FIDE Transgender Policies - Chess Forums - Page 16

Kyobir

Aug 20, 2023

0

#301

Let's boycott FIDE?

AngryPuffer

Aug 20, 2023

0

#302

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:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 написал:

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.
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.
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.

your definition does not state anything about it having to due with race or anything like that

unless you go and edit it (go ahead idrc)

Botvinnik_the_6th

Aug 20, 2023

0

#303

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:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 написал:

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.
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.
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.

your definition does not state anything about it having to due with race or anything like that

unless you go and edit it (go ahead idrc)

You see where it says that bigotry is discrimination against and individual or a group based on their membership within a particular "group".This other "group" or category means/includes things like race, gender and nationality. You can look up further video or other online explanations for the term and what it means if you feel you need to.

AngryPuffer

Aug 20, 2023

0

#304

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:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 написал:

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.
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.
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.

your definition does not state anything about it having to due with race or anything like that

unless you go and edit it (go ahead idrc)

You see where i say bigotry is discrimination against and individual or a group based on their membership within a particular "group".This other "group" or category means/includes things like race, gender and nationality. You can look up further video or other online explanations for the term and what it means if you feel you need to.

thats your second take

Botvinnik_the_6th

Aug 20, 2023

0

#305

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:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 написал:

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.
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.
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.

your definition does not state anything about it having to due with race or anything like that

unless you go and edit it (go ahead idrc)

You see where i say bigotry is discrimination against and individual or a group based on their membership within a particular "group".This other "group" or category means/includes things like race, gender and nationality. You can look up further video or other online explanations for the term and what it means if you feel you need to.

thats your second take

? I'm just trying to explain it to you. Maybe you should do some research yourself so you can understand the term.

AngryPuffer

Aug 20, 2023

0

#306

you are not smart

AngryPuffer

Aug 20, 2023

0

#307

your momentum is gone now. you just sound stupid

AngryPuffer

Aug 20, 2023

0

#308

maybe get some rest and try agian tommorow

AhmedAryan

Aug 20, 2023

0

#309

the most battle of all time

https://youtu.be/v-SLN8EB2QU?t=12

badger_song

Aug 20, 2023

0

#310

LOL Ahmed! What was THAT?!

lonniespiel

Aug 20, 2023

0

#311

Coddiwompler wrote:

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

Of course, and men abuse men/boys. But women in chess want a safe environment essentially from men, and for the moment that means they want exclusively women only spaces. They're the victims, so I'm happy to listen to what they're saying

whisper2016

Aug 20, 2023

0

#312

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Kyobir написал:

What if there was a separate category for them?

What if people never wanted to be trans and everyone would benefit?

Doesn't work that way, being trans is not a choice, just like being gay is not a choice, and being left handed is not a choice.

it is

pretending to be a girl is your choice

likeing men is different

being left handed is a choice

Being trans is not "pretending to be a girl". How many trans people do you actually know? How many women do you actually know?

i dont interact with trans people ive just seen enough to determine that they are mentally ill

"I've not met any trans people, I've just assumed they're all mentally ill." - such a nice perspective.

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder." Logic 100

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

two can play at that game

Exactly

that kind of logic is stupid

whisper2016

Aug 20, 2023

0

#313

lonniespiel wrote:

Coddiwompler wrote:

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

Of course, and men abuse men/boys. But women in chess want a safe environment essentially from men, and for the moment that means they want exclusively women only spaces. They're the victims, so I'm happy to listen to what they're saying

Just my opinion but I think the whole sexual assault at other tournaments is overblown. I can’t pretend to know what conversations happen to women after games however

AhmedAryan

Aug 20, 2023

0

#314

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Kyobir написал:

What if there was a separate category for them?

What if people never wanted to be trans and everyone would benefit?

Doesn't work that way, being trans is not a choice, just like being gay is not a choice, and being left handed is not a choice.

it is

pretending to be a girl is your choice

likeing men is different

being left handed is a choice

Being trans is not "pretending to be a girl". How many trans people do you actually know? How many women do you actually know?

i dont interact with trans people ive just seen enough to determine that they are mentally ill

"I've not met any trans people, I've just assumed they're all mentally ill." - such a nice perspective.

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder." Logic 100

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

two can play at that game

Exactly

that kind of logic is stupid

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder."

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

murder here is a bit of a stretch but it applies to people

you know enough about murders and murderers that you can assume and be right mostly but for trans knowing not much and assuming they're mentally ill you can see the problem here

whisper2016

Aug 20, 2023

0

#315

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Kyobir написал:

What if there was a separate category for them?

What if people never wanted to be trans and everyone would benefit?

Doesn't work that way, being trans is not a choice, just like being gay is not a choice, and being left handed is not a choice.

it is

pretending to be a girl is your choice

likeing men is different

being left handed is a choice

Being trans is not "pretending to be a girl". How many trans people do you actually know? How many women do you actually know?

i dont interact with trans people ive just seen enough to determine that they are mentally ill

"I've not met any trans people, I've just assumed they're all mentally ill." - such a nice perspective.

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder." Logic 100

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

two can play at that game

Exactly

that kind of logic is stupid

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder."

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

murder here is a bit of a stretch but it applies to people

you know enough about murders and murderers that you can assume and be right mostly but for trans knowing not much and assuming they're mentally ill you can see the problem here

The OP was claiming that angrypuffers opinion was invalid because he has never met a trans person

thats like claiming that formulating an opinion on the Holocaust requires a meeting with NeoNazis

AhmedAryan

Aug 20, 2023

0

#316

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Kyobir написал:

What if there was a separate category for them?

What if people never wanted to be trans and everyone would benefit?

Doesn't work that way, being trans is not a choice, just like being gay is not a choice, and being left handed is not a choice.

it is

pretending to be a girl is your choice

likeing men is different

being left handed is a choice

Being trans is not "pretending to be a girl". How many trans people do you actually know? How many women do you actually know?

i dont interact with trans people ive just seen enough to determine that they are mentally ill

"I've not met any trans people, I've just assumed they're all mentally ill." - such a nice perspective.

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder." Logic 100

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

two can play at that game

Exactly

that kind of logic is stupid

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder."

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

murder here is a bit of a stretch but it applies to people

you know enough about murders and murderers that you can assume and be right mostly but for trans knowing not much and assuming they're mentally ill you can see the problem here

The OP was claiming that angrypuffers opinion was invalid because he has never met a trans person

thats like claiming that formulating an opinion on the Holocaust requires a meeting with NeoNazis

"he has never met a trans person" applies because what are you gonna find the info on their personalities on wikipedia or something? you know, not assume. and thats why the 2nd doesnt make sense.

Botvinnik_the_6th

Aug 20, 2023

0

#317

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

AhmedAryan wrote:

whisper2016 wrote:

Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Syntax_Error_64 wrote:

Badchesserrr4486999 wrote:

Kyobir написал:

What if there was a separate category for them?

What if people never wanted to be trans and everyone would benefit?

Doesn't work that way, being trans is not a choice, just like being gay is not a choice, and being left handed is not a choice.

it is

pretending to be a girl is your choice

likeing men is different

being left handed is a choice

Being trans is not "pretending to be a girl". How many trans people do you actually know? How many women do you actually know?

i dont interact with trans people ive just seen enough to determine that they are mentally ill

"I've not met any trans people, I've just assumed they're all mentally ill." - such a nice perspective.

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder." Logic 100

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

two can play at that game

Exactly

that kind of logic is stupid

"I've not met a murderer yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murder."

"I haven't seen a murder yet, therefore I cannot have an opinion on murderers."

murder here is a bit of a stretch but it applies to people

you know enough about murders and murderers that you can assume and be right mostly but for trans knowing not much and assuming they're mentally ill you can see the problem here

The OP was claiming that angrypuffers opinion was invalid because he has never met a trans person

thats like claiming that formulating an opinion on the Holocaust requires a meeting with NeoNazis

I was claiming the opinion was unreasonable because puffer is not an expert or qualified in this area to make a judgement and is basing their view off non-descript evidence to make a huge claim: That Trains people are mentally ill. They further showed what they were basing their view off: Images of people in drag and other items of colourful clothing as their evidence for their mentally ill claim. They also stated they didn't actually associate or know any trans people. So Puffer's evidence for their claim boils down to judgements based on an image.

Coddiwompler

Aug 20, 2023

0

#318

lonniespiel wrote:

Coddiwompler wrote:

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

Of course, and men abuse men/boys. But women in chess want a safe environment essentially from men, and for the moment that means they want exclusively women only spaces. They're the victims, so I'm happy to listen to what they're saying

They can play among each other, just not in official tournaments and they should not get any W titles. Problem solved

Botvinnik_the_6th

Aug 20, 2023

0

#319

AngryPuffer wrote:

your momentum is gone now. you just sound stupid

I would think that the person who struggles to understand basic statistics and basic definitions is the one sounding stupid.

Syntax_Error_64

Aug 20, 2023

0

#320

Coddiwompler wrote:

lonniespiel wrote:

Coddiwompler wrote:

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

Of course, and men abuse men/boys. But women in chess want a safe environment essentially from men, and for the moment that means they want exclusively women only spaces. They're the victims, so I'm happy to listen to what they're saying

They can play among each other, just not in official tournaments and they should not get any W titles. Problem solved

No? That's literally the whole problem with FIDE's rulings