It's also why the anti-trans argument makes absolutely no sense in chess. Like, in sports there's some room for nuance because cis men do have a huge advantage in most sports of cis women, and depending on the sport and the stage of transition, that can carry forward to trans women. It's fucking hard to have that nuanced conversation because 95% of the time it gets drowned out by transphobes, but there's still something to talk about.

But in chess? Nobody is arguing there's any inherent biological advantage. The only reason for gendered tournaments is to create a safer space for non-men to compete in a male-dominated pastime. The only argument for excluding trans women from the Women's category in chess is transphobia. It's a real "mask off" moment for all the TERFs claiming it's about "integrity in sport" (Jesus fuck, writing that out made me realise how similar this all is to gamergate and the birth of the alt right).

A lot of tournaments in HEMA (historical European martial arts—think fencing, but with bigger, older styles of swords than what they use at the Olympics) around where I lived have started using an "Underrepresented Genders" (URG) category alongside the Open category, instead of Women's. It's functionally not much different from having a Women's category that also accepts trans people (important possible difference: it accepts trans men as well as trans women, and enbies), but the name helps make it clearer. I quite like that as a concept.

I mean, easy fix there right? Just have a women's tournament and an everybody tournament. Women can then choose which to enter.

The system only functions the way it does because the people prop it up. Any system.