drankl

The US has been through worse, you'll probably be fine.

Best thing to do is not watch the news as much, it's designed to make you worry about things that are out of your control.

It's most likely based on the findings discussed here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00553-7

It is being used as a wedge issue by conservatives in the US, but I feel that liberal politicians made a rod for their own backs on this one. An unforced error that their opponents were happy to take advantage of.

This article has an interesting viewpoint, from the perspective of a feminist liberal who had been trying to warn Democrats about this for years: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/

I am not.

> Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it.

Section 4.1 is the logical outcome of FIDE categories being split into Open, where both men and women can compete, and Women, where only women can compete. If a female player changes her chess-gender to man, then it no longer makes any sense for her to hold titles from the Women category such as Woman Grandmaster. She is choosing to exclude herself from a restricted category and the titles that only exist in that category.

I actually don't agree with this policy overall but given that they've decided to let men register as women and women register as men, I'm glad they at least included some restrictions in Section 3 to prevent the men from competing in the Women's category.

> if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview.

I think we just have different worldviews.

This article by Susan Polgar, a trailblazer in women's chess and who has been a role model for female chess players worldwide, makes the case for why separate tournaments for women and girls are needed: https://web.archive.org/web/20250306124806/https://chessdail...

She describes the challenges she faced as a young girl and then as a woman in this male-dominated field, how she had to deal with sexism, social stigma, unwanted sexual advances and threats to her physical safety - all because she is female and wanted to play chess.

With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women) in these tournaments benefit women and girls? I don't see how it would. The ask seems to be driven from these males requesting to be included, rather than female players requesting these males' inclusion.

> you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up

I've read their policy and from my understanding the restrictions they've put onto eligibility in the female competition are both evidence-based and prioritise fairness for female athletes (rather than inclusion of male athletes). That's why I personally welcome them.

It's actually quite nuanced when you look at the details, for example, athletes with CAIS are eligible even though from a strictly technical perspective they are 46,XY males. The reason they are eligible is because, being entirely sensitive to androgens, their bodies developed an external female phenotype with no testosterone-driven advantage over 46,XX female athletes.

Whereas the policy excludes male athletes who have DSDs like 5-ARD, even if they have female documentation (e.g. Caster Semenya), because of the male physiological advantage and how unfair this is to female competitors.

> Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before.

I have actually, in many discussions with trans-identitied people both in real life and online, in reading articles and books, and in reading forums where they talk to each other. It's mostly why I ended up rejecting the idea that woman and man are merely identities to be claimed. Personally I find that notion quite sexist.

To quote the British Prime Minister, the purpose of recognising a Palestinian state comprising both Gaza and the West Bank is to "revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution".

But how can that work in practice when the stated aim of Hamas is to eradicate Israel? It seems that removal of Hamas from power in Gaza would be a prerequisite.

The reason for a separate women's category in FIDE's chess competitions is different to athletic sports - it was introduced to encourage female participation in what was an overwhelmingly male-dominated field.

As an example, here's what women in chess have to deal with: https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/

That statement makes the point that FIDE are well aware this is a problem, and is one they're trying to solve:

"FIDE not only strives to increase women’s representation in professional sports and official positions but also to change the perception of chess as purely a men’s world. Our community has to be a place where women feel safe and respected. Therefore, any action that carries disrespect, sexism or physical, verbal or emotional assault is unacceptable."

Now, some people might argue that if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is, then that player should be permitted to compete alongside women. Given their aim of increasing female participation in chess, FIDE have been somewhat more skeptical of this argument, as you can see in the policy you linked.

> but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion.

I made a comment about the perspective of World Athletics on this, and linked to their statement as evidence. Why would you feel the need to rebut this? Instead of considering it thoughtfully.

Historians will probably have a range of opinions on this matter.

This seems practically impossible unless Hamas is out of the picture. Their stated goal is the eradication of Israel, not a two-state solution.

For example, this is what a senior Hamas Political Bureau leader had to say last year about the October 7th massacre:

"Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this, with full force. We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs."

Depends where you are in the world. In the UK, most of the opposition to sex being replaced by "gender identity" in law was organised by feminists, not conservatives.

In fact it was the UK's Conservative political party, under Theresa May's government, who were pushing reforms to the law to make it much easier for people to change their "legal sex".

World Athletics, which considered this very carefully and with the input of numerous experts in the field, disagrees with you on the question of male physiological advantage in female sports: https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/sry-gene-test...

I suspect this is what those pushing these laws wanted all along. They talk about dying in dignity and all that but seems it's much more about normalizing human culling.

I'm just commenting on a topic I'm interested in, like the person I replied to did.

If you compare the female and male world records for pretty much any sport, you'll very clearly see the effect of SRY and other male-making genes.

The rationale for the female category is to remove this male advantage from competition. Allowing a subset of males who have the advantage of their sex to compete against female athletes, just because these males call themselves women, undermines the whole point of women's sport.

This also shows King Lear as a good example of why trigger warnings are unnecessary, given that in 400 years of performance no-one bothered with such warnings and no harm was caused by their absence.