no, it's a tool used to combat the overwhelming misogyny that makes it extremely unappealing for women to participate in. It's only effective when these orgs actually use other policies to work alongside it, which of course they never do.

[–] Notorious_handholder@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im not too familiar with Chess, but is there gendered leagues with Chess? Cause if so that seems really weird.

Like physical sports I understand a seperation and understand the need to regulate transgendered individuals due to physical difference between genders.

But for a mental cognitive sport that seems ludicrous to do

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, there are gendered leagues with Chess because misogyny

[–] nuxetcrux@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If women were treated equally at the highest level of chess they would only have <1% representation as of 2021.

There is only one woman in the top 100 ELO currently.

If women were held to the same intellectual standards of men in chess, they would only exist as rare, near singular phenomena, and then THAT would, rightfully, be called misogyny.

If you want to compete at the highest level, you must first compete--if you cannot compete, then you are not competing--it's built into the concept a priori. White men who are hateful are all for affirmative action because it keeps the weak weak. You can imagine Don Draper smiling and typing back whiskey while the victims are given handouts--resented by the rest of humanity, wrongfully or rightfully--this is how they make their racist fantasies racist realities.

I don't think it's an intellectual shortcoming either: it may even be that men are just mentally ill when it comes to excellence in competition and not excellence for its own sake, which I think more women are open minded enough to see; and, that men are more likely to take things "too far."

Men also had to swallow that computers--built by people of diverse backgrounds and genders--are far better at calculating chess outcomes, and someone might complain that computer constructors should be allowed to enter AI and have it ELO ranked.

On top of all this, I think chess would be delighted with female stars especially after Queen's Gambit. I can't imagine they would turn down the massive amounts of money that would generate (see formula W drivers/Danica Patrick) even if all they did was ALMOST win.

At some point reality sets and you're left with only hard truths. The hard truth about chess is that it's a war fantasy computation board game probably invented by and for male brain reward structure.

Women are proving much more capable than men in society, which is what matters, but if they want to win at chess or backgammon or go or shogi they're going to have to develop an insane priority structure where you would sooner skin your mother alive than lose.

[–] RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Next, you're going to tell me skull size matters.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

yes - but at least there you could argue that it's a historical relic.

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the attitude that men are smarter than women (or at least, better at chess) didn't exist previously, and that's why they leagues are setup this way. But it's one thing to not change existing policies rooted in sexism, and another entirely to create new policies rooted in sexism.

The former happens literally all the time, because large institutions are slow to change, and even though blatant sexism is no longer socially acceptable, it's still prevalent in peoples' heads. When the latter happens, it understandably causes more uproar, because it's an active move towards more sexist policies.

Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely get rid of gender based leagues IMO and switch to having leagues based on ability (whatever the critical ability might be for the competition in question) and call it a day - that would solve both the sexism issue and the trans issue, as there would no longer be any "unfair advantages". What genitals a person was born with - whether they kept them or not - shouldn't impact how you're allowed to compete especially in an activity like chess that has no reasonable basis for gender separation in the first place

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMO you've hit the nail on the head.

These conflicts and confusions are the consequences of gendered leagues, but because the issues come up in the context of transgender people, it makes it seem like an issue with transgender people.

Buuut then there is the issue of the representation of women in (most) popular professional sports is much lower, and would be worse without this delineation along gender lines.

So what we need is to make up our mind if we want either:

All sports to be as fair at all times as physically possible

If we want to see all genders fairly represented in popular professional sports

If it is the first, we should ungender the leagues. If it is the second, we should stop worrying about it and let transgender people compete wherever they want.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"the transphobia is because we gave the women their own space, that was our mistake"

No, it was because of transphobia

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That isn't what I'm saying, I agree the transphobia is just transphobia.

I'm trying to talk about why this issue confuses so many people, and why people that aren't well educated on gender often fall for the transphobes bullshit when it comes to the "fairness" in sport shit, as well as guess at a possible way to recontextualize this "debate" in a way that benefits trans people.

Skill and talent aren't cleanly split along gender lines just because that is a convenient way to split the leagues. If these transphobes are so concerned about "fairness" then we should have more leagues for all sports delineated by something besides gender, I recommend weight class. Or, if the point was for women to have a space, then it should be a space for all women, and trans women should be allowed to participate. That second option is the one I would pick.