Forums

FIDE Transgender Policies

Sort:
Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular group. Whether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group. I'm just disagreeing with your opinions, which is a human right and free speech which you've already advocated for.

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

lonniespiel
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:

Not sure what the Russian invasion of Ukraine has to do with this subject, though Russia's attitudes towards transgender people is pretty hostile, and FIDE is run by a Russian. Meanwhile, Russian players aren't sanctioned by FIDE (except Karjakin), and Ukrainian players are victimised doubly.

But probably best not to get sidetracked down unknowns

I found it interesting that the same people/countries that promote transgenderism, etc. also promote perpetual war in Ukraine.

So do you find it tedious that other countries supplying Ukraine are not supportive of transgenderism, like Poland? Or perhaps it is mildly frustrating that countries that have a positive attitude to transgenderism aren't sanctioning Russia, like India? Or maybe there isn't really a pattern, or anything interesting, but rather we're just talking about different things?

The issue is transgenderism in chess, not the Ukraine war

Ignoring first part...

As I said, if FIDE removes women's tournaments and women's titles, there will be no problems with transgenderism in chess.

To be honest, I agree that the best thing would be non segregation in chess. But prominent women players and organisations have suggested that women only events offer them opportunities to compete in a safe environment whereas a number of women have claimed to be victims of sexual harassment in open events.

That's why I think FIDE are misguided targeting the transgender non issue, when there are real issues for them to tackle which they choose to ignore

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

What about this aren't you understanding?
Yes the person who has the highest randomised elo would win but in my example there are more men than women so the person with the highest elo is far more likely to be male. (90% vs 10%). Read it again if you need.

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

What about this aren't you understanding?
Yes the person who has the highest randomised elo would win but in my example there are more men than women so the person with the highest elo is far more likely to be male. (90% vs 10%). Read it again if you need.

ofc but that does not matter, ofc thats true

and no the person with the highest randomised elo would not win because that elo would not reflect their actual skill

why arent the top women who have dedicated themselves to chess nowhere as good as the top male chess players

Coddiwompler
lonniespiel wrote:
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:

Not sure what the Russian invasion of Ukraine has to do with this subject, though Russia's attitudes towards transgender people is pretty hostile, and FIDE is run by a Russian. Meanwhile, Russian players aren't sanctioned by FIDE (except Karjakin), and Ukrainian players are victimised doubly.

But probably best not to get sidetracked down unknowns

I found it interesting that the same people/countries that promote transgenderism, etc. also promote perpetual war in Ukraine.

So do you find it tedious that other countries supplying Ukraine are not supportive of transgenderism, like Poland? Or perhaps it is mildly frustrating that countries that have a positive attitude to transgenderism aren't sanctioning Russia, like India? Or maybe there isn't really a pattern, or anything interesting, but rather we're just talking about different things?

The issue is transgenderism in chess, not the Ukraine war

Ignoring first part...

As I said, if FIDE removes women's tournaments and women's titles, there will be no problems with transgenderism in chess.

To be honest, I agree that the best thing would be non segregation in chess. But prominent women players and organisations have suggested that women only events offer them opportunities to compete in a safe environment whereas a number of women have claimed to be victims of sexual harassment in open events.

That's why I think FIDE are misguided targeting the transgender non issue, when there are real issues for them to tackle which they choose to ignore

Women sexually abuse other women/girls as well

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

Botvinnik_the_6th
lonniespiel wrote:
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:
Coddiwompler wrote:
lonniespiel wrote:

Not sure what the Russian invasion of Ukraine has to do with this subject, though Russia's attitudes towards transgender people is pretty hostile, and FIDE is run by a Russian. Meanwhile, Russian players aren't sanctioned by FIDE (except Karjakin), and Ukrainian players are victimised doubly.

But probably best not to get sidetracked down unknowns

I found it interesting that the same people/countries that promote transgenderism, etc. also promote perpetual war in Ukraine.

So do you find it tedious that other countries supplying Ukraine are not supportive of transgenderism, like Poland? Or perhaps it is mildly frustrating that countries that have a positive attitude to transgenderism aren't sanctioning Russia, like India? Or maybe there isn't really a pattern, or anything interesting, but rather we're just talking about different things?

The issue is transgenderism in chess, not the Ukraine war

Ignoring first part...

As I said, if FIDE removes women's tournaments and women's titles, there will be no problems with transgenderism in chess.

To be honest, I agree that the best thing would be non segregation in chess. But prominent women players and organisations have suggested that women only events offer them opportunities to compete in a safe environment whereas a number of women have claimed to be victims of sexual harassment in open events.

That's why I think FIDE are misguided targeting the transgender non issue, when there are real issues for them to tackle which they choose to ignore

I, as a woman, have gotten benefits from such tournaments and I can see what they do for chess to some degree. There's always a very friendly atmosphere at such tournaments and often young girls are present and get to meet role models (sometimes even master level women players). It's very much about establishing a community and providing role models. They do far more than just be safe places for women. Initially I shared your opinion, that women's titles/tournaments don't help Women's chess, but as I have progressed and gone to such tournaments I have seen their benefit firsthand.

AhmedAryan
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

What about this aren't you understanding?
Yes the person who has the highest randomised elo would win but in my example there are more men than women so the person with the highest elo is far more likely to be male. (90% vs 10%). Read it again if you need.

ofc but that does not matter, ofc thats true

and no the person with the highest randomised elo would not win because that elo would not reflect their actual skill

why arent the top women who have dedicated themselves to chess nowhere as good as the top male chess players

k we just need to pretend thats their true elo

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

How am I discriminating against them?
How can it be bigotry if I'm not attacking anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, etc?
Don't you respect my right to free speech and my right to disagree with you?

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

What about this aren't you understanding?
Yes the person who has the highest randomised elo would win but in my example there are more men than women so the person with the highest elo is far more likely to be male. (90% vs 10%). Read it again if you need.

ofc but that does not matter, ofc thats true

and no the person with the highest randomised elo would not win because that elo would not reflect their actual skill

why arent the top women who have dedicated themselves to chess nowhere as good as the top male chess players

No, you're really not understanding this. Think of elo instead as a random number and we're looking for the person with the highest random number. Because there are more males (90%) to females (10%) the person with the highest number has a 90% chance of also being male.

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

How am I discriminating against them?
How can it be bigotry if I'm not attacking anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, etc?
Don't you respect my right to free speech and my right to disagree with you?

bigotry does not define who you are attacking, does not have to just be race or gender etc

Botvinnik_the_6th
AhmedAryan wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
whisper2016 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

The fact that Magnus Carlson would body Judit at her prime šŸ’€

The logic!

top players are all men man, just what I see

exactly. why is the best female player 2620 and the best male 2840? theres obviously a male advantage

Not necessarily a biological advantage.

then what is it

There are a well known collection of factors for why women are underrepresented in top level chess and chess in general (and one of these factors is misogynists like yourself ).

that does not answer the question

I've already listed such factors in previous responses in this thread, I believe including to you specifically, as have many others. A quick google search will give you countless sources on what these social factors are. At this point it's on you that you aren't aware of this.

prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=The%20researchers%20argued%20that%20gender,defensively%20which%20worsened%20their%20performance.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/

https://www.fide.com/news/1685

https://www.gamesver.com/the-chess-gender-gap-reasons-why-chess-is-so-male-dominated/#:~:text=Males%20dominate%20the%20chess%20scene,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20cultural%20factors.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/tkachiev-why-do-men-dominate-chess

Here's a range of scientific, official and contemporary sources. Educate yourself.

b

"If one group (female chess players) is much smaller than another (male chess players), then just by chance, one would expect that the best member of the larger group outperforms the best member of the smaller group."

No. the best player would outplay everyone else

"To explain this, I like to use a thought experiment. Imagine that you gather 12 people and randomly give 10 of them a blue hat and two a green hat. You then randomly assign to each person a number between 1 and 100. "

the quality of chess that you play is not random. you do better if you grind out those hours to get better. this does not correlateĀ 

"Letā€™s start with the statistics.Ā A 2008 study"

The study had nothing to do with proving women are equal in chess

"there is, in reality, very little performance gap between men and women"

magnus is currently rated 2859 (top male chess player)

hou yifan is currently rated 2629 (top female chess player)

the gap is large

"Multiple studies have found that women chess players play worse against men than against other women, while men modify their playing style when facing women ā€“ they take longer to resign against women and play riskier openings against attractive females. "

that does not mean women are the same as men, that just shows that men can play better when playing more sharper, agressive style. thats the womans problem if she cant handle that

Okay. basic maths/statistics:
If you gathered a group of 90 male chess players (at random) and a group of 10 female chess players (at random). Let's say their ratings are completely random; what is the chance that the best chess player in the group will be a male? The chance is 90% that the best player will be a male. The best player has a 90% chance of being male and a 10% chance of being female if ratings are assigned at random. This is pretty easy to understand statistics. That's what the study is indicating with it's version of this thought experiment.Ā 
This study is not talking about the gap between the best female player and the best male player, it's about how the fact that way more men play chess make male's better on average and far more likely to be the top players. Another study that I believe I cited found that 96% of differences between men and women's play can be explained by sample size. (this one: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html)

if their ratings were completely randomized then whoever actually had the best real rating and played the best would win

What about this aren't you understanding?
Yes the person who has the highest randomised elo would win but in my example there are more men than women so the person with the highest elo is far more likely to be male. (90% vs 10%). Read it again if you need.

ofc but that does not matter, ofc thats true

and no the person with the highest randomised elo would not win because that elo would not reflect their actual skill

why arent the top women who have dedicated themselves to chess nowhere as good as the top male chess players

k we just need to pretend thats their true elo

If you want you can read the rest of the study which outlines how this connects to chess and elo. It's just a statistical example of how sample size impacts skill distribution.

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

How am I discriminating against them?
How can it be bigotry if I'm not attacking anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, etc?
Don't you respect my right to free speech and my right to disagree with you?

bigotry does not define who you are attacking, does not have to just be race or gender etc

The term bigotry means discrimination against a particular group so things like race, gender, etc.Ā 
Bigotry doesn't just mean attacking someone for their beliefs or disagreeing with someone.

AngryPuffer
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

How am I discriminating against them?
How can it be bigotry if I'm not attacking anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, etc?
Don't you respect my right to free speech and my right to disagree with you?

bigotry does not define who you are attacking, does not have to just be race or gender etc

The term bigotry means discrimination against a particular group so things like race, gender, etc.Ā 
Bigotry doesn't just mean attacking someone for their beliefs or disagreeing with someone.

thats not what your definition said

Botvinnik_the_6th
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:
Syntax_Error_64 Š½Š°ŠæŠøсŠ°Š»:

And anyway, what harm do we actually cause? What 'proof' is there that trans women have a "biological advantage" in chess? Or are in any way harmful to women in general?

Idk i just honestly dislike trans people

So you're just a bigot then

he has a right to express an opinion

there is also nothing wrong with dis agreeing with trans people. i and most people do aswell

stop being a bot and using the "bigot word" like all the only ultra woke people do

Definition of a bigot; "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's not "disagreeing" with trans people. They said they "dislike trans people". It fits the literal definition of the term.

then you are a bigot

How so?

"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

-you are obstinately and unreasonably attached to a belief

-you are prejudiced and antagonistic towards a person who does not share the same thoughts

1. I have a belief that I've presented evidence for and justification for. Epistemologically, I'm in the clear here.Ā 
2. I'm not being antagonistic towards anyone for their membership in a particular groupWhether you interpret my comments as my being antagonistic towards you or not, isn't important as that's just the definition for antagonism. What's important here is that I'm not discriminating against you based on your membership in any particular group.

you are being a biggot for antagonzing my beliefs

uh no, I'm excerting my right to free speech in a way that does not match the definition of bigotry. The definition of bigotry is not antagonising you (which I don't really believe that I'm doing here anyway), disagreeing with you or holding different beliefs. Bigotry is when you discriminate against someone based on a particular group or category they fall into. As an example: "You're a woman so I will ignore your points"/ "You're American therefore you are stupid" would both be two different examples of bigotry. That would be discrimination based on gender (being a woman) and nationality (being American).

you are discriminating agianst the people who dont agree with you

How am I discriminating against them?
How can it be bigotry if I'm not attacking anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, etc?
Don't you respect my right to free speech and my right to disagree with you?

bigotry does not define who you are attacking, does not have to just be race or gender etc

The term bigotry means discrimination against a particular group so things like race, gender, etc.Ā 
Bigotry doesn't just mean attacking someone for their beliefs or disagreeing with someone.

thats not what your definition said

It is, read it again, I'm just trying to simplify it a bit for you. If you want I think there are some video explanations for the term that could help you.

badger_song

The Undead thread...forever making the rounds in this or some other thinly disguised form.

ā€œAll the Dachaus must remain standing---the Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes ā€“ all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. "

This forum topic has been locked