Context: Canadian women's curling championship 2021 starts tomorrow!!

[Peter McKillop]

My two cents:

The very existence of a women's program in chess is itself degrading to women because there is no reason on earth why women/girls cannot play chess as well as men/boys.

Your assumptions implicit in the above quote seem to be: 1) ALL women's chess programs are degrading to women, and; 2) women's chess programs exist ONLY because women are judged by some men to be inferior chess players. I disagree with both assumptions.

Re 1), I'd like to see some hard evidence (e.g. a statistically relevant survey of female masters, and up, who agree by a clear margin that women's programs are degrading) before I could consider this as anything other than unverifiable personal opinion.

Re 2), there may be places in the world where this is more true than not (Saudi Arabia?) but in any 'enlightened' country there could be a number of reasons for girls'/women's programs. For example, if you are a parent or have teaching experience with smaller children then you know that little girls are sometimes uncomfortable in the company of rambunctious, obnoxious, dorky little boys. So if your objective is to get little girls interested in chess then maybe girls-only classes and tournaments make sense while still providing opportunities for boys and girls to play against each other from time to time.

Unless someone is prepared to claim unequivocally that males naturally play chess better than females simply and only because they are males, then one is being hypocritical and self-contradictory in supporting chess events that are sexist by disallowing males to complete simply and only because they are males.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong (or "hypocritical" or "self-contradictory") with having a tournament for girls only, or men only, or seniors only, or under 12s only, or members of the RA Centre only, etc. Where you should run into a problem is if you run a tournament like this: Toronto Chess Championship (no females allowed).

In our overtly politically correct world, it is astonishing that chess is so old fashioned and behind the times. The reason for this is clearly because not enough women complain about it. The reason that they do not complain is that the sexism in this case works to their advantage.

Re "not enough women complain about it" - this sounds like you're blaming women (the victims according to you) because they're not supporting your view of the world. Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

Re "sexism in this case works to their advantage," I'm not sure what you're getting at but suspect it might have to do with the large prize funds offered in some women-only events in the U.S. and Europe. I say so what? If there are sponsors and patrons who want to support such events then let them do so.

I agree fully with Neil when he suggests that the lower thresholds involved for women's titles is degrading and demeaning. It is, it is an absolute insult.

The women's titles aren't FIDE's finest moment. But they're not the big deal you and Neil make them out to be, imo. They're just sign posts along the path to the GM title. I suspect that the opponent of a WIM is more interested in her current rating and recent OTB performance than in her title.

[Pargat Perrer]

You & the CFC & FIDE can start here...

Woman Candidate Master is the lowest-ranking title awarded by FIDE. This title may be achieved by gaining a FIDE rating of 2000 or more. FIDE introduced this title in 2002.

...and then work your way up through the title thresholds.

__________________


So enlighten us Pandemic Peter ... Why is the Woman Candidate Master is the lowest-ranking title awarded by FIDE?

Wait, are you saying the Woman Candidate Master title can be earned by men? Because you say the title is gained by gaining a FIDE rating of 2000 or more. I am assuming that FIDE would also require one to be a woman.

What about transgender people? Can a woman who has become a man earn a Woman Candidate Master title? Can a man who has become a woman earn it?

Can a man who has become a woman compete in a women's-only FIDE event?

By the way, thanks to Canada and in particular one Canadian, chess may need to soon have "divisions" like boxing. No, I don't mean chessboxing, I mean chess. Because apparently when promoting a Pawn to a Queen, one must wrestle the extra Queen from the clutches of the opponent. So women would not do too well against heavyweight men in this requirement.

[Pargat Perrer]

The very existence of a women's program in chess is itself degrading to women because there is no reason on earth why women/girls cannot play chess as well as men/boys. Unless someone is prepared to claim unequivocally that males naturally play chess better than females simply and only because they are males, then one is being hypocritical and self-contradictory in supporting chess events that are sexist by disallowing males to complete simply and only because they are males.

It is not like curling, hockey, or any number of other sports where physical strength is a factor that gives males a natural advantage.

In our overtly politically correct world, it is astonishing that chess is so old fashioned and behind the times. The reason for this is clearly because not enough women complain about it. The reason that they do not complain is that the sexism in this case works to their advantage.

I agree fully with Neil when he suggests that the lower thresholds involved for women's titles is degrading and demeaning. It is, it is an absolute insult. As is the entire notion that males play chess better than females. We have got to abolish sexism in chess and this means no women specific events that exclude males simply and only because of their gender.

I think if we take a real honest look at this issue, we can figure it out.

Is it reasonable to say men outnumber women in competitive chess by a ratio of let's say 10 to 1? or maybe 5 to 1?

If yes to either of those numbers, that means women are highly discouraged from competitive chess by the domination of men, which we can agree is not due to any greater talent on the part of the men, but is due to simple history. IF we go back say 150 years, there were probably NO women playing competitive chess. It simply wasn't done. Maybe a few women at that time felt put out by it, but the rest didn't give a damn.

So now here we are in the 21st century and in children's events, we encourage girls by keeping their events separate from the boys events, correct? We deem this to be necessary, otherwise the girls will not persist. If I'm wrong on any of this, someone please correct me, I'm kind of winging it here.

Now I ask the men to consider: if you were a child and were forced to play in a much smaller pool of players because of some factor -- let's say being left-handed which only about 10% of the population is -- wouldn't that mean that you had much less chance to advance, to learn, to compete against the very best? There might be some good left-handed chess players, but there might be a lot more good right-handed chess players.

So since you don't get to play against the best, your chess will suffer. You won't progress as rapidly as the right-handers will, in LEARNING i mean, not in rating. Thus when you go into an event that mixes left- and right-handed people, your results will go down. Or at least not go up.

Thankfully, we are not segregating left- and right-handed chess players so this doesn't happen, but we ARE segregating girls and boys. Again, I think this is the case, but perhaps it has recently changed so please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

If I am right in these points, then I think it is not degrading to have the separate titles, and for any women / girls who think it is degrading, simply ignore the titles you are awarded.

In the meantime, maybe chess organizers need to rethink segregating boys and girls. Let the girls compete against the whole field, and try some other incentive to get more girls to participate.

[Brad Thomson]

I will concede that of course there is nothing wrong with PRIVATE groups holding chess tournaments for double amputees, over the age of 65, with a shaved head, six tattoos and four children of mixed race, whether female or male, or specifically only female or only male. But National Federations, and other governing bodies should not be supporting such antics. When I ran kids chess camps there was one time when all of the girls specifically asked me if they could play in their own tournament, and I said yes. But it would have been absolutely wrong of me to force the girls into it, or to say to any one of them who wanted to play with the boys that she could not because she was not a boy.

My position on this question will never change. Unless someone can prove to me that men and boys, because they are men and boys, play chess better than women and girls, because they are women and girls, I will never support female exclusive chess events or programs. I can think of no greater way to insult and demean a little girl than to tell her she is not good enough to play chess with boys because she is a girl. This is sick.

[Fred Harvey]

Lots of straw men huffing and puffing in this thread!

[Peter McKillop]

... I can think of no greater way to insult and demean a little girl than to tell her she is not good enough to play chess with boys because she is a girl. ...

Are you aware of this happening anywhere on a large scale?

[Brad Thomson]

Are you aware of this happening anywhere on a large scale?

The fact that the world governing body, and a vast number of national federations, endorse events which exclude males simply and only because they are males demonstrates that this is taking place on a world-wide scale. Sexism is wrong in any form. Unless it can be proven that males naturally play chess better than females, it will in my opinion always be wrong to hold events wherein you will tell males that they cannot play simply and only because they are males, and further that the reason they cannot play is because the competitors are inferior precisely because they are females.

[Peter McKillop]

The fact that the world governing body, and a vast number of national federations, endorse events which exclude males simply and only because they are males demonstrates that this is taking place on a world-wide scale.

Can you give me an example of a girls' or women's-only event where a male was harmed because he wasn't allowed to play? Or, similarly, can you give me an example of a non-senior who was harmed by not being allowed to play in a seniors-only event? You must have something specific, Brad. Otherwise it starts to look like you and Neil are just a couple of grumpy old misogynists, pissed off because girls/women can play in their own events AND in open events.

Sexism is wrong in any form.

Ok, a motherhood statement we can all get behind.

Unless it can be proven that males naturally play chess better than females, it will in my opinion always be wrong to hold events wherein you will tell males that they cannot play simply and only because they are males, and further that the reason they cannot play is because the competitors are inferior precisely because they are females.

See my comments above.

[Pargat Perrer]

Can you give me an example of a girls' or women's-only event where a male was harmed because he wasn't allowed to play? Or, similarly, can you give me an example of a non-senior who was harmed by not being allowed to play in a seniors-only event? You must have something specific, Brad. Otherwise it starts to look like you and Neil are just a couple of grumpy old misogynists, pissed off because girls/women can play in their own events AND in open events.

Hey Peter, you've stumbled across the sequel to The Queen's Gambit movie! Yes, it's The Grumpy Misogynist Defence! Nigel Short can play a starring role!

And by the way, GM now has a second definition in chess! :)

Nigel Short can be "GM GM Nigel Short"!

[Brad Thomson]

Brad. Otherwise it starts to look like you and Neil are just a couple of grumpy old misogynists, pissed off because girls/women can play in their own events AND in open events.

I cannot speak for Neil, but what you say certainly applies to myself. :)

We have a Women's Championship and a National Championship but we do not have a Men's Championship. Thus, we have a championship that excludes males simply because they are males, but no championship that excludes females simply because they are females.

I rest my case. (Unless you can prove that females by their very nature play worse chess than males.)

[Frank Dixon]

My thanks to Fred McKim for information on the CFC Executive's intent to hold a Canadian Championship in 2021.
I am offering my personal assistance for this event, should it take place. If it takes place in Central Canada, I will serve as an assistant TD, at my own cost, if my travel and accommodation are looked after. I will cover my own meals and will not seek an honorarium.
Respectfully,
Frank Dixon
NTD, Kingston