Wow, so this thread took a turn.
Look, of course "chili" is just meat and the gravy, (onions etc...). Somewhere along the line tomatoes became acceptable, so whatever. But no filler. And when I see a thread called "chili w/o beans," I find "w/o beans" to be redundant tbh. There's chili, and then there's chili WITH something else added. Or there's cowboy chili, or whatever other names you want to call chili that has had fillers added. Do I like Skyline Chili? No, but good on them for at least clarifying that it's not "chili" chili. We all love Frito pie, but that's no longer chili either, it's Frito pie. I think we can all agree with that, right? Okay, good...
BUT.....
...to say the chili queens didn't add other stuff to their chili on occasion is just inaccurate. You can argue about beans all you want, but how about peas? Yes, there is mention of peas being put into chili by chili queens to stretch it out toward the end of the day/night. Chili and beans, in some instances, were at least eaten on the same plates served by chili queens as early as the 1880s or so, I've seen that. Mixed beforehand? That I have not seen, but I don't see why that would be strange in an effort to stretch it out, seeing it had even been done with peas. BUT once this happened, it was no longer just chili. It was chili and/with peas. Chili and/with beans. Chili and/with whatever (or whatever names they may have had for it).
Chili can be a starting point if you wish. You can throw chips and beans and cheese and noodles and potatoes and corn and rice and whatever else you want to into it after that, but it needs to be noted that it is no longer simply "chili." Names, words, they matter. Tradition matters.. The name "chili" should not be bastardized into meaning anything other than what it is, or we'll lose it.