[abusoufiyan]

I was reading the justifications of women who are attending and they generally have 3 things to say:

1) All countries are at different places in the march towards human rights. But participating in a women's sporting event in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia is a chance to help further women's rights in those countries as more women might want to play, become very very good, and have a high profile from which to challenge the regime. Refusing because you have to wear hijab or abaya is not worth giving up that chance to help women in such countries.

2) Saudi seems to be sponsoring much more prize money and accommodations. One ranked player complained that many participants had to fund their own travel in the past, that European countries aren't willing to sponsor the tournament, and only the top 4 players received any kind of compensation at all in the past. In Saudi it is supposed to be a better prize and travel is comped. One player said that such pitiful prize compensation as in the past is no less oppressive than having to wear a hijab.

3) Only one player mentioned this but I think it was worth mentioning. She said that human and women's rights are bad in Saudi but human and women's are ignored in other countries (for example, China multiple times in the past 20 years, Russia right after its annexation of Ukraine) the championship is in, and the 'principled' chess players never speak up then.

I think the last point is most revealing. Many of the players who boycott are concerned with regulations that affect them personally (I have to wear this. I won't be allowed to do this), and very few of them will ever care about the human rights violations or even women's rights violations that don't affect them. And of course we are not immune to this way of thinking either. It is easy for us to empathize when we have to go through what others go through. In China though (for example), when we are not having our family size culled and we are not being ethnically replaced with Han Chinese in our homelands, and we are not being suspiciously disappeared by the government like Ughyur Muslims, then we don't empathize enough to boycott a chess championship. We are not as up in arms about human rights and all this when it affects people who are not us. How many of us actually take our respective governments to task for their own rights violations (if you're American, a few years back, they bombed out an active, operating Red Cross Hospital, just as an example)?

[specialp]

I salute those that stand up for human rights for others, even when the oppression doesn't affect them. But then again, there is also nothing wrong with refusing to do something based on direct oppression to the person. You are right that people should stand up for rights of others too but this is a different discussion.

Here we have a woman that is expected to go to a country where she has to be escorted around by males, and is told how to dress. So this is directly affecting her, and her dignity. Maybe some will take the higher cash payments and not care if they have to become a second tier human for a bit, which is also fine. But this woman doesn't want to regardless of what the Saudis are paying.

I don't think she is trying to be a human rights champion, she is standing up for her dignity. I am glad the Saudis are making some progress on women's rights, but I also salute this woman for not wanting to take part while there is still blatant discrimination towards women/

[abusoufiyan]

I never said it was wrong, nor did the female player who made that argument. Good for her if she feels uncomfortable for voicing that and refusing to go. Only wishing it extended to other marginalized groups.

It's also interesting that you become a second-tier human in Saudi because of segregation but being paid pennies so little that you can't even pay for the travel expenses to the World Women's Chess Championship doesn't make a you a second-tier human. The fact that no other country even wants to host this championship this year doesn't make the women second-tier humans.

[rayiner]

> All countries are at different places in the march towards human rights.

It’s a tightrope for sure. On one hand, you can’t completely alienate people, because then they will not engage with the rest of the world and see how life can be better. On the other hand, being too accommodating reinforces the existing power structures against domestic pressure. It signals that you can participate fully in the western international order without adopting its values.

Something like refusing to hold international events in a place is a great pressure point. It’s not something like economic sanctions, which will cripple countries and make the people hate the west. At the same time, it’s an embarrassment and a source of shame to the ruling elite.

[sudosteph]

I've heard variations on your arguments a few times, and while they seem reasonable on their face, it's frankly just a variation of "concern trolling."

1.) It's a huge reach to say that having foreign women participate in this tournament will have any impact whatsoever on Saudi Arabian women. Saudi Arabians have TV, they have twitter, they know what chess is. Frankly, the only people who actually care enough to watch a chess tournament are people who already understand chess. Also, "challenge the regime"? Come on, refusing to comply as a women in KSA just gets you arrested or killed.

2.)> "One player said that such pitiful prize compensation as in the past is no less oppressive than having to wear a hijab.". That's a terrible analogy. It's not just wearing a hijab that's the cost. It's actually putting yourself at the mercy of a nation which has encoded sexism into it's national laws and identity. It's knowing that if something bad happens, your word is worth less than a man's in a court of law. It's knowing that your movements are at someone elses mercy because of your chromosomes. It's about knowing that by going there and spending money, you are legitimizing the archaic, systematic oppression that treats half of all people as less human than others.

3. It would be great if more people spoke up for human rights that don't affect them, but you have to pick your battles sometimes. Women have the right to advocate for themselves before everyone else. It's hypocritical to fault a woman for calling out sexism but not other human rights abuses, if you wont fault men who call out neither. And sexism in China is hardly comparable to that of the KSA.

In short, I think she made the right call. As a woman, I would never willingly put myself at the mercy of a state that doesn't even pretend that I'm a full human being of equal worth to men. KSA is way out of the norm on this matter and need to change their laws if they expect western women to travel there.

[abusoufiyan]

They are not my arguments. These are the arguments of women competitors. I thought it best to center women's opinions in this comment of mine. You can read them in full here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-does-it-again-...

Also, it is not a huge reach to say that it will have any impact whatsoever. Knowing what chess is and actually seeing / meeting a female world chess champion are different and most people realize that.

Furthermore, yes, activists in nearly every oppressive regime are jailed or killed. Mandela was jailed. MLK Jr. was jailed. Manal al-Sharif, a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia, was jailed. All of them were jailed under existant laws in the country at the time of arrest. But the fact that countries jail outspoken activists isn't reason enough to boycott an international event, else you'd be able to go nowhere.

As someone else mentioned, there is a fine line between boycotting and attending international events in controversial settings. On the one hand, you have a chance to further international understanding, show citizens what other cultures and people are like, and influence the country which is hosting you. On the other hand, you may be legitimizing oppression. Jesse Owens ran in the Olympics hosted in Nazi Germany. If he had boycotted, perhaps some would have agreed and others disagreed. Similarly here, some women agree with the decision and some disagree. You and the chess champion in the headline, as women, would boycott. These women, as women, would not. Both have some valid reasons.