can we ban all anti-female topics

I can see how something can be false, but what is "incredibly false"? Do you mean it's more false than false? Extra false? I think I can help you as a teacher, elubas, but not if you're going to make claims of super falseness

<Trysts> is discovered here as a woman of many talents. 

I think elubas will get the "teacher" reference

Ideally we should both teach each other what we can.

gross

I agree that it's false. To say you "mostly" post in threads about women doesn't go nearly far enough. I've been fairly active the last year here, and although my memory isn't perfect, I'd say it's close to 100 to 1 female topics to all other topics for you elubas! And the 1 involves ratings (like how likely for 1300 to beat 2700).

I've seen trysts in many different topics.

Well, trysts has rarely missed a thread about female players herself.

Which ones have I missed? You should know, elubas

I don't mean it as an insult. I just is what it is.

I'm often in those topics too.

Hmm. But isn't the fact that I'm clearly not sexist a good sign of how this stat doesn't mean much? So the stat that I post in a lot of female threads is supposed to predict that I'll act sexist, yet I don't. 

"clearly not"

idk that sounds a little too black and white to me

Elubasing: To be unclear; obscure; abstruse; ambiguousness; recondite

             Oxford Companion to the American Language 

I don't know what that stat suggests to you or others. To me it doesn't mean much. Well ok, if you really want to know my bullsh*t armchair psychology, I assume it means you haven't come to terms with something about yourself. Even something as simple and universal as you're attracted to women. Some kind of guilt there that you're trying to resolve. I have no idea what specifically.

Yes, that's enormously presumptuous, and I'm willing to believe I'm wrong if you say so, but yeah, not keeping any secrets lol :)

Wow!

The much simpler explanation is that this is a controversial topic, and I like to plow through the controversy. As I do with all sorts of threads on chess.com, whether it's with fiveofswords or trysts or you.

If that's really what you think, then yeah, that seems extremely presumptuous. You're pretty much disallowing the idea of exploring an interesting intellectual issue just because it involves men/women. Feminism, for example, is arguably just as intellectual of a debate as chess, even if they are about different subject matter.

But as I just pointed out... stats are supposed to predict, if anything, what is not already known. Otherwise they lose their point. It's like if I insisted a woman who was 6'2 was shorter than me (I'm shorter than 6'2) because of the stats. That's just bigotry at that point, when the truth is right in front of your face. In this case, my conduct is plain to see. There's no need to use stats like that to judge me.

Nope, I'm not talking about him. I'm making a reference to the times where I was in fact accused.

Babytigrrr, when she called me a misogynist (the "worst kind" of misogynist, I believe she said), used the fact that I post on a lot of women threads as a decent reason for that belief.

That's not paranoia at all. I'm literally just remembering what she said. Give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes, sheesh.

If people didn't accuse so much, I wouldn't complain. It really is that simple.

I got tired of looking the other way and not saying anything about some of them and how they demean females, I guess taking the easy way out. I play corresponace chess and have had chats with females players,and one of the reason they don't post or respond to post is because what they have  already seen written about females.

I only notice where you post because it would be nice to see you in more topics.

Are you "clearly" not sexist? Really? I'm not convinced you've "clearly" proved that.