It’s actually a bit more complicated than that. Chess has a long history and developed from games passed around Asia, Africa, and Europe largely. The modern version of chess we are most familiar with was stylized in Europe- with the piece designs and names changed to suit the courts of the time.
That’s where things get interesting.
English is relatively rare in that a female ruler is given a title specifically rooted in female gender.
The word “queen” comes through Latin in to pre modern English and derives from the same root as many common English words referencing female specific concepts which became simply the word for “wife” and then “queen” being derived from that.
However- as stated it is more common in history for the titles or words for female rulers to be rooted in the masculine or for the same title for a ruler to apply regardless of gender but generally still be a title with a masculine context.
The appearances and names of the pieces were changed- but the game is still rooted in early versions. This is where things get abstract and relate to translation subtleties. Since the pieces were restyled to fit the English court- that doesn’t inherently mean that the identity of the pieces were changed.
Meaning that calling something by a different r name or placing a different design on it doesn’t necessarily change what it is. The concept of the queen being “female” can be said to come from the English using the word “queen” for the piece which in English implies female gender- but that’s just the translation of a foreign language concept that may not have a direct analog. “samurai” is a foreign word to English, without using the native word the closest analog to the period in Europe might be something akin to “Knight” which isn’t totally accurate but has similar context. Referring to a samurai as a “knight” doesn’t inherently change anything about the samurai.
Thusly to make such an assessment on gender of chess pieces we would need to understand and trace the etymology and determine what if any gender specific concept exists or where we might choose to delineate a change through language vs. concept.
To complicate it further though- the assessment that gender identity was so concrete in “ancient times” is already false- these concepts varied from culture to culture and time to time. For example, the “Miho” are just one of many cases of an all “female” group of warriors. They weren’t selected for their gender or identity- it was simply that in their case the kingdom had frequent wars and was regularly required to give male slaves as tribute, so they couldn’t maintain an effective fighting force and be overly concerned with gender.
For this reason- the military was made of any able citizen. That said/ the Miho didn’t consider themselves female and neither did most of their peers. Many maintained they were male, and there were not the differences in gender identity one often expects in such cases. In essence they were largely considered as men. Warriors couldn’t marry, but they could have sex. Miho had sexual relationships with other soldiers of either sex and records state they also had a support company of prostitutes to attend such desires.
Of course it would be possible for a member of the Miho to become a queen if they so desired and were in a position to- but their personal and social gender identity was female. To illustrate the issue of translation- outside their language or strict academics they were often referred to as “Amazons” for their perception as similar to the Greek legends. Of course the amazons were women- but the culture and individuals here did not view them as women- so their gender status is subjective. In our chess example- if we plug in a group like this- we could see a “male” chess piece be able to become a “female” queen.
We don’t even have to go in to pocket examples like that. In the 1600’s the “queen” of Sweden was coronated as “King” because the ruler was a “king.” When we translate it to English we end up with “queen,” specifically the term “queen regent” which is the English term that differentiates a queen as a ruler from a queen who is just the wife of a king etc.
But that is where translation becomes important- if we translate the concept based on gender we would change the Swedish word for “King” into “queen” if a woman was the ruler- but if we translated it directly- the word “king” means “king.” The word means what it means, but when translating one must often decide wether to change the word to suit the localization of the concept.
It could therefore be entirely possible that the “King” is actually female and that the “queen” is male and by the stated logic all other pieces except the king are male.
It could also be possible that several pieces are transgender. The concept existed and while not extremely common especially in reigning monarchs- European history has many examples of lords or knights or others with ambiguous or questioned genders or non Cis-gendered status etc. Somwether a specific pawn remains the same gender it had when becoming another piece or not coukd also depend on the specific piece and wether that pawn could hold that position or fake it.
The analysis based on the idea of chess being modeled on European court norms could handwave away many of these points by saying they weren’t to cultural norm or ideal- but there are two huge issues with that.
The first huge issue is that in Europe of the time it would be VERY uncommon or essentially impossible for a female to be a Knight or a bishop- and pawns represent foot soldiers or infantry essentially- which would also be normally all male. So if we take the approach that we must stick to the “normative ideals” of the culture- the queen would likely be the only female piece as that would be the only position widely available to a woman that is represented on a chess board.
The other major flaw in the analysis is that the “meta” mechanics of a pawn being swapped for another piece represent the pawns promotion to that piece. That is one possibility and theory- having made it to the other side of the board a foot soldier is “promoted” to knight or bishop etc. of course- we run in to the problem again that only a female could theoretically be promoted to a queen and only a male would theoretically be promoted to something like Bishop. It’s also possible that the switch represents a type of prisoner exchange or ransom- common at the time, or that the pawn “rescues” the captured piece and is captured in the attempt, or it could be case by case.
If we take the track where we allow that SOME percentage of pawns could be female- then the gender of a pawn may not be determined until that pawn is traded for another piece. In mega game terms that is to say if a pawn is traded for a knight, that pawn was a male, but if a pawn is traded for a queen, that pawn was one of the females that could occasionally be found in such a role as analogous to a pawn.
At that point it really comes down to your “head cannon” and whatever story you want to imagine is playing out in the chess board. If we enter such realm of fantasy’s we can have any piece be make or female since fantasy is completely accepting of female knights and such as are modern proclivities.
Really- it probably isn’t defined at all as the gender of the prices don’t particularly impact game play and whatever real world analogs exist are more the result of adding flavor and context to game play mechanics that are only there for functional reasons.
So I mean- pretend whatever you want to pretend, it’s your world, but I can’t support stating such things as fact and if offered as theory I will rebut them as done here because the theory doesn’t hold water in my view.
1000%. As usual- compelling and multifaceted. I was onboard from the get go. It works either way- I just read it as a tragic tale- the love of going sideways but being forced by duty or social norms to constrain themselves. Poetry. You always write such poetry- even when not trying.
In its corrected form it works just as well- as a solid joke with its own levels.
To clarify- that was my intent in saying I wouldn’t argue against this or debate it- if these words are false I would gladly live in the lie, and if they are true they are beyond reproach in my eyes.
That’s where things get interesting.
English is relatively rare in that a female ruler is given a title specifically rooted in female gender.
The word “queen” comes through Latin in to pre modern English and derives from the same root as many common English words referencing female specific concepts which became simply the word for “wife” and then “queen” being derived from that.
However- as stated it is more common in history for the titles or words for female rulers to be rooted in the masculine or for the same title for a ruler to apply regardless of gender but generally still be a title with a masculine context.
Meaning that calling something by a different r name or placing a different design on it doesn’t necessarily change what it is. The concept of the queen being “female” can be said to come from the English using the word “queen” for the piece which in English implies female gender- but that’s just the translation of a foreign language concept that may not have a direct analog. “samurai” is a foreign word to English, without using the native word the closest analog to the period in Europe might be something akin to “Knight” which isn’t totally accurate but has similar context. Referring to a samurai as a “knight” doesn’t inherently change anything about the samurai.
To complicate it further though- the assessment that gender identity was so concrete in “ancient times” is already false- these concepts varied from culture to culture and time to time. For example, the “Miho” are just one of many cases of an all “female” group of warriors. They weren’t selected for their gender or identity- it was simply that in their case the kingdom had frequent wars and was regularly required to give male slaves as tribute, so they couldn’t maintain an effective fighting force and be overly concerned with gender.
But that is where translation becomes important- if we translate the concept based on gender we would change the Swedish word for “King” into “queen” if a woman was the ruler- but if we translated it directly- the word “king” means “king.” The word means what it means, but when translating one must often decide wether to change the word to suit the localization of the concept.
It could also be possible that several pieces are transgender. The concept existed and while not extremely common especially in reigning monarchs- European history has many examples of lords or knights or others with ambiguous or questioned genders or non Cis-gendered status etc. Somwether a specific pawn remains the same gender it had when becoming another piece or not coukd also depend on the specific piece and wether that pawn could hold that position or fake it.
The first huge issue is that in Europe of the time it would be VERY uncommon or essentially impossible for a female to be a Knight or a bishop- and pawns represent foot soldiers or infantry essentially- which would also be normally all male. So if we take the approach that we must stick to the “normative ideals” of the culture- the queen would likely be the only female piece as that would be the only position widely available to a woman that is represented on a chess board.
At that point it really comes down to your “head cannon” and whatever story you want to imagine is playing out in the chess board. If we enter such realm of fantasy’s we can have any piece be make or female since fantasy is completely accepting of female knights and such as are modern proclivities.
So I mean- pretend whatever you want to pretend, it’s your world, but I can’t support stating such things as fact and if offered as theory I will rebut them as done here because the theory doesn’t hold water in my view.
In its corrected form it works just as well- as a solid joke with its own levels.
To clarify- that was my intent in saying I wouldn’t argue against this or debate it- if these words are false I would gladly live in the lie, and if they are true they are beyond reproach in my eyes.