Transgender athletes

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well of course they have, it was bad enough when a machine rocked up and beat them, if a girl turns up and does the same, I can only image the devastation... 😲

That's a silly post even by your standards, and factually incorrect as well. 

Women and former women are not excluded from the open class. 

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's a silly post even by your standards, and factually incorrect as well. 

Women and former women are not excluded from the open class. 

Another joke that's zipped overhead, I can explain it if you want... 🥱

 

That's 90 page's on a topic, that's only intractable because 'they' say it is; I'm bored now...

Edited August 18, 2023 by dimreepr

[iNow]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Even the chess world is now moving away from allowing former men to compete as women in women's championships

First, they're called trans women, not former men. 

Second, this suggests that the chess world believes men have some sort of mental and intelligence advantage over women players, which they clearly do not.

I believe the International Chess Federation made a mistake here, and the female grandmaster whom everyone in this thread seems eager to protect agrees with ME, not YOU... calling the ruling ridiculous, absurd, and offensive. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66538328

Quote

Woman Grandmaster and two-time US Women's Champion Jennifer Shahade also criticised the FIDE decision, saying the policy was "ridiculous and dangerous".

"It's obvious they didn't consult with any transgender players in constructing it... I strongly urge FIDE to reverse course on this and start from scratch with better consultants," Ms Shahade said.

UK MP Angela Eagle, who was a joint winner of the 1976 British Girls' Under-18 chess championship, said: "There is no physical advantage in chess unless you believe men are inherently more able to play than women - I spent my chess career being told women's brains were smaller than men's and we shouldn't even be playing."

"This ban is ridiculous and offensive to women," she added.

In its policy decision, FIDE also said that trans men who had won women's titles before transitioning would see their titles abolished.

I'd very much like to understand the rationale... especially since men and women on a daily basis compete alongside and against one another in the open division already."

It seems even chess is subject to prejudice and ignorance, and while they acknowledge this is temporary, it should (and almost certainly will) be undone sooner rather than later. 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think believe that everyone posting on this thread in essence wants the same - fair inclusion for all. we just have differing views/opinions on what is fair. 

Indeed. Appreciate your post, as well. Like a two-sided coin, fair to one may be unfair to another. We all want fairness, but we seem to target different subjects in our desire to protect. 

There aren't perfect answers. We'll need to compromise and refine regardless of path chosen. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Indeed. Appreciate your post, as well. Like a two-sided coin, fair to one may be unfair to another. We all want fairness, but we seem to target different subjects in our desire to protect. 

There aren't perfect answers. We'll need to compromise and refine regardless of path chosen.

And the fairness has the be decided/agreed to by all groups. It can’t be just a majority, much like the four wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for supper.

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

how do you suggest handicapping a biological male fairly? 

Math, statistics, science, trial and error, etc. The same way they figured out how to allow fair competition in boxing, soccer, bowling, horse racing, co-ed sports, Olympics, etc.

As I said previously, it should be done by the the governing bodies of the sports in consultation players, experts, etc. and should be adjusted as time goes on.

Allowing trans women to compete fairly should be figured out just as they figured out how to deal with new technologies in sports equipment, performance enhancing drugs, and the myriad other issues that arise over the years. 

How would YOU suggest we allow trans women to fairly compete?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

First, they're called trans women, not former men. 

It's not compulsory, and it would be a sad day if political correctness ever became compulsory. Former men is true and accurate, unlike trans women, of which both words are debateable. Having said that, I don't care, I use whatever seems most appropriate at the time. 

Quote

Anna Eagle "I spent my chess career being told women's brains were smaller than men's and we shouldn't even be playing."

I don't believe that. Sounds like she's stretching the truth. Amazing for a lefty.

Quote

"This ban is ridiculous and offensive to women," she added.

If it is, then banning men is too, for the same reason. She's not thought it through at all. Amazing for a lefty.

But hey, if it's ridiculous and offensive, then women won't enter the women's competition, they will be too offended, and worried by the ridicule. 

Actually, I find it debateable if a women's competition is a good thing in chess. But the good thing is that it's not compulsory, and women can enter in the open section if they like.

 

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How would YOU suggest we allow trans women to fairly compete?

'Fairly'. Therin lies the whole intractable,  squaring the circle problem. YOU (whoever makes the decision) has to be unfair to someone.

YOU has to make a decision on something that cannot be completely resolved.

 

Note I support neither side here and am sorry to read today's news about Lineham, whose antics I definitely don't support.

 

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

'Fairly'. Therin lies the whole intractable,  squaring the circle problem. YOU (whoever makes the decision) has to be unfair to someone.

 

Can you expand on that please? Why can't we find a "fair" solution? ( Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.) What specifically is the intractable issue that you don't feel can be addressed?

[TheVat]

Re: former men

An odd approach to nomenclature, @mistermack.  Do we define people by a former appearance that was always incorrect?   Does anyone call cabinet secretary Pete Buttigieg a former straight male.   I think we'd agree that is a dishonest description even if Pete, in his military days and growing up presented the appearance of straight maleness.  By the same token, a woman who was born with external male genitalia but whose brain developed (due to prenatal hormonal effects, epigenetics and/or androgen insensitivity) as female or NB is not really a former man.  As you yourself pointed out somewhere back there, you are your brain, it is the seat of mind and sense of selfhood.  

[studiot]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you expand on that please? Why can't we find a "fair" solution? ( Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.) What specifically is the intractable issue that you don't feel can be addressed?

Is it 'fair' that taller sportsmen and women generally make better fast bowlers and tennis players ?

Is it fair that my eyesight has never been good enough for me to excell at my favourite sport ?

Life is full of unfairness and inequity.

Yet we have to somehow reach conclusions or results.

They are rarely 'fair' as a result.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Is it 'fair' that taller sportsmen and women generally make better fast bowlers and tennis players ?

Is it fair that my eyesight has never been good enough for me to excell at my favourite sport ?

Life is full of unfairness and inequity.

Yet we have to somehow reach conclusions or results.

They are rarely 'fair' as a result.

That is why I clarified by stating:

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.

This thread is about adding transgender players to sport, not about some unattainable 'fairness' ideal. So "YES", in this context, it is 'fair' that some people are taller than others and that some have better eyesight.

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That is why I clarified by stating:

This thread is about adding transgender players to sport, not about some unattainable 'fairness' ideal. So "YES", in this context, it is 'fair' that some people are taller than others and that some have better eyesight.

 

I don't see that the OP introduced fairness at all.

So any suggestion concerning the current level of fairness is moot.

On 3/5/2021 at 5:00 PM, Curious layman said:

how do we intergrate them? 

I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example.

Would it be possible to have another way to determine who plays what sport?

So instead of male and female, base it on muscle ratio or testosterone levels?

Do we need to do anything at all?

 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't see that the OP introduced fairness at all.

Not to point out the obvious, but there have been 90 pages of discussion since then. It’s evolved a bit. 

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not to point out the obvious, but there have been 90 pages of discussion since then. It’s evolved a bit. 

So I'm as entitled to my view of 'fair' as Zapatos is entitled to his.

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

So I'm as entitled to my view of 'fair' as Zapatos is entitled to his.

So, using your definition then, what would you like to discuss?

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

An odd approach to nomenclature, @mistermack.  Do we define people by a former appearance that was always incorrect? 

No definition was attempted. But if I substitute "refer to" then I would say that by saying "trans" you ARE referring to their former appearance. In any case, for me, the expression "trans woman" sometimes jars a bit, because it implies an acceptance of something I don't accept, that a man can transition to be a woman. (as I stated a long way back) But I don't care particularly, and have used "trans woman" previously in this thread less than a day ago. 

If you can suggest something that doesn't imply acceptance that trans women are women, I'll try that out too.

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So, using your definition then, what would you like to discuss?

In my secondary school, there were two girls who could easily beat me at running (did I mention they both ran mid distance for England) and also one lad who could swim to the other end of the pool faster than I could get across it.
(did I mention that he also swam for Emgland)

Did that bother me ?

Not in the least, though I did my best to beat them.

Would it have made any difference if their genders were any different?

I doubt it.

Were there other pupils intermediate between myself and them?

Yes of course. but I also represented the school in those sports.

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

In my secondary school, there were two girls who could easily beat me at running (did I mention they both ran mid distance for England) and also one lad who could swim to the other end of the pool faster than I could get across it.
(did I mention that he also swam for Emgland)

Did that bother me ?

Not in the least, though I did my best to beat them.

Would it have made any difference if their genders were any different?

I doubt it.

Were there other pupils intermediate between myself and them?

Yes of course. but I also represented the school in those sports.

Sounds like a pretty typical situation for many people.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

for me, the expression "trans woman" sometimes jars a bit, because it implies an acceptance of something I don't accept

Do you also refuse to accept the new last name when a woman marries and no longer uses her maiden name, even after she corrects you?

Do you also refuse to call someone Doctor after they compete the appropriate schooling and insist on calling them Miss or Mister, even after they correct you?

What is so hard about calling a person trans or the gender which best aligns with who they are and how they identify, if it’s not simply plain old fashioned bigotry?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Sounds like a pretty typical situation for many people.

Unless, of course, you’re trans and trying to compete in the division which best aligns with how you authentically identify yourself. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

So I'm as entitled to my view of 'fair' as Zapatos is entitled to his.

I never suggested otherwise. What a needlessly barbed reply.

“Fairness” has been a consistent ribbon through and core theme across multiple posts for several months now (and central to the arguments of many here standing in opposition). 

Edited August 19, 2023 by iNow

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you also refuse to accept the new last name when a woman marries and no longer uses her maiden name, even after she corrects you?

I'm amazed you asked. You actually quoted the obvious answer. The name "trans woman" implies something I don't accept. Camilla Parker Bowles married Charles Windsor. I don't refer to her as "Her Royal Highness Queen Camilla" because I don't agree that she's high, don't accept the monarchy, and don't regard her husband (his majesty) as majestic. I would call them "the Windsors" unless I was talking to someone who wouldn't understand that.

If Americans started calling Donald Trump the "National Treasure" , I doubt if many on here would choose to follow suit. 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, studiot said:

Is it 'fair' that taller sportsmen and women generally make better fast bowlers and tennis players ?

Is it fair that my eyesight has never been good enough for me to excell at my favourite sport ?

Life is full of unfairness and inequity.

Yet we have to somehow reach conclusions or results.

They are rarely 'fair' as a result.

Your talking about the fairness of life, that we all have to play; we're talking about the fairness of a "GAME"!!!, that we all should be allowed to play; the length of one's dick is a different game entirely. 😣

On an aside, it's odd to think that a cat/feline is considered feminine, yet the Tom's are sporting a barbed dick that's designed to inflict pain, life's full of irony... 🧐

Just a thought...

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm amazed you asked. You actually quoted the obvious answer. The name "trans woman" implies something I don't accept. Camilla Parker Bowles married Charles Windsor. I don't refer to her as "Her Royal Highness Queen Camilla" because I don't agree that she's high, don't accept the monarchy, and don't regard her husband (his majesty) as majestic. I would call them "the Windsors" unless I was talking to someone who wouldn't understand that.

 

Funny you call them Windsor, then, which is a name fabricated to allay anti-German sentiment.  Really, you should call them Saxe-Coburgs, or in Phillip's line, Oldenburgs.  Why would you, by your logic, keep calling them Windsors?  Castles can't really father children!

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm amazed you asked. You actually quoted the obvious answer. The name "trans woman" implies something I don't accept.

I doubt you'd accept a punch in the face, yet it's real; the obvious answer is to pay them respect and not receive a punch in the face.

 

[mistermack]

58 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Funny you call them Windsor, then, which is a name fabricated to allay anti-German sentiment.  Really, you should call them Saxe-Coburgs, or in Phillip's line, Oldenburgs.  Why would you, by your logic, keep calling them Windsors?  Castles can't really father children!

I'm against them being considered royal, or having hereditary privilege. There are lots of people called Windsor, it doesn't imply superiority or privilege. 

 

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I doubt you'd accept a punch in the face, yet it's real; the obvious answer is to pay them respect and not receive a punch in the face.

That sounds very wise. I'll forward it to Zelensky. 

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm against them being considered royal, or having hereditary privilege. There are lots of people called Windsor, it doesn't imply superiority or privilege. 

 

That sounds very wise. I'll forward it to Zelensky.