Trans players in chess

@Rimac_C2 said in #89:
> @basmati94 "Some females may have the same username as on their instagram or on their tiktok. Therefore someone could quite easily search their social media during a chess game, find the person in question, then begin to send them abuse or try and engage in sexual chat simply because they are female".
>
> Then Thats simply stupid, mistake of the female to keep accounts like that, also how ridiculious it is for somebody to search there opponent's user id online and check their insta, tiktok, hardly 0.1% of people will do something like this, also people dont understand to block the people who send them stupid msgs and rather they come and say that online chess is not safe blah blah just report block move on and also you can report someone in the game chat if they're saying some bs

that is called victim blaming. What you have said is no different to somebody saying "she was wearing skimpy clothes on a night out so she was asking to be assaulted"

@TjoffenPD said in #57:
> Sure, I welcome your effort to raise awareness to people like me.
>
> To highlight how huge the problem is could you please answer a few questions:
I know this isn't addressed to me, but I feel like I can answer at least a few of these questions.
> 1. Do the majority of these people harass you after they play a game of online chess against you / lose against you or more often these are just random encounters in chat/forums/private message?

Some people reach out after they see me in forums. Others after a game of chess. They don't have to lose, it just has to be a game.

> 2. Do you know the geography of such people (i.e. their cultural background - if they come from cultures where women's rights are historically underdeveloped)?

They come from a wide variety of countries! Women's rights have been historically underdeveloped like everywhere so I'm not sure how to define it - but I would say that quite a few come from wealthy countries that typically aren't that sexist.

> 3. Can you tell how often (percentage-wise) you get such interactions (e.g. every 5th game, every 10th game)? These stats would be great to measure the extent of the issue.

I don't really play that much chess on here - but I have had nine. It depends on how active you are on Lichess, the more active you are, the more harassment you're likely to face.

It does vary though; the more you openly proclaim your gender the more people come for you.

@OldTimes said in #98:
> As I stated, the solution if someone bothers you is already there: you block them.
> Are there cases where it's possible to trace the identity of the person involved? Probably, so what.
> Elevating simple messages to "abuse" is merely a form of vanity and attention-seeking by posing as victims.
> If there is a criminal act, it is a matter for the law; if there is conduct against the platform's guidelines, it is a matter for the moderators. Everything that falls in between is called life, better getting used to it.
>
> Earlier, I heard things like: "they watch my games and message my friends asking for an audience" being listed as major "problems."
> Those are not problems; that's snobbery.
>
> While annoyance is a subjective matter, words do have objective meaning.
> Simply saying that something "is a problem for me" does not make it so; it must objectively have the characteristics of a problem.

and I've already said that you're right to say that. As I said abundantly before, you and the girl you were debating with (forgot her username.. queen something) were essentially arguing different things but you were both right. I don't think there's much if all wrong with the substance of what you're saying. It's how you're saying things that I think has rubbed people up the wrong way and also you seem to dismiss people's very genuine concerns and fears which doesn't help. You're absolutely spot on to highlight the tools available to stamp out wrong behaviour but you'd do better in conversing in a less confrontational manner to those who essentially agree with you!

@basmati94 said in #131:
> that is called victim blaming. What you have said is no different to somebody saying "she was wearing skimpy clothes on a night out so she was asking to be assaulted"

Off topic but there's an art exhibit called "What were you wearing?"

dovecenter.org/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit/

@greenteakitten said in #134:
> Off topic but there's an art exhibit called "What were you wearing?"
>
> dovecenter.org/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit/

thanks for sharing that. The pictures of the kids clothes knock me sick. Great, powerful exhibit

@TjoffenPD said in #129:
> Female chess players, like women in any other profession or field, interact with men in numerous aspects of their lives without requiring gender segregation. Whether in educational settings, workplaces, or other competitive environments such as academia or other sports, women face similar dynamics and challenges. These spaces have adopted more integrative and inclusive strategies rather than segregation to combat sexism and harassment, indicating that integration can be achieved without exclusive categories.
>
> Gender segregation in chess can inadvertently reinforce the notion that women need special accommodations to compete with men, which can perpetuate sexist attitudes. In other fields, women compete directly with men, and success in these areas helps normalize gender equality. By competing in the same category, women demonstrate their capability and resilience, challenging stereotypes and biases directly. Besides women competing in the same category as men can serve as powerful role models, inspiring other women and girls to pursue chess. This visibility is crucial for challenging stereotypes and encouraging broader participation.
>
> The root causes of sexism and sexual harassment are cultural and environmental factors. Addressing these issues within the chess community—such as implementing strict anti-harassment policies, providing education on gender sensitivity, and fostering a supportive and respectful culture—can be more effective than segregating categories. These measures can create a safer and more inclusive environment without resorting to separation.
>
> Interaction in mixed-gender environments allows for the building of diverse support networks. Women who engage in the same competitive categories as men can gain allies and advocates across genders, leading to a more united and inclusive community. This can be instrumental in combating sexism and harassment through collective support and advocacy.
>
> Many fields have successfully integrated women without the need for separate categories, demonstrating that effective anti-sexism strategies do not rely on segregation. For instance, in the tech industry, women are increasingly participating in mixed-gender hackathons, conferences, and competitions. Efforts to promote inclusion focus on mentorship, visibility, and cultural change rather than separation.

Thank you for the constructive reply! I agree with a lot of what you said, and agree that those would be preferable. I do hold one contention irt second vs third place (as in the sociology concept). First place is the home, second place is one's workplace, and third place is a public venue where socialization occurs, new people can be met, etc.

I think Chess, as a traditionally male dominated community that is generally more resistant to change on the institutional level + has a significant amount of older demographics, is a third place as it currently is generally lends itself to making women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. I think the womens category for now provides women a more insular but more welcoming community to not be turned away from chess by bad experiences.

I do however agree that this is not ideal, and that also going by third place theory, that in the long term, it is not ideal and may restrict women or impose hurdles for someone who has reached the extent of her local women's chess scene wanting to move upward in the general chess community due to that insular nature for a variety of reasons that are admittedly more anecdotal but not any less valid than the former point.

I think our disagreement is moreso whether the womens category should be done away with to help get rid of the bad culture (what I understand your position to be) vs dealing with the bad culture to progress towards making the womens only category obsolete (which is my position)

@greenteakitten said in #130:
> @Relmcheatham
>
> While as a female chess player, I understand what you mean about harassment...but iirc (I'm probably wrong so fact check me) the women's section was created to get more women into chess because there were no women in chess. To encourage women to play, they introduced women titles with lower ratings so that women could also get a title but faster. Of course, there was some sexism involved in it too but that's basically why.
>
> If we go off of the idea that there is no difference between women and men in chess, then why do we need to continue to segregate? Why do women need to be kept separate so we don't experience harassment instead of teaching the men not to harass?
>
> While I certainly understand your argument over segregation, I feel as if it's a really quick "band-aid" way of doing things. I would rather argue for just removing segregation altogether (after all, there is no men's category of chess, so there's no point in segregating anyhow) and just slowly integrating the titles so that they aren't separate anymore.
>
> Even if separate women sections are supposed to help, they in many ways do make sexism worse as people assume that the reason they exist is because women aren't as good at chess (I've been told this is the reason they exist before, and I'm not the only one that's been told this).

Likewise thanks for the constructive reply.

In regards to the history I've tried to trace it down and the answer is simply that womens tournaments predate FIDE, and FIDE's old rules are all in a language I don't speak and unaccompanied by explanations, so unfortunately I've not been able to read into the primary sources around the time they were formalized by FIDE either. Women have generally speaking always played chess, though it was often a passtime for aristocratic/upper class women or lower class courtesans who utilized chess and similar hobbies popular with officials, nobles, and military officers to extend their careers through stimulating their customers intellectually. Women rarely were able to compete in tournaments (which for a long time were invite only or had very strict entry requirements and upfront costs) except when they were organized by those who wished to see talented women play and the women who wanted to play as well - which led to many of the early european womens tournaments.

Unfortunately there's only like half a dozen chess historians and they're already busy enough - so few people have been able to really dig into the womens side of things from the period so I am largely drawing the above generalizations from English sources from the late 1800s and early 1900s.

With that clarification out, I will say that my main justification for the womens category is that more than many third places that are hobbies, Chess has a far more traditional and patriarchal bend which requires correcting, and that without an active effort on the part of FIDE and chess federations, the status of women in chess will only improve in small doses through the efforts of women making the effort and excelling. It is unfortunate that so many people cite "inferiority" as the reason they exist today - the reality of many of those old tournaments shows that women had a lot more agency in carving out their ability to participate then they are often given credit for.

@Relmcheatham said in #137:

Thank you for your response.

I still believe that this separation ultimately reinforces the very stereotypes and cultural norms we aim to dismantle and that's why it should be the starting action.

To illustrate my point, let's consider an analogy involving racial segregation. Suppose we had a separate category in chess for black players because the community, traditionally dominated by white players, made black players feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Wouldn't this segregation reinforce racial biases and hinder the progress toward genuine integration and equality within the chess community?

Here is the question to consider regarding this analogy:

Would you support creating a separate category for black players even as a short-term solution? If the answer is no, what is the logical difference in having a separate category for women?

By the way, if you want we can try to make an experiment and take this suggestion ("Let's create a separate category for Black players / players of color because of the historical racism so they can feel comfortable and welcome") to any social media and see what happens. Although I would definitely not be using any of my social media accounts for that.

@ReallyLowELO said in #126:
> Forgive me if I am wrong, but this topic seems to be pushed down in the list of forum for me, whilst all the rest is in order of most recent comment, making it harder to find. Not sure if trying to artificially silence a topic is the best way to go about pushing a narrative, but then again... I would appreciate it if anyone happened to know how the list of forum topics is normally done, or if this is just a strange coincidence given quite a few comments have already been deleted.

As soon as a thread reaches 50 posts, starting from the 51st post the thread will stop being bumped to the top of the forum list. It's done by design and affects all threads, unless sticked by mods.

@Relmcheatham

Thanks for doing the research for me! That's interesting, I didn't know that before.

I get what you're saying about creating a safe space and I agree that safe spaces are needed - however I still think that it's more or less a temporary Band-Aid solution that FIDE implemented until we could reduce the amount of sexism in chess (even if that was not the original intent, I believe that's what's happening now) and it just feels like we've started to treat it as a permanent solution.

But why should we be satisfied with less, when we can push for more?