You think the reason there are professional female sports leagues is because the men make the women feel uncomfortable?

Isn't it kind of strange that in this bigoted world of cancel culture, THIS time, when women are made to be uncomfortable by men that they should just go somewheres else and thats fine? If its not because of an innate advantage, should the men be just more welcoming? This logic doesn't parse.

Isn't it more that in a rec league this makes sense and in a professional language this is obviously hilarious?

Is there a single person here that would be against a transgender person cross-competing GIVEN the ASSUMPTION that there is no advantage from doing so?

Is there a single person here that thinks, ASSUMING cross-competing DOES GIVE a person an advantage they should still be able to cross-compete professional sports based on their gender identify?

Whatever happened to Gary Cooper? That's what I'd like to know!

They still participate in the same event, they don't hold a marathon in a different location on a different day just for women. You don't see a difference?

I think it is more nuanced in women's chess than just that men make women feel uncomfortable, although there is likely some truth to that as well. For a range of reasons I can see why having women only chess events would be more welcoming and lead to greater participation in chess of woman beyond just that men can sometimes make women feel uncomfortable.

In chess, without a dominate physical advantage, many women can and do play against men, probably most have played far more against men than women in their entire careers. But if having women only events and women only titles leads to more women playing chess, I'm all for it. Same if it helps get more trans women into chess!

uke, would the very reasons for having women's only events not be negated if they come to be dominated by trans women in the next few years?

Hold on, you are still trying to extrapolate doomsday scenarios from the existence of a single trans WIM on the planet?

Yikes.

that's not an answer to my question but instead a strawman response

the primary reason for having women's only divisions is to give them a reasonable chance at winning tournaments, which they are otherwise are drawing dead in open events

if enough trans women start competing in these, then cisgender women will lose the ability to compete

I don't understand what you consider significant or material about this difference.

If participation in a sport is underrepresented by a segment of the population and the organizers wish to grow participation by that segment, I see nothing wrong with providing incentives to that one group. Do I recognize a senors only prize excludes youth runners? Yes. Does an event become more inclusive if more people participate? Also yes.

That is definitely speaking to recreationally sports a not competitive/professional based sports where cross gender participation gives a person an edge though.

I think its agreeable though if women in general don't participate with the guys and instead create their own league, that if they share the same feelings with trans women it makes sense to include them.

Roller Derby is a close example like poker.

You wouldn't want to be the person standing outside of everyone that's ok with the cross competitor yelling how foul it is.

But if Lia Thomas didn't have a unfair advantage (ie detransitioned) then I think one has to be ok with that cross-competing too.

I don't know what else to tell you if you can't see the difference between an event in which everyone participates and an event only open to certain people.

I guess you think it also would be fine, and not a significant difference, if there were white-only and black-only marathons, held in different locations and on different days?

what if they are innately not the the race assigned at birth? can they then choose which marathon to participate in?

Your argument has become circular. One winner events regardless of age, sex or disability would be less inclusive in my opinion than one that provides multiple prizes for these different exclusive divisions.

Time for me to get off this ride.

I also don't get what chillrob is going on about regarding marathons.

Every single one of us thinks its wrong to cross-compete when it gives you an unfair advantage in competitive sports and that its appropriate otherwise in recreational sports.

Sure, if there is some apocalyptic take over of women's chess where any of

• The top 50 women are all trans women
• women's chess was "single handedly killed"
• women "lose the ability to compete"

then I would agree that was bad by construction. However, over here in reality, there is a single trans woman who has the middle title of WIM. Nobody has lost the ability to compete. Nobody has single handedly destroyed anything. Nobody is taking over the world championship. It isn't close! I'm not quite sure why you are so insistent on trying to get me to "agree" with you that your nightmare scenarios are bad - well of course they are bad giving the hyperbolic phrasing you keep adding to them. You constructed them that way!

My self admitted leftist buddy that called the cops on me when I tried to get him to look up the definition of socialism had a fallacy he would try to refer to that he learned from the The Atheist Experience podcast that is something like 'oh thats hypotheticals that are way down the road.'

It was the weirdest type of ignorance to me. Like the most horribly perverted use of slippery slope fallacy.

Then why have different competitions for women and men. If they are allowing men to compete in a women’s competition and the rules prohibit that, then they’re breaking their own rules. And everyone knows “trans women” are not women. They’re men. This has been proven.

Wait, it has? Isn't that kinda what the debate for the last 2+ years in this forum has been about? Have you finally proved it?

There can't be anyone here interested in this type of semantically based arguing. We have to rise ABOVE the semantics and talk about the issues etc.

Still doing that bit where you interject in conversations you aren't part of to remind us all that you refuse to refer to trans people by their gender?

Cool, cool.

I was confused because most actual women chess players seem to think the biggest problems for women in the game are a relative lack of role models, peer effects, and rampant sexism among players, and not the participation of transgender players. But then I remembered that one study a guy ITT posted proving that women are bad at logic so obv they must be mistaken.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...exism-misogyny

The sentiments here speak to recreational sports and for social reasons/distinctions. Different goal posts than making sex based distinctions meant to level the fairness.

This is really unexplanatory....
It would be weird to say, the men are being predators to the woman, so thats why its equality to have another league.

It makes sense that you might have a girls chess club, which has nothing to do with evening the playing field between male/female, in a society where girls need such a club. But that wouldn't at all justify lia thomas cheating to win an ncaa woman's event.

you think that this will be the only trans to compete in those events?

I made no such distinction.

There's nothing at all weird for women to want a separate league where they won't be harassed.