least and the new FIDE policy which refers only to a person’s gender, and not their sex, it’s going completely against your declaration that categories in sports should be based only on sex for starters:

I. Definition

Trans or transgender – people whose sense of gender does not match with the gender assigned to them at birth and whose change of gender has been approved according to the national legal rules or upon FIDE decision in exceptional cases. Intersex people, androgyne and polygender people, cross-dressing and transvestite people are not included under these terms.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993102#Comment_120993102

Which is precisely my point to begin with.

"Gender" has no place in sport, no place at all. In the same way that someone who identifies as "agender" (neither male nor female) can be ignored for their attention-seeking behaviour. They still have a sex, and I will consciously ignore their ramblings to the contrary.

It's attention-seeking irrelevance. Highly manipulative, for sure, and many people fall for it. Don't get me started on the gaslighting, either.

It will never, ever fool me.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993109#Comment_120993109

Well yes, I got that it was your point. I was pointing out that FIDE, for one organisation at least, don’t share your opinion.

Come to think of it, none of the organisations throughout the thread share your opinion that gender is irrelevant. It’s because of the fact that they acknowledge the relevance of gender that they’re developing policies which relate directly to people who are transgender.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993122#Comment_120993122

Where do "agender" applicants belong in sport, then? (people who say they are neither male nor female)

Or "astralgender" applicants, people who identify with the moon and stars?

Let's leave the compassionate nonsense to one side for a second.

Do you have any practical answers to these gender-based questions?

cdeb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993040#Comment_120993040

Once again, FIDE do not intrinsically value Women's titles less. I've shown that numerous times. You've shown it yourself with the table you posted (which you didn't even understand or you wouldn't have posted it)

It is not at all clear there's no differences between the sexes in terms of ability. Nigel Short - the former World Championship challenger - has argued there's a fundamental difference; specifically suggesting it might be something about the way different brains were wired. That did generate controversy - though unfortunately the responses largely lacked any real substance and were just personal attacks on Short, so no real debate was held. It may also reflect higher levels of autism in men and the link between that and top level chess play (great memory being a key benefit). Or it may represent a general increased desire for shooting success amongst males.

Either way, there's not enough there for you to say there's no difference between the sexes.

You originally said "There are far better ways to promote the game and increase its popularity among girls and women than what they’ve just done", but now you're saying I erroneously "suggested that I think it’s a cynical ploy to promote the game among women and girls in particular, when what I actually suggested was that it was a move to promote chess as a sport." You can see how it's hard to take your posts seriously when you can't even remember what you said yourself. Not the first time you've done this.

And yes, I am aware of increased online popularity (more - maybe condescension is the right word?). Is this chess shooting itself in the foot? Hardly. It's mainly being discussed by the sort of people who want to let men compete in women's sports as far as I can see. I can tell you now I'd never heard of the proposals before popping in here earlier today.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993132#Comment_120993132

If it’s all the same to you, I suggest we leave the nonsense, compassionate or otherwise, aside.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993162#Comment_120993162

Condescension is indeed the right word when you imagine I should care about your experience in the game as though that validates your points when I can point to the fact that FIDE does place less value on women’s titles, and yes I did show that in the table. You pointed out that there are equivalent values between different titles, while overlooking the fact that the W, applies to women’s titles only, that only women are eligible to compete for, indicating the implications of the new policy.

It is clear there’s no differences in the sexes in terms of their ability, and rather than relying on an argument from authority from Nigel, I used data and research to provide supporting evidence for my argument. I don’t know if you caught it but I saw the tweet posted earlier where a chess player commented on that same being told women’s brains are wired differently stuff.

I do actually see how you’ve taken what I’ve written out of context, but I’m trying desperately to overlook it because it’s inconsequential for the most part, I know what I’ve written, I know how you’re interpreting it, and to that same end I wrote that with this latest move, FIDE, could well have shot themselves in the foot.

The point I was making is that chess is becoming increasingly popular in its online form, particularly among teenagers, of both sexes, and they’ll be looking at the new FIDE policy and how it will impact their participation in the game. Like I said, it’s not likely to have any great impact on the game, but I’m not going to pretend the change in policy hasn’t caused controversy. You did mention earlier that it was the first you’d heard of it which is why I thought it might be a good idea at least if I posted the policy here so you’d be aware of what exactly is being detailed in the policy, and maybe gain a better insight into why it matters.

cdeb

Oh dear OeJ

You're just stating what you would like to have shown now. You haven't shown Women's titles are inherently less valuable. As I've said, why do WGMs and WIMs outnumber women FMs and CMs about tenfold otherwise, even though they're roughly equivalent titles (indeed, the women's titles are harder to get as they typically require norms, while FM/CM don't)? Women don't seem to agree.

Your point about the W in the titles "indicating the implications of the new policy." indicates nothing of the sort.o You've also clearly not even understood the tables you've posted (why else post the guidelines for the rare direct titles?) so why you think you can dismiss my experience because you googled something is beyond me.

You used no data and research to show no difference in the sexes. I will, here and now. The 100th-ranked women's player, Anita Gara, isn't in the top 5000 in the world. Yet women are not outnumbered 50 to 1 - in fact it's more like 5:1 across the entire FIDE ratings (of more than 300,000 players on the ratings list). So why are women tenfold underrepresented in the top 5000? Your suggestion that it's inline with their involvement in the game in general doesn't explain that tenfold difference. So as I say, it's far from clear there's no fundamental difference between the sexes.

I quoted you word for word so it's quite clear what you said. That you're trying to put the blame on me for that is bizarre. And as for "maybe gain a better insight into why it matters." - more condescension really. I'd let it slide only it's the second time you've done it - argued something wrong, been brought up on it, and then rather than acknowledge the point, you've lied about what you originally said, even though your original post can be quoted word for word.

In reality, I can tell you few people other than the usual "I can wake up and pick my gender" brigade actually care. It certainly won't impact online chess' popularity.

You seem to think you know more than anyone else on this (and everything else I've seen you discuss) - more than an experienced international player, more than a former world title contender. If nothing else, it's an insight for me into the actual level of knowledge of yourself (and Overheal) on these kind of topics in general, to see ye walk into one I know a fair bit about but still try argue the case based on googling stuff. Again, compare other posters who've been genuinely interested in finding out more about it, whereas ye try to tell me ye're views are correct and ignore anything to the contrary.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120992970#Comment_120992970

Jaysus you do spout some utter garbage. Trans people are trans not trans in their spare time ffs.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993677#Comment_120993677

You're just stating what you would like to have shown now.

I’ve shown it already, in black and white. Your asking me why don’t they do this or why don’t they do that is neither here nor there and it doesn’t change the fact that FIDE place less value on the women’s titles. You asked me for my source, and other than myself from memory, I’m going to have to provide you with a source, so I did - from Chess.com first where the implication is that if a Woman Grandmaster declares that they are a man - not only do they lose their title, not only are they not given the title of Grandmaster, they’re given a title which is of lower value than that. Not satisfied with that, so I had to go directly to the source.

Yes, maybe gain a better insight into why it matters, but you took it the way you did for whatever reason you did, even though I posted it with the intent of you being able to read it for yourself, which I admitted was probably pointless at that stage. Read it, don’t read it, it doesn’t matter.

I explained to you too why I wasn’t interested in an argument from authority with regard to the idea of there being any difference between the sexes in terms of ability. The rest of it is your opinion of me personally, nothing to do with the discussion itself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993700#Comment_120993700

You cannot objectively prove the existence of agender or astralgender or any other gender because they are by definition social constructs. They are subjective experiences and therefore cannot be objectively established.

Sporting bodies cannot base their criteria on such flimsy subjective grounds as "gender". As I said, it's an irrelevance. It's a distraction. They must only stick with biological sex which is the one criteria that applies to everyone and remains objective (i.e exists independently from what anyone subjectively believes about themselves).

That was my whole point, which you have chosen to completely ignore.