FIDE’s Regulation on Transgender Chess Players is a Complete Mess

In August 2023, the World Chess Federation (FIDE) introduced a policy concerning transgender chess players that quickly sparked widespread controversy. The regulation outlined how FIDE would handle gender changes in its player registration system. International media focused heavily on one aspect of the policy: a potential ban of up to two years on trans women competing in women’s tournaments. Headlines reflected the outcry – CNN: “FIDE bans transgender women from competing in women’s chess events pending ‘further analysis’”, BBC: “Transgender women banned from women’s chess events“, NYT: “Some Transgender Women May Be Barred From Women’s Chess Competitions“. Initially, the backlash seemed exaggerated to me, likely fueled by misinterpretations of the policy. However, following a subtle revision to the regulations, even I’m unsure what FIDE’s true intentions are.

It is understandable that this interpretation prevailed; the issue is Article 3, specifically paragraph 3.2:

Upon closely reviewing the regulation, I strongly believe the “decision period” pertains to decisions about individual players, not general policy. The text suggests that decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, requiring approval from a FIDE representative. Such decisions should be made promptly, but no later than two years from the request for a gender change.

A two-year limit seems overly long for this process. However, as this is the regulation’s first iteration, the drafters may have been uncertain about the time needed to verify compliance with the player’s national laws, which could require “further analysis”.

This interpretation seems logical, as the regulation refers to “a player” rather than “players” collectively, indicating an individual focus. It would be unusual for a regulation to address a future policy decision in this context. The process resembles the rules for changing a player’s federation, which also requires approval and must be completed within a specified timeframe before the player can compete for another country’s team:

Shortly after the controversy over the rule, I became convinced that it stemmed primarily from misinterpretations of the regulation and FIDE’s ineffective communication. The idea of a general temporary ban seemed highly unlikely.

Two weeks back, however, I got into a conversation with someone at X again about this regulation, and my differing interpretation from what had been reported in the media on this issue. Then I noticed that the text of the regulation has undergone a small but notable change. Now it says this:

Now it did seem to be about setting policy more precisely after all, before a certain date. Though a date that did not fit within the originally stated two-year timeframe. Strange. Reason to delve deeper into it.

FIDE publishes decision lists for the FIDE Council and minutes of the FIDE General Assembly on its website. From these we can learn that the text of the regulation was changed in the FIDE Council meeting from 18 September 2024: “to read second sentence of the art. 3.2. as follows: Such decision should be based on further analysis and shall be taken by FIDE Council not later than December 31, 2026”. So that’s one thing that is cleared up now.

The minutes of the General Assembly of 17 December 2023 are more interesting. Under ‘Section 7- Miscellaneous’, a proposal of the Norway Chess Federation is discussed. Their proposal, supported by the Nordic Chess Federations, was to scrap Article 3:
(note that Mr. Dvorkovich is the current President of FIDE):

7.1 The Norway Chess Federation’s proposal
Mr. Dvorkovich explains the proposal of the Norway Chess Federation and mentions that the Regulations in question were adopted two months ago. He points out that there are no restrictions to the participation to transgender players in any FIDE-rated events around the world, besides the World Championship cycle events. This has to be clearly understood and that is why media response was a bit one-sided based on the lack of this understanding. He adds that FIDE is committed to monitoring the situation in this regard and if any problem occurs, then the regulations will be reviewed.
Mrs. Vestby from Norway addresses the General Assembly and explains their reasons for submitting the proposal.
Mr. Dvorkovich reconfirms that FIDE believes that there should be no restrictions, which were introduced only for the World Championship cycle based on the experience of other sports.
Mr. Dvorkovich continues to state that based on its discussion, the FIDE Council recommends to the General Assembly to reject the proposal of the Norwegian Chess Federation. He adds that the FIDE Council will continue monitoring the situation.
Mr. Jalling from Sweden asks about the participation of transgender persons in the Chess Olympiads. Mr. Dvorkovich replies Olympiad is not included in the Transgender Registration Regulations, only the events of the World Championship cycle.

Subsequently, the General Assembly rejected the proposal.

So Dvorkovich stated that the ban was only affecting the World Championship cycle events and not, for instance, the Olympiad. Really? That’s not what the regulations says: “These regulations apply to all individual competitions under the aegis of the Global Strategy Commission, Events Commission, and events providing qualification spots to the World Cup.” And you can easily check that the Olympiad falls under the Global Strategy Commission, and many other events that have little to nothing to do with the World Championship fall under the Events Commission.
Why didn’t the FIDE Council clearly state that the temporary ban was intended solely for the World Championship cycle in the first place? Why only modify the wording regarding the decision deadline in September 2024?

But there is another strange thing. The regulation specifically addresses gender changes in FIDE’s administration. If a trans woman, who has legally transitioned, applies to a federation without having been a member when she was legally still a man, she wouldn’t be affected by this rule. With no prior FIDE Identification Number (FIN) to update, she would be eligible to compete in the World Championship cycle. I readily admit that this is somewhat hypothetical. The chances of someone starting playing chess only in adulthood and then becoming strong enough to compete at the top must be considered very small.

Another interesting read on this matter is this article by Valentin Martin on the blog of the European Journal of International Law: The FIDE’s gambit: what if gender-based categorization became the exception in international competitions?. It came online coincidentally about the time I myself was looking into this issue in more detail again. Martin told me (via email) that it is a summary of an academic article written in January-March 2024 that is soon to be published (in June 2025) in a French book.

Martin argues that the regulation (interpreted as if it constitutes a general ban on trans women’s participation in women’s tournaments) contravenes the Olympic Charter and the recommendations of the IOC, of which FIDE is a member:

the IOC has chosen to delegate to each international federation the question of the distinction between men’s and women’s events, as long as athletes are not excluded solely on the grounds of their trans identity (introduction to the Framework), that the exclusion is not systematic (article 3.1), that it is justified by solid scientific research (article 6.1) and that medical data remains confidential (article 9). The FIDE Regulations contravene all of these rules: they systematically exclude transgender female athletes, on the sole basis of their trans identity, without any solid scientific justification.

The situation is a complete mess. FIDE’s lack of response to inquiries, such as the one I sent last week, only worsens the issue. Even after a follow-up, I received no confirmation of receipt.
I still believe the regulation’s drafters likely aimed to clarify the administrative process for gender changes without intending to alter policies on trans women’s participation. However, the FIDE Council appears to have interpreted it differently. Dvorkovich’s statements rather show ad hoc interpretations after the fact and it seems he has taken advantage of the situation to express an anti-woke position that is not widely shared by the chess community.