I'm only responding to the assertion that asking "what cis women think about playing trans women" is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people.

But I think this part is where the disconnect is happening. Before this decision, cis women and trans women were both components of women's chess. The act of conferring with only a subset of that group implies that the other does not fall into that category. Relying only on the majority group's opinion on the status of the minority group is itself an assumption that one of the groups inherently belongs less than the other.

[–] RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The act of conferring with only a subset of that group

Cis women are stakeholders, I didn't mean to imply that they are the only stakeholders That may be lack of clarity on my part. I definitely did not mean to suggest that ONLY cis women's opinions matter, or should be considered in rulemaking.

I offered that as a counterpoint to the assertion that the opinion of cis women is morally equivalent to the opinion of racists.

Again, I don't really know how or if women chess players (cis or trans) were solicited for their opinions on these rule changes.