- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.
You must log in or register to comment.
Wait, there’s women’s chess?
What? Is this real? Are the men and women not competing together? It is not a physical competition. Why the separation?
The reason there’s a women’s league in the first place is so they don’t get harassed by the men (ostensibly).
So while on the surface, a gendered League is stupid, there are real world reasons for the separation.
This decision might / maybe / could be an extension of that reasoning. But very likely it’s not, and it’s just more bullshit anti trans policy.
or they could just like… Not allow harassment.
Really the game is chess, you shouldnt even need to see your oponent, so it could be all done online.
Chess was pretty much perfected decades ago - now all the tournaments thrive on is psyching out your opponent, which they’ve made women an easy target by isolating them. No wonder they statistically do worse
Everyone make way! The White Knight has arrrrived!!
“Chess was pretty much perfected decades ago…”
Go to fucking BED Elon wannabe
Love how I got 6 notifications and like 5 are you
deleted by creator
I do other things too :(
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what’s going on here. There is an open league and a league restricted to women only.
Without a women’s league, there are fewer women seen playing, which reinforces the perception that it’s not a sport for women, which creates this feedback loop leading to a smaller pool of women playing chess, thus fewer grand masters who are women. I see value in creating more space for women in chess to create more opportunities for following generations.
I don’t like excluding trans women. I can imagine an argument that we’re not ready for this until we get to a place where we don’t think to distinguish between trans and cis women. A women’s league in 2023 that a young cis girl is watching that had 3 cis women and 97 trans women, still may look to that young girl like a league for trans women, and not a league for all women that they can see themselves competing in. Personally, I enjoyed watching a marginalized gender eSports competition, and I don’t think the presence of trans women invalidated the impact it could have inspiring young cis girls to pick up gaming.
If that’s the reason, I’d imagine trans women would be the most likely to be harassed by the cis men who are harassing cis women.
The best way to prevent harassment is not bigoted segregation by gender, but in fact punishing or banning people who harass others.
Yes, but to do that the organization would have to accept that the sexism is wrong and have the motive to do something about it.
Totally. But, you know, some people are idiots.
The solution to men harassing women (and generally making them unwelcome, as they do) should not be to segregate women though, it should be to discipline men.
Which leads me to the real reason why women are segregated (because clearly isn’t about their safety or their inclusion) - because the men involved would have an absolute breakdown if they were beaten by a woman (not a problem exclusive to chess, either).
Do you really have to ask…? It’s so obviously a bigoted decision, if real.
Currently, the top women don’t come close to the top men. Considering how few female chess players are in comparison, it’s not a surprise.
Having a women’s league means you can have chess news about women’s tournaments and champs and give them some visibility.
Currently, the top women don’t come close to the top men
because they’re excluded at all levels, lets not pretend it’s because women aren’t as good and need “protecting” from the “superior” men.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, they don’t compete with men, but they still have women’s league and women from that league don’t come close to men (not all, ofcourse).
Could making united league deter women even more? Very possible.
I am not against, but still I think a strong bump in women’s chess league with marketing, money, better condition would be great, before possible merging.
Currently, women would just suffer with results for long time.
Unfortunately Chess doesn’t seem as healthy and open for that, and that is just sad.
I feel like if you really wanted to know you could easily look up the barriers that women face in chess (and in all sports), and I honestly don’t feel like spoon feeding you such basics, so I’m going to just paste my other reply here and leave it up to you to start educating yourself if you really want to:
The solution to men harassing women (and generally making them unwelcome, as they do) should not be to segregate women though, it should be to discipline men.
Which leads me to the real reason why women are segregated (because clearly isn’t about their safety or their inclusion) - because the men involved would have an absolute breakdown if they were beaten by a woman (not a problem exclusive to chess, either).
well this just doesn’t even make any fucking sense at all
Transphobia, sexism and nft’s being sold on their official site? Chess really deserves something better than FIDE.
your meds schizo, take them.
To be fair, it takes a very high estrogen level in order to enjoy chess.
?..
This is such a stupid argument, while you might be able to make the argument about sexual dimorphism in physical sports there’s literally no good reason why a woman shouldn’t be allowed to play chess against a man, or play chess against another woman if they are trans.
Chess is a game based on intelligence and strategy, it’s not based on strength. It seems that this decision was made primarily on the basis of sexism, either because they think that chess is ““manly”” or because they think that men are smarter than women or that women are stupid. Either way not logical, purely sexist.
So you’re saying there’s a case for discrepancy in other sports?
They said that while you might be able to make it for sports, you certainly can’t make it for chess. That doesn’t mean they personally think there’s a case for sports too.
Exactly, I’m saying that in chess there is no advantage or disadvantage between sex (or gender for that matter) because it is not a physical game.
No I was saying that for chess you can’t since there’s no unfairness or difference in advantage to playing chess as a man or as a woman.
Women have been allowed in the open division and Trans females will also continued to be allowed in that division just not in the women’s division.
Why are men and woman separated in chess??
Traditionally chess has been a men’s game, and female adoption is limited. The creation of an exclusive women’s division is to generate a pathway to success for women, even if it’s known to have a lower ceiling compared to men. Basically, it is to foster the game in females.
There is literally no disadvantage to being female in chess.
Making a female only division is a form of soft sexism through low expectations.
Next thing you will be patting them on the head and condescendingly praising them for doing so well.
We are not discussing the physical advantages. We are discussing about career advantages.
In some countries it is actually advantageous to be female when attempting to get into STEM at college , there is additional talent identification and tuition at high schools with the girls in STEM programs that makes sure that girls who have an aptitude for STEM are identified and offered additional tuition, coaching and mentoring above and beyond what boys would receive (who’s STEM grades have on average fallen over the last 20 years. Since school budgets have not grown but additional programs that favor girls have been mandated the funds to run those programs have come at the expense of the general programs that have been cut back and underfunded resulting in a two tier education system with girls occupying the upper tier while feminist misandrists doggedly deny that a gender gap even exists)
So yes , there are advantages , but now how you think . And egalitarians have been looking on with increasingly despair as a new gender gap is emerging that mirrors the old gender gap almost exactly.
So there should be no barrier to entry for females in chess.
(This post is explicitly anti-sexist , for those that need it spelled out to them. What I am suggesting is that education budgets need to be beefed up so that nobody’s education is suffering)
You know what, I also hate these women’s only scholarships and accelerated education programs too, but I was just speaking the way of the world, not my opinions.
Based on my position in STEM education as a lecturer I am not allowed to have opinions. (Not until I receive full prof.)
Why does men being around affect their liking of chess? Why does anyone care if they like chess or not? It’s a board game you sit at a table playing. If they want to play board games with other people, it really shouldn’t matter who those other people are.
That isn’t the problem. The problem is how it has been naturally male-dominant makes it naturally unfriendly to other groups in the first place.
Not everyone is comfortable with this. By a large margin. The dedication of an event for women only creates that comfort zone.
This situation, and I humbly state I mean no fallacy, is strikingly similar to STEM education. Nobody is preventing them from joining, nobody cares if anyone likes it or not, but the fact that it is dominated by a specific group in the “open” field makes it less appealing to the other groups.
Alright, so woman want to have a woman’s only chess club to dominate their club with a gender because they feel the regular club is dominated by another gender. Id assume though, woman could play in the normal club dominated by men if they choose to? All seems silly. Part of the appeal of board games or videos games is that it’s a battle of the minds. A 10 year old kid can win against 300 lb MMA fighter. We can’t really help that naturally less men want to learn to bake, while less woman want to learn to hunt, can we? It should be open though to whoever. I think excluding a transgender woman on this is wrong, she has no advantage. It seems plain hurtful, and id think the woman who say they feel excluded from the main league should be able to empathize. I can understand physical competition, but that’s just my opinion.
Come to think about it, maybe it’s probably similar to how weight classes work in martial arts, except that the point of this is to guarantee that women can progress somewhat within their careers.
Of course I do not agree that we need to elevate or celebrate them to the level of grandmasters.
In a specific case of transgenders, I understand that transgender women are excluded until an official statement of medical or psychological evaluation has been made, to prevent cases where men illicitly transition just to play in these, and pardon my sexism, weaker leagues.
How can it be like weight classes? What are you measuring? In a tournament people play, the winners move forward. Doesn’t matter what’s in the pants. If ya lose, you’re welcome to keep playing with whoever else you want. Is the woman’s chess league saying men have an advantage in chess? Chess is about memorizing a bunch of different outcomes. I dunno, don’t have much interest in it myself, but if I was a woman and wanted to be the best in the world, I’d want to play against the best. There’s plenty of dudes that get their ass kicked in the men’s league. Should they make a separate league so they can win it? Are men just better at everything? Even board games? Or do men just care more? I’ve seen the graph that says men are more likely to have geniuses, but also more likely to be retards. Is that where it comes from? Does everyone have to be good enough to be a grandmaster to play? Cause I’d have to guess there’s a handful of superstars and the rest just play. But I don’t follow it.
Again, you are missing the point. It’s that the point of a protected space for women is to promote women’s participation in chess, not to overly tout their position over others.
And no, this does not have to do with the intelligence curve. It’s entirely about careers and participation.
Tradition would be my first guess.
Women experience a fair amount of harassment in the open league. They aren’t forbidden from participating, but the environment discourages it, so they set up a women’s league too.
If there wasn’t widespread cognitive damage amongst a fair bunch of male players and organizers, they could implement a far more sensible solution: punishing harassment.
And the real reason is because women don’t do well against men. They get dominated except for a very small minority. So I orde for women to have more parity, they have women’s chess A biological man competing with them is, statistically, a huge advantage.
Do you have any papers backing this up?
I hope this is a joke. if it is, add “/s”
Men and women aren’t separated, at least not usually. Its a woman’s category and an open (everyone) category. Is almost completely opposite of sexist, gives women more opportunities to succeed.
Edit: link to a larger discussion on this topic
There’s a very simple explanation to this, sexism.
And that answer is wrong
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
I don’t think it’s a issue in chess. Unless they have to run 100m while holding the chess board.
Or chess boxing
They consider trans women men, and men are smarter than women. That’s what it implies anyway.
Being good at chess isn’t about being “smart”, a lot of top chess players will tell you as much. It is however about things like spatial awareness and pattern recognition, and some studies have demonstrated those traits to be, on average, stronger in male subjects. I’m sure evidence to the contrary exists though.
removed by mod
None of y’all are getting it. Trans women have an unfair advantage in chess because they can turn the king into another queen.
Trans men can do the opposite, but that’s way less useful…
That would put the chess judges into a paradox and their mind would lock up, requiring a visit to the ICU. Because trans pepople can only do that, thay are “a danger to the whole chess community” /s
I recently heard the argument that no men would mentally survive loosing to a women in chess, especially grandmasters.
ngl I wonder if this contains more then a kernel of truth
That’s not the issue.
There are events for women, and there are events for everyone.
Women are underrepresented in chess, hence they have their own exclusive events.
Ah yes, the sexist take that men are fragile and are to be protected from women beating them in chess.
I’m sure some are. I’m also sure most aren’t
Being a minority in any social setting brings difficulties that others just don’t otherwise face.
Having a women’s category for chess is a way of creating a safe environment for everyone to thrive.
Minorities like trans people? A place where everyone can thrive?
It’s fucking chess. I understand men may have more typical interest, but there shouldn’t be divisions based on sex or gender. Maybe divisions for some neurodivergent people, but I’d bet on many of the great chess players being neurodivergent in some way.
If the gender ratio was something like 1:4 or less, you’d have an argument that everyone should just get along. But there’s like 16 times more men in chess than women and separate tournaments means the gals won’t have to learn chest thumping to deal with the asshole faction they can simply be catty which they already know how to do.
What the fuck is this sexist shit? Women are inharently catty and men are inharently aggressive?
If there’s an issue with men being aggressive, there needs to be rules to prevent it. If the ratio is a problem, there needs to be tools created to address that. The solution isn’t “women are catty and sensitive, so they need to be seperate.”
Erm, no. Both are aggressive. Cattiness is aggression.
Ok, why did you say men do chest thumping and women are catty?
Because the sexes tend to display aggression, status competition etc. in different ways. Are there catty men and chest-thumping women sure but bimodal distribution. Just like e.g. height.
I’m not going to argue with it being correct because it doesn’t matter. If the issue is aggression then it’s aggression, so just say aggression. Catty is also an insulting term. The league should have sportsmanship requirements and it shouldn’t matter how your aggression is presented or what gender you are when you are aggressive.
My apologies. I still don’t understand. Are you suggesting that women are too fragile to deal with men’s posturing, or what? It’s fucking chess. Unless someone is arguing there are blatant skill discrepancies between men an women, it still doesn’t makes sense why there are divided tournaments. Is the argument women are less strategically minded, or what?
Only counter argument I can give you is have a bit of empathy.
Imagine that you were a young girl and saw this game. Chess. And you wanted to learn how to play.
The first person you asked was your mother and she told you oh that’s a boys game. But you still wanted to learn.
So you decide to just read up on the rules. You don’t really know anyone that plays. So you just kinda play vs yourself and redo. Old GM matches you found in old magazines. None of them are like you btw. They all seem like old men that live on the opposite side of the world.
You really like the game tho. And eventually you realize oh. There are actual clubs/tourneys near here I can go and play with actual people!
You go. And there’s not a single girl there. Because of all the hurdles you had to jump. Most others that would have been interested just quit.
So you get there. You are obviously underprepared because you didn’t have the support system that made learning it easy. Because of that you just get wrecked.
In addition to that you probably will have to hear some dumb jokes. That if you didn’t have such a rough patch to get there in the first place they might have been funny to you. But they aren’t. They just felt like you were being punched down.
Having exclusive tournaments and leagues is a very minor way of rectifying awful historical disparities. It’s not perfect and it’s not a solution by itself. But it’s absolutely needed.
Only counter argument I can give you is have a bit of empathy.
Trans people are people too. If women need protection, trans people need it even more. They’re an even smaller minority that are mistreated even more often. I could write the same made up sad story as you but about a trans person.
If exclusive tournaments are a way to fix historic disparities, women should be kicked out of the league before trans people. I don’t totally disagree with the sentiment, but we can’t have a league for literally every small group we think of. Maybe there should be the main league and the “historically disparaged” league or something, but trans people should not be being removed from this league.
Entirely agree with everything you said. I never implied otherwise.
My entire comment was replying to this:
but there shouldn’t be divisions based on sex or gender.
There absolutely should. Reasoning: in my previous comment above.
If you are going to chess tournaments, you are past the point of getting your ass kicked in chess club. I said it on another thread, but if people are being demeaning and unsportsmanlike, they can get kicked out just as you would any other game. They do it for MTG, YGO and Pokemon TCG tournaments. Bullshittery about trans people aside, this is more of a systemic issue than anything else.
Nah, wait, why the hell is there a separate women’s category in fucking chess in the first place? Those in charge of this decision are 100% misogynists AND transphobes. There isn’t a single good reason for this.
For the same reason why we need quotas for businesses
Having a role model is hugely important for people picking up something.
If some girl plays chess and looks at the professional players and big tournaments there are no women there. So she likely will not pursue that path professionally. If there is a women’s league then there the guarantee that there will be visibility for the winners which then creates more idols for young people and over the years increases the level of play until they are equal enough.
Not to mention the chess-clubs favouring boys on their training since they have a bigger chance to make it big and shine a spotlight on that club that produced this talent. With female only tournaments it’s easier to create a name for yourself if you treat both genders equal and create the same talent for both sides there are so many fewer players.
Sure sounds dumb on paper but it’s actually really necessary in order to create a pathway to more professional female players
Having a role model is hugely important for people picking up something.
Maybe society should start teaching kids to just do what they want instead of waiting for some random person that shares arbitrary X-trait to “inspire and empower” them. Be your own person.
There’s what society says and what society does. Society in many countries already says what you propose, again and again. But it doesn’t actually react favourably when people do it, especially women.
I have a really, really hard time believing treating both genders equal and empowering accessibility + diversity is best achieved by segration.
And yet, it sometimes is.
Sad that people can’t see the good of having a safe space for women to compete in chess… WTF.
I’m afraid to ask you about your other views.
Look at how well Japonese Americans did after we segregated them in internment camps.
I’m going to assume you aren’t trolling.
Women traditionally have been discouraged from competitions, including chess. We are at the stage where we should be creating extra opportunities for women to be involved in these competitions. If we didn’t, tradition and systemic practices would continue to discourage women.
Chess has no male category. There’s co-ed, and female. This allows an extra space for women to compete against each other, feel safe, and make connections and friendships with other women in the minority. While still allowing them to compete in the coed category on a level playing field.
We will most likely continue to be at this stage for generations.
Having a women’s category for chess is a way of creating a safe environment for everyone to thrive.
this makes sense because cis women have such small bones they can’t reach past the centre board, giving most trans women and tall cis women an inherent advantage. /s
what the fuck chess this is just blatant transphobia
deleted by creator
removed by mod
average @mtgzone user
It’s transphobia and misogyny. Because it implies that men are smarter than women.
I knew professional chess was blatantly sexist, but transphobic now too? Not surprised just dissappointed
I knew professional chess was blatantly sexist
How?
Why is there a division between sexes in chess? Why is a “chess master” different from a “woman chess master”?
From what I have seen in chess forums, many old-school male chess players think there is a difference in analytical vs emotional mind or something in that vein which is just a thinly veiled version of sexism
It’s not helping to disprove that thinking if you need to create a separate protected league for women… Also what does it matter what other people think? It’s not a team based game… Also even if the clubs are separated by gender to create a nicer atmosphere during training or whatever, why should tournaments be?
Exactly, they shouldn’t be separated.
Silly question, why does chess, a mental activity, need gendered leagues?
Women have more places to hide the sex toys.
Edit: it’s a bad joke referencing the recent cheating scandal
So women can play chess without the added mental burdens that come along with being a women in a male dominated space.
Have you met chess bros?
I can see why women would want their own league.
The average chess bro is not a trans woman.
The average trans woman chess player was assigned chess bro at birth.
In girl chess the pieces are pink.
All of the pieces. On both sides of the board. Mentally it’s much more taxing keeping track of which pieces are yours. We guys have it really easy with the whole black/white pieces.
Actually women are just better at seeing colour and for them what looks like the same pink to us is actually 17 different shades.
And on average, they only start out with 80% of the pieces of the men’s set.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Women are scared of weak nerdy men or something…
Because otherwise women couldn’t currently compete beyond the local level. But I don’t have an explanation for the difference in playing levels beyond the fact that much fewer women seem to be interested in playing Chess competitively.
So you’re saying that women are not as smart as men?
There is an open bracket (where anyone can play) and a womens bracket, currently women do not perform well enough to play internationally in the open bracket. What they are stating are merely facts. And really were it not for the existence of the womens bracket it is possible that women would perform even worse.
No. First of all Chess has nothing to do with being smart in any sense I would use the word.
Otherwise a Raspberry Pi would outsmart all of humanity.Secondly, it’s much more similar to why the Faroe Islands can’t compete in soccer with France.
Nothing suggests they have less natural talent for soccer (and it’s quite popular there), but there’s just 1/1000 the number of players to draw from.Whoa, watch out with that logical thinking around here. As has been demonstrated by votes in a comment chain of mine further up the thread, the number of women at the top of the chess scene is totally indicative of womens’ intrinsic ability to play chess. It has nothing to do with the amount of women who play chess vs the amount of men who play chess! /s
But yeah, it’s simple shit. If men outnumber women 100:1 in the competitive chess scene then obviously we expect women to be extremely under represented at the top. But misogynists gonna misogyny.
shaun did an excellent video on exactly this. TL;DW: stereotype threat & harassment.
As is tradition
Fucking hell some of us can be idiots…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ZHFZOXiM9SM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s not gendered. If there is a female super GM she will be invited to the most prestigious tournaments. But there isn’t any… and that’s a whole other debate
Chess at pro level is brutal. One can get mentally mauled if the adversary has a superior, trained for cruel psychological warfare, mind.
Men just don’t stand a chance.
Yeah I don’t get it either
Women gated off their league because every their move is commented on as a female one. They can’t fail for it’s deepens the stereotype of women=stupid and they can’t win for it’s just man wasn’t paying attention or played easy for her. The lack of women chess clubs and championships, the stereotype of it being not a sport for women is why there aren’t many high ELO players in this isolated and weird situation.
One of the last strongholds of a fragile male nerd supremacy, that’s all.
It doesn’t in principle, and it’s not really either.
There is the main league, which is open for everyone, and an extra league for women only to offset the male dominance of the main league.
Why they feel the need to exclude trans women from that I have no idea. Even many of the physical sports allow trans women under certain conditions and only to prevent any unfair advantage due to increased muscle growth during puberty.
I’d say, trans is way more experienced at use of anal buds
Because the whole idea of gendered leagues in games that ultimately don’t matter at all is about segregation and control, not physiology.
Bring on the down votes from the “but muh sports 'tegridy!” clowns.
Edit: some of yall need a class on statistics lol
I think the highest rated woman is 2628, she wouldn’t even be in the top 100 which would require a rating of 2644.
With current rating, not a single women would have a chance to play in international tournaments, if there only was one league.
Anyone know what the highest rated trans male and trans female chess players are? Would be interesting to know if this rule is even currently necessary.
deleted by creator
I can’t find any trans men ranked, but the highest rating I can find for a trans woman is Natalia Pares Vives with a ranking of 2213, or about 325th on the chess.com women’s rankings.
So is your argument that women are inherently inferior at chess or…?
You did see the numbers? I mean, what else do you need?
I weep for your (in)ability to interpret statistics.
No, at least not in the sense that they are stupid.
Boys tend to be more interested in chess at a younger age, unless you start playing chess professionally at a very young age you are probably never going to a top 100 player.
It’s similar to why very few women become top tier in e-sport, they don’t typically have that interest at a very young age.
What you have just said is that there is a cultural difference and I agree with that. Dont confuse that with a difference based on sex, or physiology, in other words.
Obviously, men and women on a 1:1 basis have equal potential to excel at chess, based on their sex, right?
deleted by creator
I can’t help you to understand the difference between cultural statistics and physiological potential I guess lol
deleted by creator
If chess.com’s rankings are to be believed, none :/
I don’t really follow. Do you mean only non/minimally physical competitions or all competitive sports/games/activities?
For things like chess, fishing, and spelling bees gender segregation doesn’t make sense. But for things like martial arts or weight lifting I think it makes sense.
It at least makes sense if the goal is competition between roughly similar groups of participants, and not just a single open class dominated by a particular physiology.
The only concession I can think of is things like crossfit games or Olympic weight lifting, where raw strength is the one and only point, or so central to the point that it’d be pointless to have men and women competing against one another. But things that require strategy or finesse like most sports, and definitely martial arts, women could absolutely be top contenders.
As humans we have hunted mammoths together, gone to the moon together, created computers together, etc. I think we can handle throwing and catching the balls together too.
TLDR there are many more aspects to most sports than raw physical strength, which is the only physiological “advantage” men have over women.
I definitely disagree with the martial arts point. If it’s simple point sparring where technique is most important like in karate or taekwondo then yes, men and women can compete. If it’s MMA or any kind of grappling then no, men will dominate at the higher levels.
This will be true of any sport where strength, endurance or speed of the human body is a deciding factor. Which is, unfortunately, most sports.
I think you’re right that there’s a spectrum, where one end is bound by raw physical strength and the other end is bound by technique. However, I’d draw the line for segregation closer to the strength end than you, I think. Granted, this is ultimately all just subjective.
I think for many sports the physical advantage men have (on average) would outweigh any technique advantage a woman may have. Especially if we consider professional sports, where the skill (technique) of all participants is already exceptionally high.
I’m not a martial arts expert, but I would argue that the existence of weight classes in most martial arts is evidence that raw strength is a factor that can’t be ignored. It’s a fact that for an athletic man and an athletic woman of equal weight, the man will be stronger.
It’s a fact that for an athletic man and an athletic woman of equal weight, the man will be stronger.
Right. It’s not a fact that the man will be a more skilled or successful fighter (or insert any sports position here) than the woman based on strength alone, so why should we assume that it is?
I agree that technique is absolutely a critical component that women can be equal to men on.
I’m just arguing that a woman would have to have an incredible technique advantage to overcome a man’s strength advantage (in most martial arts). Is it possible? Certainly. Is it a realistic situation, especially at the professional level? I’m not so sure.
That’s why I brought up weight classes. Sure, a lighter weight class athlete has the potential to beat a heavier opponent with superior technique. But the skill gap necessary for that to happen isn’t realistic, therefore the playing field is leveled by strength (weight class).
Men will still be stronger at equal weight than women though the difference isn’t as drastic any more.
About martial arts in particular though women have an advantage when it comes to actually being mentally capable of learning proper technique early on. You can tell your ordinary 16yold guy as often as you want that they should trust technique, punch with their legs, etc. it won’t get through their skull and they’ll over-tense to “feel the strain” the moment you turn your back on them. They just love their 3rd class levers. Probably even makes sense from an evolutionary POV as doing things inefficiently is strength training.
It’s definitely possible for a woman to get better than a random street punk (though not with “feminist self defence” type of classes, those are generally bullshido). Against a properly trained man, though? Let’s say that the only thing my SO manages to be is a handful when I try to tickle her and it’s kinda hard to tickle when you don’t have a free hand.
Why not set up divisions, among sports where the physiological differences do matter, based on the actual weight, strength etc of the individual participants, whatever traits are relevant to that sport, rather than by gender? Even if the average woman and the average man have, say, a strength difference, there are still going to be some women who are evenly matched with some subset of men, after all. I feel like such a system, if done well, could make things more competitive than simply sorting by gender, because it enables sports where the people who are not on the stronger end of what their gender is capable of to still face equivalent opponents, and would remove the whole reason for debate regarding trans athletes, because they could get put into the same categories as anyone else without their identity being invalidated or having any relevance to their performance.
There are tons of ways to makes sports more inclusive. The issue has never been “we’re all out of ideas,” but rather “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” Also “tRaDiTiOn”
Fair point. If your argument is that physiological factors matter, but gender is an insufficient variable to segregate on then I don’t disagree.
I think it comes down to a matter of practicality. In most cases is gender a good enough heuristic? Maybe, or maybe not. I don’t really know, but it’s probably one of the simplest variables to consider. Perhaps it would be better if a more complete (but complex and harder to measure) set of factors were considered.
deleted by creator
I’m still wondering why there is even gender based play in Chess.
Strangely, in chess, there is almost never a man category. There is everybody and there is women. wikipedia . See also motivations why and arguments against. It’s tricky.
deleted by creator
Arbitrarianism, “everythng else is gendered, so…”
I’ve always heard that it’s to encourage visibility of women players and encourage women to take up the game, but this ban goes against that idea and just makes it sound like women aren’t as good at the game. Just like ol’ Bobby would want, I guess.
