FM vs WGM

Well, I personally don't care at all: titles are formality, they don't affect anything material. It is not like women get an extra pawn or extra time on the clock, it's just some extra titles they can learn.

It is just that the title system doesn't make much logical sense. Again, it is not hurting anyone, so who cares, but as someone with mathematical brain, the system strikes me as poorly thought out.

It is part of the system that also sets apart prize money for women only.

If you don't think this a bad idea, just wait and see until the first strong male player from a poor country exploits transgender laws and wins all that money virtually unopposed.

Then, all of a sudden, it will be a problem and everyone will be yelling about it.

It's just wooden pieces, they are not so heavy that male muscles give men an advantage, so man up women and play with everyone else for the same titles, money and fun.

Similar things have already happened. There was a transgender girl who won a wrestling competition in the girls section in her school in the US. I see no reason why she and others like her shouldn't simply go on to completely dominate the sport. Can you imagine such a thing happening in boxing or MMA? I have no doubt that Ronda Rousey could take on a lot of men in the octagon. But if we get transgender women in there looking like Brock Lesnar, Connor McGregor or Ken Shamrock it's a wrap for the women's division.

Well there is an unrated WCM in India!!!!

Apologies - I think I may have deleted the last page of comments while trying to correct the formatting of @SeniorPatzer's last post, which was:

New concerns that lower fitness standards fuel disrespect for women

"The Marine Corps' longstanding tradition of having two-tiered fitness requirements for men and women aims to ensure fairness, but a growing chorus of critics say it creates a double standard and implies that female Marines are not as physically capable as men.

It's another political battle inside the Corps over gender and standards that stems in part from last year's controversial decision to allow women to serve in combat units traditionally restricted to men.

The Marines recently began imposing gender neutral physical requirements for specific jobs, a move designed to moot concerns that physical standards will suffer as women integrate into combat units. Men and women in combat arms career fields must meet the exact same benchmarks.

Yet the annual fitness requirements — the Physical and Combat Fitness Tests that can be a key factor in promotions across the force — continue to enforce different sets of standards for men and women. Once viewed to help women succeed in the Corps, that double standard is now considered by many a problem."

Read the rest at:  http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/off-duty/military-fitness/2017/05/21/new-concerns-that-lower-fitness-standards-fuel-disrespect-for-women/

Analogous?

I'll take all that as a compliment. 

I think the whole point of WNM, WIM, WGM titles are all to encourage more women to play. Its the same reason why over 2% of all USCF players get a NM title. The more attainable they are, the more incentive people have to play. Let's be honest, not many women play chess, but having the woman who do play chess a better chance of attaining a title encourages more to continue playing. . .Its kind of like affirmative action in college entrances to encourage more people of other demographics to join a college

- - -

Do I agree with it? Yes, its a more pleasant sight during a chess game

"Affirmative Action". I have no problem with that.

There are innate physical differences between men and women. Some women are extremely good and can kick the trash of most men (think Cheryl Miller), but they aren't going to be competitive at the highest levels, like the NBA. So it's good for them to have their own leagues. I wish viewership was up so they could justify higher salaries, but so be it.

There are no cognitive differences between men and women. Yes, we rationalize differently and use different skill sets in making decisions, which is why it's good to have a mix on any company board or project team, but we have the same intellectual potential. Some people have more than others, but it not correlated to gender. So in some sense it is demeaning to have these titles.

However, we have to realize that women with a WCM title actually applied for it, which means they want it. Keep it as an option by all means. Though there is just as much potential in women as in men, there seems to be less interest in completely dedicating your life to it, hence fewer women in the top categories. But do you remember Judit Polgar? She played in Candidates. And she chose to never compete in women's-only events. She felt it was condescending, but she encouraged others to compete in them.

Altogether, we shouldn't take away their choice. And a WCM or WFM will kick most of your trash anyway. Respect their success.

Titles give monetary benefit, as in with a title you can ask more money from those you coach.

No strong opinion on this one. I totally get why someone would apply for a WCM or WFM title. But I'm not sure why a WGM title should be more encouraging than "just" getting an FM (or IM) title, as everyone knows that the requirements are similar.

The motiviation might be not only confirming her chess skills, but also her identity as a woman.

What chess skills to confirmed do you think? He (Yosha Iglesias) already achieved the title FM which is 2300 rating at minimum. What kind of motivation do you think that a person would want to get a lower title versus current title which is higher? FIDE should not approved this. It does not make sense.

As I said, confirming her chess skills was probably not the main incentive. Also she has been below 2300 for the past 7 years and even fell below 2200 last year. So it's not that she is the strongest FM in the world and that getting that WIM title is a walk in the park for her...

But titles are permanent.

Alright. I'm a woman and I personally am taking the FM title over the WGM title. I have to agree that a 2300 cannot be called a GM. But I don't think woman titles should be abolished because roughly 15% of chess players are woman. If woman titles are abolished, are you saying that every single woman with a woman title (including my friend who's been working hard for her title) will lose their title? That's certainly unfair. A lot of people think that they are the same thing, or WGM is harder because they need norms to achieve it. But, if you read "The FM title must be achieved by reaching 2300 FIDE by playing in international events" then you'd know the difference. WGM needs norms, FM needs you to play in international events. You don't really have to travel for WGM but for FM you do. And there's your difference. I'd rather have the FM title.