Also in the News - Part 2

[The Doctor]

Three guesses on the latest sport to get a trans ban... 

 

No, it's chess: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-gender-chess-players-lose-titles-biological-birth-jhfdckm0c

 

I'm understanding of the questions over potential athletic advantages (although I think that there's so few competitors that bans while further research is done is not necessary) but chess? What's the advantage, powerful man wrists able to pick up the pieces more effectively?

[Captain...]

7 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Three guesses on the latest sport to get a trans ban... 

 

No, it's chess: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-gender-chess-players-lose-titles-biological-birth-jhfdckm0c

 

I'm understanding of the questions over potential athletic advantages (although I think that there's so few competitors that bans while further research is done is not necessary) but chess? What's the advantage, powerful man wrists able to pick up the pieces more effectively?

There is segregation by gender at elite chess levels and the majority of chess grandmasters. 46 Female to 2000+ male. That heavily implies there is a gender advantage, whether biological or societal, so I guess I can see there is justification in investigating the advantages males have in chess. Not saying I agree with it.

 

The bit that I find beyond ridiculous is this: The policy would also see players who held women’s titles and later transitioned to male removed. But FIDE said it would possibly reinstate them if a person later changed “the gender back to a woman”. 

 

 

Edited 20 August 2023 by Captain...

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There is segregation by gender at elite chess levels and the majority of chess grandmasters. 46 Female to 2000+ male. That heavily implies there is a gender advantage, whether biological or societal, so I guess I can see there is justification in investigating the advantages males have in chess. Not saying I agree with it.

 

The bit that I find beyond ridiculous is this: The policy would also see players who held women’s titles and later transitioned to male removed. But FIDE said it would possibly reinstate them if a person later changed “the gender back to a woman”. 

 

 

I agree, but I also think it's obviously societal.

 

If its biological, that raises some most unfortunate implications.

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree, but I also think it's obviously societal.

 

If its biological, that raises some most unfortunate implications.

I think it's been proven as a genetic trait that men are better at focussing on single tasks and women are better at multi tasking which is going to give men a competitive advantage without meaning they are necessarily smarter.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think it's been proven as a genetic trait that men are better at focussing on single tasks and women are better at multi tasking which is going to give men a competitive advantage without meaning they are necessarily smarter.

Chess requires a larger thought based skillset than simply that, though. Of course being good (or bad) at chess isn't a straight measure of intelligence every time, but most folks at the top of the game tend to be pretty smart.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Chess requires a larger thought based skillset than simply that, though. Of course being good (or bad) at chess isn't a straight measure of intelligence every time, but most folks at the top of the game tend to be pretty smart.

That's what I was thinking. The best Chess players are those that can see several moves ahead, and all the permutations that go with it. I would say it's more akin to multitasking.

[The Doctor]

22 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There is segregation by gender at elite chess levels and the majority of chess grandmasters. 46 Female to 2000+ male. That heavily implies there is a gender advantage, whether biological or societal, so I guess I can see there is justification in investigating the advantages males have in chess. Not saying I agree with it.

 

The bit that I find beyond ridiculous is this: The policy would also see players who held women’s titles and later transitioned to male removed. But FIDE said it would possibly reinstate them if a person later changed “the gender back to a woman”. 

 

 

It's 100% societal, driven by the fact that a lot of male grand masters are sex pests as well. So, segregated chess makes sense on that basis, giving marginalised genders a space to play, but in that case, you'd expect trans inclusion. Not as if trans people are less marginalised than cis women after all...

 

9 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think it's been proven as a genetic trait that men are better at focussing on single tasks and women are better at multi tasking which is going to give men a competitive advantage without meaning they are necessarily smarter.

Evopsych myth: https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-women-and-men-are-equally-bad-at-multitasking

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

That's what I was thinking. The best Chess players are those that can see several moves ahead, and all the permutations that go with it. I would say it's more akin to multitasking.

It's still a singular focus on the game. Multi tasking is considering multiple distinct things at the same time. Thinking X number of moves ahead is just strategy and memory of playing styles and set defences/attacks.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

It's 100% societal, driven by the fact that a lot of male grand masters are sex pests as well. So, segregated chess makes sense on that basis, giving marginalised genders a space to play, but in that case, you'd expect trans inclusion. Not as if trans people are less marginalised than cis women after all...

 

Evopsych myth: https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-women-and-men-are-equally-bad-at-multitasking

I'm guessing you've just googled and picked one of many experiments proving men and women multi task equally badly and you're not starting this one experiment as conclusive proof. It could just be that that experiment was not fit for purpose and the reason why men and women performed equally badly was because it was a poor experiment. It doesn't really read like a well thought out experiment and seems more focussed on how people deal with distractions while multitasking. 

 

https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2050-7283-1-18 - Evidence that women do perform better at multi tasking.

 

It also doesn't address the first assertion that men are able to focus a lot more on a single task than women.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/mens-and-womens-brains-fundamentally-different-study-finds-one-better-at-focusing-one-better-at-multitasking

 

This one says they do.

 

The point is that there is enough scientific evidence out there* to suggest that men and women do think differently and this may have an impact on games like chess so it is of value researching if a trans women has an unfair competitive advantage. It doesn't mean that I think trans women should be excluded and have titles and prize money removed, I think one part of the research is monitoring how a trans woman performs in elite chess. If a very average male player who averages round 2 in elite male tournaments transitions and starts winning elite female tournaments then it suggests an advantage.

 

*Based on a quick Google and memory of various articles from credible news sources, I am by no means an expert, but this is not climate denial levels of opposing studies.

Edited 20 August 2023 by Captain...

[The Doctor]

28 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I'm guessing you've just googled and picked one of many experiments proving men and women multi task equally badly and you're not starting this one experiment as conclusive proof. It could just be that that experiment was not fit for purpose and the reason why men and women performed equally badly was because it was a poor experiment. It doesn't really read like a well thought out experiment and seems more focussed on how people deal with distractions while multitasking. 

 

https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2050-7283-1-18 - Evidence that women do perform better at multi tasking.

 

It also doesn't address the first assertion that men are able to focus a lot more on a single task than women.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/mens-and-womens-brains-fundamentally-different-study-finds-one-better-at-focusing-one-better-at-multitasking

 

This one says they do.

 

The point is that there is enough scientific evidence out there* to suggest that men and women do think differently and this may have an impact on games like chess so it is of value researching if a trans women has an unfair competitive advantage. It doesn't mean that I think trans women should be excluded and have titles and prize money removed, I think one part of the research is monitoring how a trans woman performs in elite chess. If a very average male player who averages round 2 in elite male tournaments transitions and starts winning elite female tournaments then it suggests an advantage.

 

*Based on a quick Google and memory of various articles from credible news sources, I am by no means an expert, but this is not climate denial levels of opposing studies.

I'm highlighting it as an example, but studies into whether there's a gendered difference in task management pretty much consistently give different results depending on study design. Like for another example you can find studies suggesting men are better at concurrent multitasking (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32933422/) which is less indicative of a general "women are better at multitasking, men are better at single tasks", and more of a cultural upbringing meaning there are specific tasks that men or women are on average more use to and so can more easily do concurrent multitasking or task switching on those tasks. 

[fox_up_north]

I'd guess it's just more the pool of talent. As noted, the numbers of male to female competitors will be huge. Just based on sheer averages, it's very unlikely a woman would make it to a final or even a semi. Not impossible, as we know about 5000-1 chances, but pretty unrealistic. 

 

I don't see why they couldn't do the top 4 women vs top 4 men, though, just to see.

[Sparrowhawk]

I have no scientific evidence, no intention of offending anyone, and may well be talking through my hat, but aren't more men than women further along the autism spectrum? And there's a lot about being really good at chess that seems to match up quite well with ASD...

[Zear0]

Becoming a grandmaster requires you to compete in a vast amount of international tournaments and is not soley an indication of chess rating. Why "the youngest ever GM" is a folly pursuit of rich parents. Would argue this access would be detrimental to female players and has an affect on the pool. 

 

That being said, extrapolating the top 0.00000001% as if it's even vaguely representative of society is just daft but predictable. 

[The Doctor]

55 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

I have no scientific evidence, no intention of offending anyone, and may well be talking through my hat, but aren't more men than women further along the autism spectrum? And there's a lot about being really good at chess that seems to match up quite well with ASD...

That's more of a diagnostic gap than a occurrence gap, it's very difficult for women to get diagnosed with neurodivergency like autism or ADHD, with a lot getting diagnosed as adults, because the diagnostic criteria are based off how it typically presents in young boys

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Chess requires a larger thought based skillset than simply that, though. Of course being good (or bad) at chess isn't a straight measure of intelligence every time, but most folks at the top of the game tend to be pretty smart.

Not sure if this is backed up by science so feel free to disregard but i feel I’ve read or heard somewhere that Women tend to be much more at the median point if an intelligence metric with fewer highly stupid and highly intelligent occurrences, whereas men tend to sit at the higher/lower point much more frequently. Hence more men are highly intelligent and equally highly stupid. That could play a factor.
 

A lot of women in my family do like to play chess but I don’t think thats common - perhaps the queens gambit that was on Netflix will increase the amount if women interested in the game. 
 

As an avid chess player myself, Id welcome more people being interested in the game - its awesome. 

[Captain...]

4 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I'm highlighting it as an example, but studies into whether there's a gendered difference in task management pretty much consistently give different results depending on study design. Like for another example you can find studies suggesting men are better at concurrent multitasking (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32933422/) which is less indicative of a general "women are better at multitasking, men are better at single tasks", and more of a cultural upbringing meaning there are specific tasks that men or women are on average more use to and so can more easily do concurrent multitasking or task switching on those tasks. 

Which suggests more research is needed to give a definitive answer. 

 

Again based purely on a limited knowledge of the area there is enough evidence to suggest men and women could think differently and as such there could be an unfair competitive advantage at the elite level of a game like chess and when it is potentially people's livelihoods and earnings that are at stake it does matter and it should be researched.

 

The solution for me goes back to a suggestion for other sports, you have an open category for everyone to enter and a specific female tournament where each sporting/games body can set the criteria to make it fair. While transitioning any trans athlete can still compete and train in the open category, therefore nobody is deprived of the joy of competing whilst keeping a fair category open for women to compete.

Edited 20 August 2023 by Captain...

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Benguin said:

Not sure if this is backed up by science so feel free to disregard but i feel I’ve read or heard somewhere that Women tend to be much more at the median point if an intelligence metric with fewer highly stupid and highly intelligent occurrences, whereas men tend to sit at the higher/lower point much more frequently. Hence more men are highly intelligent and equally highly stupid. That could play a factor.
 

A lot of women in my family do like to play chess but I don’t think thats common - perhaps the queens gambit that was on Netflix will increase the amount if women interested in the game. 
 

As an avid chess player myself, Id welcome more people being interested in the game - its awesome. 

I'd have to look more into that one.

 

I think my general point here is that I don't reckon blokes have any more inherent advantage over women at chess than they do other blokes (some do have obvious and proven societal advantages over both), and that should stand as a null hypothesis until indicated otherwise.

[Jon the Hat]

20 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Three guesses on the latest sport to get a trans ban... 

 

No, it's chess: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-gender-chess-players-lose-titles-biological-birth-jhfdckm0c

 

I'm understanding of the questions over potential athletic advantages (although I think that there's so few competitors that bans while further research is done is not necessary) but chess? What's the advantage, powerful man wrists able to pick up the pieces more effectively?

Potential?  Really?  There is plenty of evidence, you just have to look at the results.  Times for events which are a race, weights for events which involve lifting for a start.  You are being willfully blind for idealogical reasons if you choose not to see it.  As the comment that numbers are tiny, yes they may be, but that doesn't make it fair for those who are impacted.  Why are you so keen to let the rights of males identifying as females over actual females?  I just don't understand.

 

As for Chess, as noted there is clearly an opportunity to encourage female players vs an established male order, so why shouldn't they choose to have a womens category.  To flip your point around, why would trans women have an issue competing against the men? Seems strange.

[Sparrowhawk]

On 20/08/2023 at 09:15, The Doctor said:

I'm understanding of the questions over potential athletic advantages

 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Potential?  Really?  There is plenty of evidence, you just have to look at the results.  Times for events which are a race, weights for events which involve lifting for a start.  You are being willfully blind for idealogical reasons if you choose not to see it.  As the comment that numbers are tiny, yes they may be, but that doesn't make it fair for those who are impacted.  Why are you so keen to let the rights of males identifying as females over actual females?  I just don't understand.

If anyone is being wilfully blind for ideological reasons here, it isn't the Doc, and your last but one sentence shows it.

 

They used the word 'potential' completely correctly, because in any individual case there is only a potential advantage. Any actual advantage depends on the individuals involved and the nature of the sport in question.

[Fox92]

On 18/08/2023 at 13:17, stripeyfox said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66180606

 

Summary

1. Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven babies who were being looked after on a neo-natal ward
2. The murders happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016
3. Letby is the UK's most prolific killer of babies in modern times
4. She has also been found guilty of attempting to murder another six babies
5. The jury was undecided on the attempted murder of a further four babies
6. The 33-year-old, originally from Hereford, denied all 22 charges against her - blaming the deaths on hospital hygiene and staffing levels

Sentancing today, now, but she's refusing to sit in dock. Unbelivable they can get away with not turning up.

[stripeyfox]

5 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Sentancing today, now, but she's refusing to sit in dock. Unbelivable they can get away with not turning up.

Definitely wrong. I understand she can get a couple of years added to her sentence for refusing to appear, but I guess if you're going down for life anyway, then it doesn't make any difference.

 

She's in the holding cells at the court. Surely they could just whack a TV on the wall in there so at the very least she's stuck in a room with a guard and at TV showing the hearing?

 

[Jon the Hat]

37 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

 

If anyone is being wilfully blind for ideological reasons here, it isn't the Doc, and your last but one sentence shows it.

 

They used the word 'potential' completely correctly, because in any individual case there is only a potential advantage. Any actual advantage depends on the individuals involved and the nature of the sport in question.

It’s a real advantage and you know it.  We all know it.  The sport’s bodies know it and they’re taking action.

[Jon the Hat]

23 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

Definitely wrong. I understand she can get a couple of years added to her sentence for refusing to appear, but I guess if you're going down for life anyway, then it doesn't make any difference.

 

She's in the holding cells at the court. Surely they could just whack a TV on the wall in there so at the very least she's stuck in a room with a guard and at TV showing the hearing?

 

Uncomfortable as it is, this isn’t part of her punishment.  I’m not eve sure she needs to attend at all at any point in the case does she? Certainly not compelled to give evidence.

[stripeyfox]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Uncomfortable as it is, this isn’t part of her punishment.  I’m not eve sure she needs to attend at all at any point in the case does she? Certainly not compelled to give evidence.

Indeed. Although we are mostly unconcerned with her feelings, there's not much in it for her to appear and hear the impact statement is there.

 

Although the families won't get their "moment" , I'm sure she will be aware of the content of the statements as her lawyers would have seen them in advance.

[StanSP]

26 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Uncomfortable as it is, this isn’t part of her punishment.  I’m not eve sure she needs to attend at all at any point in the case does she? Certainly not compelled to give evidence.

She attended court to give evidence earlier in the case. 

 

Agree that she should be forced to hear her sentencing in front of the victims' families and friends. 

 

I've seen Sunak has said they'll bring forward a law to ensure criminals are present for their sentencing. 

 

It's emotional and moving reading the statements from the families and parents of the babies that were killed or attempted to be killed. Harrowing.