Several sporting organizations—including World Athletics, World Aquatics, the International Cycling Union, and cricket associations—currently prohibit transgender women from competing in elite female events if they did not transition before puberty. This policy extends to international women’s netball, regardless of past medical interventions.
The recent decision by the World Chess Federation (FIDE) to implement a similar ban has raised eyebrows. The question naturally arises: why is chess considered a sport at all?
While undeniably strategic and resembling a “war game,” it lacks the physical demands of traditional sports like facing combat or enduring intense exertion. “There’s not much physical prowess required to nudge 32 little pieces round a small board,” as some might say, with the most strenuous activity being retrieving a dropped piece.
Some argue for classifying chess as a mind game or an e-sport akin to video gaming. However, its established ranking system, tournaments, world championships, and anti-cheating measures qualify it as such—requiring immense mental fortitude, with grandmasters training rigorously like elite athletes.
Remarkably, the International Olympic Committee recognizes chess as a sport. Yet, banning trans women who are biological males seems to imply that men inherently possess superior abilities in chess compared to women.
This prompted strong criticism from figures such as Angela Eagle, former British Girls’ Under-18 chess champion, who stated: “This ban is ridiculous and offensive to women. There is no physical advantage in chess unless you believe men are inherently more able to play than women.”
It’s worth noting that equestrian events are not subject to gender restrictions because the horse’s strength, rather than the rider’s, is paramount—a realm where women have always competed successfully against men.
FIDE announced in August 2023 that the ban would be reviewed within two years, suggesting a potential revisit of the policy this summer. Recent Supreme Court rulings affirming the immutability of biological sex offer legal clarity for single-sex groups wishing to implement such restrictions.
This ruling also impacts workplace settings. A woman experiencing discomfort due to a trans woman using female-designated changing rooms or restrooms has a right to voice concerns and seek legal support.
The case itself stemmed from Scottish public boards’ policies allowing trans women into female quotas, potentially resulting in a board composition entirely comprised of biological men. Ministers now face the challenge of assessing the broader implications of this ruling while carefully considering alterations to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
This Act mandates that applicants seeking gender recognition must live as their acquired gender for two years and receive confirmation from a panel consisting of legal professionals, medical doctors, and psychologists that they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This process enables individuals to legally change their gender on official documents—allowing someone with male anatomy to be officially recognized as female.
Last year, former Health Secretary Vicky Atkins proposed a plan for the NHS, aiming to separate patients by biological sex in hospital wards and ensuring that intimate examinations of biological women are performed exclusively by biological female doctors, upon request. Transgender women would receive private rooms to ensure dignity and respect.
However, this approach hinges on readily available resources—a surplus of beds, ample spare rooms, and a well-rested medical workforce. Overburdened emergency staff facing critical situations are unlikely to prioritize chromosome testing when lives are at stake and may resort to mixed wards for efficiency.
Such a scenario could lead to the reintroduction of very diverse ward settings—encompassing individuals identifying as male, female, trans, nonbinary, bigender, pangender, or gender non-conforming.
