Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

More Tavistock travesty

70 children under the age of five were sent their for treatment

Which sick parents would do that to their own children, let alone anyone else's child ?

N here Andy.

I was three when I first started saying, ''I'm not a boy''. I didn't get a referral when I lived at home. Instead I got the shoot beaten out of me for six long years. I went eventually to live with Monica, I didn't need my parents or the Tavistock after that.

What you are advocating with your Daily Express views is that I should either have just shut up, put up with the beatings, or maybe been more successful with my suicide attempts age nine.

Thanks a bunch. It's ignorant fools that are the problem, not those with compassion, and not the kids either.

 

[newfhouse]

70 children under the age of five were sent their for treatment

Across a decade seventy children (as well as their parents) were supported by medical experts. What “treatment” is your fevered brain imagining heir?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Fide have said they will revoke any titles won by players who they believe competed in the “wrong” category, even if that was permitted under the rules in place at the time. And guess what?

There were no occasions when that happened so it indicates that this is less about fairness or encouraging more women to compete in chess than politics.

A quick Google suggests there are at least 3 transwomen players competing at a high level. One is quoted in the article. Sounds like this is a preemptive move to prevent Chess having a Lia Thomas moment or a Laurel Hubbard situation.

Again though you seem to be suggesting 'It doesn't happen much so it isn't a problem'. Are there a certain number of Women's titles it would be acceptable for men to win before it's worthy of action being taken? Two? Five? Ten?

 

[monkers]

A quick Google suggests there are at least 3 transwomen players competing at a high level. One is quoted in the article. Sounds like this is a preemptive move to prevent Chess having a Lia Thomas moment or a Laurel Hubbard situation.

Again though you seem to be suggesting 'It doesn't happen much so it isn't a problem'. Are there a certain number of Women's titles it would be acceptable for men to win before it's worthy of action being taken? Two? Five? Ten?

This is embarrassing for women. This is nothing to do with fairness in sport; nothing to do with retained advantage, unless you are saying that male brains are superior, ie. brains are sexed / gendered?

 

[AndyRM]

This is embarrassing for women. This is nothing to do with fairness in sport; nothing to do with retained advantage, unless you are saying that male brains are superior, ie. brains are sexed / gendered?

First sentence nails it for me.

Feeble laydee brainz can't hack it eh? Best protect them from the big bad manly brainz.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

This is embarrassing for women.

Any that are embarrassed will surely be already competing in the open class?

 

[AuroraSaab]

First sentence nails it for me.
Feeble laydee brainz can't hack it eh? Best protect them from the big bad manly brainz.

You're just being deliberately disingenuous now. You're pretending that there aren't other valid reasons why groups should have protected categories when I suspect you would support them for other minority demographics. Just not for women.

 

[AndyRM]

You're just being deliberately disingenuous now. You're pretending that there aren't other valid reasons why groups should have protected categories when I suspect you would support them for other minority demographics. Just not for women.

No, I'm not.

The "valid" reason is that male brains have better spatial awareness than female brains. Which is disputed even in the article. As I said, rightly or wrongly I believe there to be some truth to that, but nothing seems to suggest it's relevant to chess.

 

[newfhouse]

preemptive

Nope, it definitely talks about revocation.

 

[monkers]

Women will soon be the equal of men at chess – if they are allowed to​

The game has been pervaded by sexism, but unlike most sports all-female competitions will hopefully eventually prove unnecessary

I am bad at chess but I don’t for one second think that’s because I have two X chromosomes...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/27/women-soon-equal-men-chess-if-allowed/

 

[monkers]

You're just being deliberately disingenuous now. You're pretending that there aren't other valid reasons why groups should have protected categories when I suspect you would support them for other minority demographics. Just not for women.

Maybe you need to wake up to the fact that women are not permitted to compete with men, because in some cases the male ego is too fragile to allow the possibility of being beaten by women, just as they lose face if beaten by a gay guy at anything at all. These fragile men put themselves forward as the leaders and rule makers.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, I'm not. The "valid" reason is that male brains have better spatial awareness than female brains. Which is disputed even in the article. As I said, rightly or wrongly I believe there to be some truth to that, but nothing seems to suggest it's relevant to chess.

That's one possible reason mentioned in that specific article. This is not a new discussion in chess and other reasons also contribute to the necessity (currently anyway) of a separate class for women in some comps and an Open class.

Maybe you need to wake up to the fact that women are not permitted to compete with men, because in some cases the male ego is too fragile to allow the possibility of being beaten by women, just as they lose face if beaten by a gay guy at anything at all. These fragile men put themselves forward as the leaders and rule makers.

Women currently do compete with men in some chess comps. They can continue to compete against them in mixed comps, or in the Open class in other comps with a protected Women's category. I have never heard of any man complaining about being beaten by a gay man in any competition or sport in decades, if ever.

Edit: Former top chess player Susan Polgar explains at length here why separate competitions for girls and women are necessary. It's everything from encouraging girls to play, to raising the profile of the women's game, to safety at tournaments. Hopefully one day separate comps for girls and women in addition to Open categories won't be necessary.

https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/

 

[AndyRM]

That's one possible reason mentioned in that specific article. This is not a new discussion in chess and other reasons also contribute to the necessity (currently anyway) of a separate class for women in some comps and an Open class.



Women currently do compete with men in some chess comps. They can continue to compete against them in mixed comps, or in the Open class in other comps with a protected Women's category. I have never heard of any man complaining about being beaten by a gay man in any competition or sport in decades, if ever.

I have no interest in chess beyond what I read in that article. Other than it being seen as a "boys" game historically (like most sports/games) I can't see any other barriers, and I don't see how banning trans competitors makes it any more inclusive.

Has anyone complained about being beaten by a competitor with a different sexuality? Doubtful: it's irrelevant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have no interest in chess beyond what I read in that article. Other than it being seen as a "boys" game historically (like most sports/games) I can't see any other barriers, and I don't see how banning trans competitors makes it any more inclusive.

Read the Susan Polger interview in the link above. There are lots of barriers to girls and women playing chess. A protected class for female players helps to overcome them.

Has anyone complained about being beaten by a competitor with a different sexuality? Doubtful: it's irrelevant.

No. The post suggesting it wasn't by me but was posted as irrelevant whataboutery and an attempt to link the demand that men play in the women's category with the abuse gay men get, when the 2 things are unrelated.

 

[classic33]

That's one possible reason mentioned in that specific article. This is not a new discussion in chess and other reasons also contribute to the necessity (currently anyway) of a separate class for women in some comps and an Open class.



Women currently do compete with men in some chess comps. They can continue to compete against them in mixed comps, or in the Open class in other comps with a protected Women's category. I have never heard of any man complaining about being beaten by a gay man in any competition or sport in decades, if ever.

Edit: Former top chess player Susan Polgar explains at length here why separate competitions for girls and women are necessary. It's everything from encouraging girls to play, to raising the profile of the women's game, to safety at tournaments. Hopefully one day separate comps for girls and women in addition to Open categories won't be necessary.

https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/

Name a few, off the top of your head. No searching as you seem to have the answer ready.

Can't possibly be single sex playing areas as Polgar is shown in her own piece, playing against a man in an all male club. Some double standards at play doing that. She's in their space.