44
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
44 points (82.4% liked)
Women
772 readers
1 users here now
A place for discussion, camaraderie, and advice.
For, from, and with women. Hi ๐
RULES:
--Be good to one another.
If you're not sure about what you're about to type, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
--About, but not only for, women.
We are here to talk about, learn about, and wonder about women and their/our experiences. Men are allowed to post here, but only for the purpose of asking sincere questions about women or for advice related to a women in their lives they are trying to support.
--No bullies. No Creeps. No trolls.
No personal attacks, no misogyny, no misandry, ageism, racism, or otherwise hateful or disrespectful commentary.
--No selling products or services.
You can recommend products/methods that work for you, but soliciting clients or patients is not allowed. No advertising or self-promotions, including using this sub to drive traffic elsewhere.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a disturbing and insulting decision to both cis-women as well as transgender men and women.
Besides the decision itself, here are some additional "gems" that show its backwardness:
And, if it wouldn't be so sad, this here would have me roling on the floor. It seems, FIDE has not reached 2023 yet.. (It also sadly shows that even some women are still stuck in the 1950's)
One of the reasons why so few women play chess and the reality of what female chess players had and have to fight against:
Edit: removed redundancy
Jfc, you'd think that people so deep into a game that is touted as being an intellectual pursuit would be able to use their brain better than that.
I think it's because it's touted that way. Men who are pro-patriarchy or toxically masculine are kind of notoriously prestige selfish and love to narrow the playing field of women because their perceived masculinity is threatened by any notion of equality.
This is why my local game shop holds girls nights for Magic the Gathering. It's not that women are inherently worse at the game, it's because the open play harassment and terrible behaviour drives a lot of women out of the hobby before they have the chance. Trans women are absolutely subject to this same misogyny because they represent to these douches the same threat. They can never be allowed to be proven superior in any fashion because of all the mysoginistic /transphobic beliefs that they are mentally ill and/or weaker because they do not agree being bearded chest pounding ape children is the apex human form. The prize of prestige must be protected from falling into the hands of someone who will "immasculate" them so they rig the fucking game so their precious dick wagging contests never damage their fragile masculinity. To have someone who isn't masculine win is to damage the prestige itself.
Chess champions get treated like geniuses so of course this particular psychosis applies.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691400261X
This study is very interesting, evidently Georgian chess has been historically equal.
Equally interesting study comes to the conclusion: gender differences in chess go back on the overrepresentation of men in chess in general
Article on the research: Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological)
I don't have access to what seems to be the actual study, but maybe you do: Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains
Yes, I found the participation rate argument very sound.
I wonder what else might be similarly biased?
I think the culinary domain is very interesting for it's seemingly paradoxical take that, at home, women not only belong but are far more capable than men in the kitchen, but as soon as the endeavor becomes competitive and professional, men traditionally (not always, of course) gatekeep the professional kitchen because suddenly talent and taste aren't enough, one must be an officer in Escoffier's army, quick to abuse yourself and others while wearing a silly hat.
Two examples come to mind:
Medical test subjects are predominantly if not exclusively male. So any new medication on the market are tailored for the physis and metabolism of a male body while the same medication might have different effects (including side effects) when it comes to women.
Scientific findings are often based on male bias, e.g. the remains of a high status person were declared being male. Only decades later with new technology was it possible to determine it was in fact a women. (See the Ivory man)
But this conversation would deserve its.owm thread. The OP post is regarding how women (cis and transgendered people) are treated in chess. The absurdity of backwards thinking and unfairness when it comes to treating women and men as assigned at birth. I'm not sure, if you missed the part where transgendered men are stripped of their titles when transitioning to male, while people transitioning to female are allowed to keep theirs.
This goes so much deeper. Like another commenter posted: "institutionalized patriarchy"
This is awesome! Thanks for the info
Is posting the same link 3 times in the same thread enough?
No, here are some more:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01828.x
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00665.x
Facts and scientific studies are critical in our understanding of reality. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method. I think you might benefit by taking a more dispassionate approach to the things about the world you don't like or wish to change.
You sure have assumed a lot from my simple question. I said nothing about the data that you posted, just the fact that you posted the same thing 3 times..
No, it's quite possible that I am wrong about the terminology. I just thought it was odd to see the same link posted multiple times. I am not a woman, so I would have to leave that question to them. I was just here for the interesting headline.
No, it's a fucking insult to human intelligence
You are allowed to read scientific studies BEFORE you begin literally shaking.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691400261X
Again, what does it even prove?
That there are biases and issues deeper and more nuanced than the right v left narrative, which, while convenient, can obfuscate valuable discussion so that we may solve the underlying cause. I think it's even worse than it looks. But you have to incorporate facts and research, it's the only way toward lasting upheaval of unjust constructs.
What the unworldly fuck are you talking about? Are you taking topics from a chatbot or something?
It's like you read every fifth word and come up with a response. No one has any clue what topic you are here to post about.
Literally no one here can be arsed to read? Do you want an annotated copy? It says that, with even a 10% representation, all future female chess champions will have been born men, with male brains developed with male hormones. Women asked for their own league. Now, trans females are going to dominate in these spaces, with many not even making an attempt to pass. Nature is seldom binary or orthogonal and I don't agree with your assumption that genders are binary. These studies reveal truthful facts because scientific studies use the scientific method. You are free to cry, lose your fragile temper, be upset--but the real world will still show itself through mathematics, science and reason with cruel dispassion. One of the hall marks of fascism is the disparagement of facts and the emotional reinforcement of hateful and irrational beliefs. AI LLM word vectors for left and right political spaces are narrowing closer and closer, and a thirst for immediate satisfaction make for a rich common ground between Maga-Conservatism and Reactionary Leftists: victim complex, narcissism, cluster B personality disorders above the benchmark.
I suggest you maybe enroll in a class at your local community School regarding statistics, logic and scientific research as well as soft sciences like gender studies or feminist philosophy. I recommend Simone de Beauvoir, Ada Lovelace and Fanan, tangentially. Or you can continue being magically right 100% of the time--no need to read studies.
No need to read studies. No need for math. No need for corollary or debate when everyone already knows the answer, right? Don't look up!
Yeah, I read the article when you first posted it, dipshit. The problem seems to be that you don't read the comments you reply to. So I stand by the idea I had five days ago of you reading every fifth word to come up with a response.
I suggest you maybe enroll in a class at your local community School regarding reading comprehension. You should be able to read and understand comments before you reply to them.