If we gave blanket amnesty to all men for all past sins, and made very clear new rules going forward, such as men are not allowed to pursue women (so as not to harass them), men would abide by those rules.
Want to know what the women would do?
This is not a simple problem because there are many moving parts here.
[Removed - DB]
1) Being transgender is not a problem (suggesting otherwise would be a very offensive comment to trans people. This is reminiscent of the Nazi phrase final solution to the Jewish question... very offensive and antisemitic.)
2) Being transgender is not a choice. Trans men/women are men/women. This is recognized by the laws in many countries. Recognizing this is how we can be supportive of the trans community.
3) Do you want comment's regarding the comment Lance made... or the article discussing the backlash? IMO, discussion of the backlash is irrelevant to chess except to say that it is a sensitive topic. If you want to discuss what the world cycling governing body (or other sports) has to say about it perhaps there are other forums.
Lance said: "Is there not a world in which one can be supportive of the transgender community and curious about the fairness of Trans athletes in sport yet not be labeled a transphobe or a bigot as we ask questions? Do we yet know the answers? And do we even want to know the answers?”
In chess, I do not believe trans women have an advantage over other women. It's often discussed why there is a gap in performance and participation between men and women. You can view comments I made about the gaps here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-news/fide-transgender-policies?page=23#comment-93839927.
Most of the gaps in women's chess performance is due to participation and we need to do better at encouraging and supporting women in chess. This is supported by a presentation on the FIDE website: Fact and Myths about Gender and Chess.
The "problem" I believe you're referring to is probably better described as identity politics and culture wars.
What did you find interesting about Lance's opinion?
@gbtgba the issue is simple. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Women can play in open and women’s tournaments. There is no need to abolish women’s tournaments.
igorning biological facts
But that the standart leftextremist hypocrisy
If you were not aware, there are many countries that recognize the legal status of trans people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_transgender_people.
I will be honest, I am only commenting for the sticker/award. Enjoy and upvote 
I will be honest, I am only commenting for the sticker/award. Enjoy and upvote
which sticker award?
The Anna thread just got locked---as predicted. Bigot threads, they come and they go...they come and they go.
The Anna thread just got locked---as predicted. Bigot threads, they come and they go...they come and they go.
Here is the enemy of democracy
yes
The Anna thread just got locked---as predicted. Bigot threads, they come and they go...they come and they go.
this the type of person that believes that we should censor "false" media (its actually media that they dont support/agree with)
Can we get back to discussing articles on chessdotcom?
@gbtgba the issue is simple. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Women can play in open and women’s tournaments. There is no need to abolish women’s tournaments.
Your answer is complex, not simple. My answer is simple.
Your answer is not simple, it's simplistic. There's a difference.
And your solution is unfair, not least of which is because with something like 1-2% of the population (less than that because trans men will presumably compete in Open anyway), a 'Trans Division' of competition wouldn't have enough actual participation to actually be competitive most of the time.
Let's have a rational and constructive conversation.
Don't give chessdotcom the reason to shut this down.
This thread isn't about chess in any but a peripheral sense. It's rather blatantly about other topics entirely. This is a borderline trollish/dogmatist thread right now. Odds are that sooner or later this thread will cross the line, go full-on lemming, and hurl itself off the precipice and get locked. All one need do is go back to the start of the year and count the sheer number of right-wing troll threads in the forums that are locked. Some of them may have started out legit and got hijacked by malevolent posters, but most started out as Gab-type threads and predictably got what they were pushing for. OP claims he wants rational and constructive discussions, doesn't look like it,I don't see much effort to guide this thread toward that goal. What makes the OP think that this thread will somehow succeed where all it's predecessors failed. Without a geniuine desire for constructive discussion ,and all that implies,these type of threads always,step by step,walk to the edge of the cliff and jump off.
@gbtgba the issue is simple. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Women can play in open and women’s tournaments. There is no need to abolish women’s tournaments.
Your answer is complex, not simple. My answer is simple.
Your answer is not simple, it's simplistic. There's a difference.
And your solution is unfair, not least of which is because with something like 1-2% of the population (less than that because trans men will presumably compete in Open anyway), a 'Trans Division' of competition wouldn't have enough actual participation to actually be competitive most of the time.
My proposed solution is both fair and straightforward. If you argue that there are no significant biological differences between men and women in chess, then I don't see why transgender chess players shouldn't participate in open tournaments. If that's not what they prefer, they could request that FIDE establishes separate tournaments for transgender players, as FIDE have received numerous such requests.
It’s also crucial to consider the opinions of female chess players in this matter. Has anyone sought their input? If the majority of them are comfortable with the idea, then I'm fine with it. However, I feel that nobody has taken the time to ask female chess players for their thoughts on this issue. Even if they were asked, they might be hesitant to voice their opinions. Let's ensure we don't harm women's chess. Thank you.
Trans women are women and trans men are men, so there is no need for a Trans Division. That's pretty straightforward too, so I'm sure you'll appreciate it.
Trans women are women and trans men are men, so there is no need for a Trans Division. That's pretty straightforward too, so I'm sure you'll appreciate it.
Then join open tournaments.
FIDE allows women to compete in open or women's only tournaments. I don't think there is a need to abolish women's only tournaments.
It’s not fun being a woman chess player, period. I have already told all my female cousins and all their female friends dont get interested in chess.
Chess is not only for men. Women and young girls deserve the opportunity to play. We should be encouraging women and young girls to play chess. It benefits everyone.
It’s not fun being a woman chess player, period. I have already told all my female cousins and all their female friends dont get interested in chess.
Chess is not only for men. Women and young girls deserve the opportunity to play. We should be encouraging women and young girls to play chess. It benefits everyone.
This is the whole point of women's tournaments*. To get women interested in chess early, and to bridge the gap between the best female players and the best male players. But more importantly to try to make up for the cultural/social influences that keep girls from playing chess as much as boys do. That's the disadvantage that women have in chess— it's entirely cultural.
When you allow people who grew up as boys to play in women's tournaments, it's unfair not because they are any smarter, or better at calculating, or have bigger brains. It's because they did not have to deal with the social barriers to entry that girls and women deal with. It's that simple.
*Keep in mind that I'm not saying that they achieve this goal. I don't know if they do, and that's an entirely separate topic.
When you allow people who grew up as boys
Being LGBTQ+ is not a choice. Children are able to recognize and label gender groups by 2 years old and by the age of 3 they have already labeled their own gender. Medical studies I've read (such as this one) show that most transgender people are not identifying with their sex assigned at birth as early as 3-7 years old. It doesn't appear transgender girls are growing up as boys.
Being LGBTQ+ is not a choice.
That really depends on your percepted definition of LGBTQIA+. I think, that people are born certain "way". As they grow up, that "way" will manifest itself. But many people are also quite susceptible to manipulation. Especially young inexperienced people are easy to manipulate. The older and more experienced person is, the harder it is to manipulate that person. This principle is universal and is not limited to just men. It is observable even on artificial intelligence. Of course, there are parameters, that you can set for AI how much it is learning etc. But the more trained AI is, the harder it is to fool it.
There is in the West enormous pressure and propaganda pushed on young inexperienced people and especially children, who have trouble recognizing propaganda and defend themselves against it. There are cases, when personally not fully developed young people are pressured into someting, they are not. And so it happens, that there are cases, when some immature person is manipulatively convinced into accepting transgender identity. There are many cases, when young transgender people undergo transition and several years later, they commited suicide, because they realized, they ruined their lives and became what they did not want to. There are psychological tests before transition, because of this to avoid such cases, but those cases happen anyway. There is statistically alarming ratio of suicides among transgender and non-binary young people.
Despite person is born certain way and that way is not that person's choice, there is significant risk, that certain share of people, who identify themselves as LGBTQIA+ are not what they think, they are, and they were just manipulated into it by ever present propaganda.
Summary: Person can not chose how he is born, but not all people are, what they think, they are, especially if they are easy to manipulate.
What are the so called "toxic traits" you are blabbering about in all the chessdotcom forums and threads?
I don't believe that you don't already know the answer to this. I'm not going to play silly games so I am now ending this discussion. I will let you have the last word.
I mean this sincerely and honestly. I also do not know what even means "toxic" in relation to human behaviour. There are in recent years many strange new expressions coming from "the West", which are being used and people from the West somehow assume, everybody knows what it means, even if those other people come from different cultures, than from the West and have much different experience.
For me, "toxic" meant for years some unheatlhy factor, that comes from synthetically made products, which are made in chemical factories. It was always strictly related to anorganic things, while its "living" alternatives were "venomous" for fauna (animals) and "poisonous" for flora (plants). Then in recent years, it has become by people from the West associated to living organisms, specifically to humans, which really confused me and appeared to me as a nonsense. Since nobody cared to explain what it means, I learned to percept the word "toxic" in connection to humans, as a manipulative empty label, that is being used to spit at opinion opponents and that label having no meaning.
I can assure you @seasideman that, there are honestly people, especially those, who are not from the West, who do not understand what "toxic" or "toxic traits" mean in relation to humans. And even if you will state, that you do not believe it (which is in my opinon pretty arrogant approach), it will not change understanding of that expression for the people, who are not aware of definition of the word in that context.
Many words in the English language have multiple definitions. It's not uncommon for people to become frustrated when they become aware that a familiar word is being used in a context which they're not familiar with. I think that a dictionary is a good way to resolve that. The definition of toxic which you're referring to has been in dictionaries for a long time. For a detailed history, 1980s and 1990s psychology would be a good start. A simple definition of toxic behaviour is that which causes pervasive or insidious harm to an individual or group.