> Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it.

Section 4.1 is the logical outcome of FIDE categories being split into Open, where both men and women can compete, and Women, where only women can compete. If a female player changes her chess-gender to man, then it no longer makes any sense for her to hold titles from the Women category such as Woman Grandmaster. She is choosing to exclude herself from a restricted category and the titles that only exist in that category.

I actually don't agree with this policy overall but given that they've decided to let men register as women and women register as men, I'm glad they at least included some restrictions in Section 3 to prevent the men from competing in the Women's category.

> if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview.

I think we just have different worldviews.

This article by Susan Polgar, a trailblazer in women's chess and who has been a role model for female chess players worldwide, makes the case for why separate tournaments for women and girls are needed: https://web.archive.org/web/20250306124806/https://chessdail...

She describes the challenges she faced as a young girl and then as a woman in this male-dominated field, how she had to deal with sexism, social stigma, unwanted sexual advances and threats to her physical safety - all because she is female and wanted to play chess.

With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women) in these tournaments benefit women and girls? I don't see how it would. The ask seems to be driven from these males requesting to be included, rather than female players requesting these males' inclusion.

> you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up

I've read their policy and from my understanding the restrictions they've put onto eligibility in the female competition are both evidence-based and prioritise fairness for female athletes (rather than inclusion of male athletes). That's why I personally welcome them.

It's actually quite nuanced when you look at the details, for example, athletes with CAIS are eligible even though from a strictly technical perspective they are 46,XY males. The reason they are eligible is because, being entirely sensitive to androgens, their bodies developed an external female phenotype with no testosterone-driven advantage over 46,XX female athletes.

Whereas the policy excludes male athletes who have DSDs like 5-ARD, even if they have female documentation (e.g. Caster Semenya), because of the male physiological advantage and how unfair this is to female competitors.

> Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before.

I have actually, in many discussions with trans-identitied people both in real life and online, in reading articles and books, and in reading forums where they talk to each other. It's mostly why I ended up rejecting the idea that woman and man are merely identities to be claimed. Personally I find that notion quite sexist.

> then it no longer makes any sense

Don't all the reasons you gave for having the separate category still apply? Why does it no longer make any sense?

> With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women)

This is where a gap in your understanding lies: the childhood experience of a closeted trans woman is not the same as the childhood experience of a cis man. If you can't resolve this gap yourself, my offer to find resources for you remains open.

Given that understanding, you could make the minimum viable alteration to your worldview, and it would then satisfy the "valid" criterion I mentioned earlier – but I don't think that's the intellectually-honest result of starting where you are now, and gaining the additional understanding. (There are people with similar opinions to you who do have the understanding you lack, but they've reached those opinions from a very different direction.)

> I've read their policy and […]

Thank you for explaining your position.

World Athletics C3.5A contains many inaccuracies and inconsistencies, including but not limited to:

• Eligibility rule 3.5.2(a) unconditionally allows SRY-positive XX-males to compete in the women's category, but C3.5A§3.3 allows them to be excluded by the Medical Manager. Which is it?

• Buccal smears can show false positives for SRY in the case of chimerism. The regulations have no provision for this.

• Blood tests can show false negatives for SRY in the case of bone marrow transplants. The regulations have no provision for this.

• C3.5A§6.1.1.2 requires certain athletes to medically suppress their testosterone levels, even if their testosterone levels are within the typical range for endosex cis women. More suppression may be required than is stated in the regulations, since blood test results can be variable: the regulations contain no provisions to account for that.

• [further remark about C3.5A§6.1 cut because I struggled with unit conversions, and wasn't 100% sure about it]

• Eligibility rule 3.5.2(b) corresponds better to the available evidence than the motivation given in eligibility rule 3.5.2(c), but they are not consistent with each other. (Arbitrary rules are usually considered bad.)

To me, the 2025 regulations appear hamfisted, not nuanced – and I suspect that most people with more than a cursory understanding of human biology would share this view. The 2025 rules do not deserve the praise you have given them.

The regulation defines the terms "biological males" and "biological females" as referring to genotype. This is an arbitrary use of terminology: there are many ways one could draw the "biological" distinction, many of which would be more useful for sports. "Genotypical males" and "genotypical females" would have been clearer terminology (although they would still have needed the definition). Considering that "biological female" is a dogwhistle among anti-trans bigots, and considering the issues I've pointed out after a cursory skim, I suspect that many of these issues are deliberate. The inconsistency in the final bullet point is quite reminiscent of the claptrap J.K. Rowling says.

Additionally, in the link you gave:

> World Athletics never has and never would impose any obligation to undergo surgery.

Imposing rules that create the conditions out of which such an obligation arises is imposing such obligations. The purpose of a system is what it does. I can buy that historically this was unintentional, but everyone knows about the risk, now. You can't just say "oh we don't impose an obligation" and expect that to absolve you: they need positive protection of the rights of intersex athletes, to prevent a repeat of the non-consensual maiming incidents.

I'll leave you with a passage from https://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-...:

> I would also like to relate a two-part epiphany that I had after my transition. In 2005, nine months after starting HRT, I was running 12% slower than I had run with male T levels; women run 10-12% slower than men over a wide range of distances. In 2006 I met another trans woman runner and the she had the same experience. I later discovered that, if aging is factored in, this 10-12% loss of speed is standard among trans women endurance athletes. The realization that one can take a male distance runner, make that runner hormonally female, and wind up with a female distance runner of the same relative capability was life changing for me.

> I have actually,

You're not demonstrating understanding of the topic.

P.S.: I'll note that not even the 2025 World Athletics regulations are misgendering the hypothetical athletes – but you are. You're being exceptionally rude to these hypothetical people. I do hope you don't treat real people this way.