The arguments for keeping trans women from participating in women’s sport are well rehearsed. As the former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies wrote in this magazine in June, the simple truth is that men on average run faster, jump higher and are stronger than women. Their biology gives them irreversible advantages.
Even the world of chess has been pulled into the debate. Last week, the International Chess Federation banned trans women from participating in women’s matches. The English Chess Federation, on the other hand, refuses to exclude trans women. On first inspection, the decision to ban makes no sense. After all, the usual arguments of unfair physical advantages in women’s games don’t hold water. However, the truth is that differences between men and women go far beyond the physical. Cognitive differences also exist.
Differences between men and women go far beyond the physical. Cognitive differences also exist
Exactly 40 years ago, in Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the psychologist Howard Gardner proposed eight different types of intelligence: musical–rhythmic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic. Skilled chess players, as Gardner noted, score high in both logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences.
Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the ability to identify logical or numerical patterns and manipulate abstract information. On average, and I stress the word average, men tend to score higher in this type of intelligence. Men also tend to score higher on visuospatial abilities. In chess, like any other sport, the ability to interpret visual information and respond with an appropriate motor response is crucial. Top chess players have high levels of visual-spatial intelligence. This ability to hold the world visually in the mind is what separates a truly great chess player from a good one.
A 2019 study carried out by Chinese academics showed that males tended to outperform females ‘in both large-scale and small-scale spatial ability’.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in