Gendered chess tournaments make a certain amount of sense. The main issues are that women are less likely to play chess due to societal and cultural factors and without their own division would have even more societal and cultural roadblocks to joining the game. This isn’t touching on how getting certain titles requires winning specific events that would prove even more difficult for those same reasons.
Basically without gendered tournaments there would be even less women in chess and it would be even more of a “boys club” than it already is.
It’s also why the anti-trans argument makes absolutely no sense in chess. Like, in sports there’s some room for nuance because cis men do have a huge advantage in most sports of cis women, and depending on the sport and the stage of transition, that can carry forward to trans women. It’s fucking hard to have that nuanced conversation because 95% of the time it gets drowned out by transphobes, but there’s still something to talk about.
But in chess? Nobody is arguing there’s any inherent biological advantage. The only reason for gendered tournaments is to create a safer space for non-men to compete in a male-dominated pastime. The only argument for excluding trans women from the Women’s category in chess is transphobia. It’s a real “mask off” moment for all the TERFs claiming it’s about “integrity in sport” (Jesus fuck, writing that out made me realise how similar this all is to gamergate and the birth of the alt right).
A lot of tournaments in HEMA (historical European martial arts—think fencing, but with bigger, older styles of swords than what they use at the Olympics) around where I lived have started using an “Underrepresented Genders” (URG) category alongside the Open category, instead of Women’s. It’s functionally not much different from having a Women’s category that also accepts trans people (important possible difference: it accepts trans men as well as trans women, and enbies), but the name helps make it clearer. I quite like that as a concept.
If you are paired against an opponent and choose not to play against them then you get an uncontested match loss and will tank your ELO pretty quickly. This is also anecdotal but I’ve never met a player who would refuse an opponent of roughly equal ELO
That specific scenario wouldn’t make the tournament a “men’s only” tournament, it’d just mean that a bunch of sensitive weirdos are throwing a strop because a woman is in the vicinity lol
That’s so mad though, are there really men who refuse to play chess with women???
So instead of having a welcoming space for a historically and actively marginalized group while allowing them to still complete in every other tournament we should just what? Close women’s divisions, revoke all their titles, and tell them to play “real chess” instead?
Like getting rid of women’s tournaments is only a bad thing that would make the game stagnant even further to being the “boys club” game a lot of people already think it is when chess should be for everybody.
I’m not fond of self-marginalizing. So maybe some of us are uncomfortable. Some men will be, too. Maybe individuals are capable of self-regulating if empowered to do that. I’m sure some chuds will throw a tantrum. Block and parry, so to speak.
I’m being genially serious, find a local club and give it a try, you might find you enjoy it. Or you could try playing on chess.com for an even easier entry they also have computer opponents of various skill levels if you feel intimidated by having a human opponent to begin
Gendered chess tournaments make a certain amount of sense. The main issues are that women are less likely to play chess due to societal and cultural factors and without their own division would have even more societal and cultural roadblocks to joining the game. This isn’t touching on how getting certain titles requires winning specific events that would prove even more difficult for those same reasons.
Basically without gendered tournaments there would be even less women in chess and it would be even more of a “boys club” than it already is.
It’s also why the anti-trans argument makes absolutely no sense in chess. Like, in sports there’s some room for nuance because cis men do have a huge advantage in most sports of cis women, and depending on the sport and the stage of transition, that can carry forward to trans women. It’s fucking hard to have that nuanced conversation because 95% of the time it gets drowned out by transphobes, but there’s still something to talk about.
But in chess? Nobody is arguing there’s any inherent biological advantage. The only reason for gendered tournaments is to create a safer space for non-men to compete in a male-dominated pastime. The only argument for excluding trans women from the Women’s category in chess is transphobia. It’s a real “mask off” moment for all the TERFs claiming it’s about “integrity in sport” (Jesus fuck, writing that out made me realise how similar this all is to gamergate and the birth of the alt right).
A lot of tournaments in HEMA (historical European martial arts—think fencing, but with bigger, older styles of swords than what they use at the Olympics) around where I lived have started using an “Underrepresented Genders” (URG) category alongside the Open category, instead of Women’s. It’s functionally not much different from having a Women’s category that also accepts trans people (important possible difference: it accepts trans men as well as trans women, and enbies), but the name helps make it clearer. I quite like that as a concept.
100% this if people want you get angry at the FIDE they should do it for the right reasons.
I mean, easy fix there right? Just have a women’s tournament and an everybody tournament. Women can then choose which to enter.
That’s what we already do?
Oh gotcha. Sorry I’m not the most familiar with the chess world.
No because there are men only tournaments too, what the poster is saying is to remove men only and only have women or everybody we think.
What chess tournament is men’s only, I haven’t heard of a single one?
Okay, seems you were correct. Thanks for the correction, genuinely!
Maybe not officially, we aren’t sure (we will look this up). But there are some men who refuse to play with women.
If you are paired against an opponent and choose not to play against them then you get an uncontested match loss and will tank your ELO pretty quickly. This is also anecdotal but I’ve never met a player who would refuse an opponent of roughly equal ELO
Awesome, thanks for the correction!
That specific scenario wouldn’t make the tournament a “men’s only” tournament, it’d just mean that a bunch of sensitive weirdos are throwing a strop because a woman is in the vicinity lol
That’s so mad though, are there really men who refuse to play chess with women???
Hmm, we could have sworn we saw something a while ago but we aren’t finding anything now. Oh well shrugs.
The system only functions the way it does because the people prop it up. Any system.
So instead of having a welcoming space for a historically and actively marginalized group while allowing them to still complete in every other tournament we should just what? Close women’s divisions, revoke all their titles, and tell them to play “real chess” instead?
Like getting rid of women’s tournaments is only a bad thing that would make the game stagnant even further to being the “boys club” game a lot of people already think it is when chess should be for everybody.
I’m not fond of self-marginalizing. So maybe some of us are uncomfortable. Some men will be, too. Maybe individuals are capable of self-regulating if empowered to do that. I’m sure some chuds will throw a tantrum. Block and parry, so to speak.
Then play in an open tournament?
Sure
I’m being genially serious, find a local club and give it a try, you might find you enjoy it. Or you could try playing on chess.com for an even easier entry they also have computer opponents of various skill levels if you feel intimidated by having a human opponent to begin