Games like Chess should not have male and female division

I'll keep my own counsel on that, thank you.

This isn't a creative writing forum where all threads have to be original, not sure from where people get this idea from. Anyways, do you mind telling me why this argument is stupid? Or are you just another troll?  

Well, I wasn't exactly offended by the new emojis, it was more of a joke   I just don't prefer them. I WAS very offended by the gross gay article though

As for the first thread, it is absurd that that thread would be locked while the evolution one remains open.

All you guys just blindly follow the liberal media. If it tells you all men are disgusting, BAM! All men are disgusting, in every field and area of life.

So you meant you've never seen a man act inappropriately towards a woman correct?

Haha oops, yeah. I said at a chess event though

Hey...wasn't Bjornsen just cheating a little girl not too long ago. I don't think there's much division, but perhaps in the mainstream certain things have to be worked with in order to satisfy 'culture', and media isn't without culture, culture isn't without people, and business isn't without both people and their cultures. Now, if we're talking about changing the culture itself then I personally believe that that is in motion already, it just takes time for people to adapt, and for their entertainment preferences to adapt. It is quite the delicate process that should be approached with a high level of consideration or else we end up with a situation where women are still facing divisions or there simply aren't enough women participating in the sport, and thus the need for 'methods' of enticing women to join the sport.

Chess playing should be a gentleman's pleasure, free from the tittle tattle of chattering females. It is unfair on the poor male to have to partake of a game with a lady, chess is a war game and to defeat a lady is just not chivalrous.

@RedgirlZ. Hou Yifan lose to Carlsen  doesnt mean women will be bad at chess forever. You need to change your perception. Look at what is happening around yourself/the world.

This is the rating of 10-13 years old girls chess kids, and they are better than most of us and who knows they will be world champion in next 5-10 years.

Just one personal tip from my experience, if you would like to improve , all you need to do is get rid of your EGO, and " Learn from 10 years-old-girl".

Btw, there is also free master class from the most inspiring girl in chess.com.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-99-3-echelon-of-chess

(I call her Master and signed up her free master class , and if you would like to improve, just sign up, it is free)

???????

There isn't segregation. Women get extra tournaments and titles, not different tournaments and titles.

That's even worse. If men got extra titles and tournaments too, it would've been fair. Why are women entitled to these special privileges? Unless there is also a title for MGM, is this not the very definition of a bias?

There's a reason women have their own Ranks, cuz there's literally no women in the top 100 players list that's a woman. Occasionally Yifan will pop her head in the 80-100 range, but besides her and Judit Polgar, no other womens been in the top 100. 

That's interesting coming from a woman. You're indirectly suggesting that women are inherently weaker than men at chess justifying their need for the extra tournaments, and titles. 

You want to make it even harder for top women players to play chess by forcing them to verse top male players who will destroy them nonstop just for the sake of "Equality"? we've seen when Hou Yifan vs Magnus Carlsen. You want other weaker women to verse people close to the strength of Magnus Carlsen, when Hou Yifan can't do it? Lol be my guest. This is like telling woman football players to play against Ronaldo or Messi, It's just funny xD

Why are you assuming that the top female players would always be paired against the top male players? In chess, people are paired against opponents close to their strength, not based on gender, there's no reason why a 2500 GM would be paired against a 2800, unless it's the initial rounds of an open tournament with a lot of players or some sort of exhibition match. What is the point you're trying to make exactly? That a 2500 female GM would lose if she played against a 2800? Isn't that the case for any 2500 GM? 

be my guest, no one cares. You're making a point no one cares about. 

Well, given how much debate this topic creates every time someone brings it up. Clearly a lot of people care about it.

It seems to me like women have well deserved the freedoms they enjoy today.

That's not how chess works though. No one "gets clobbered" because you get paired against players of similar rating.

I've played girls and women (and yes, a trans person too). I win some I lose some. We're usually within 100-200 rating points so it's fine.

Although one little girl I played was 800 and that game was one sided.
Another little girl I played was over 2200 and that game was also one sided lol.

@RedGirlZ seems to be suggesting that a 2500 rated female GM is weaker than a 2500 male GM because the female player plays predominantly in a female pool which is in general weaker than the open pool. 

A similar example would be, a 2800 rated engine generally being much stronger than a 2800 human because the engine plays predominantly against other engines. That is why you can't compare FIDE and TCEC ratings.

For anyone who thinks that's true, look up how GM titles work, and e.g. which events players earn norms in.

No one (well, nearly no one) cheats their way to a title. (There was at least once case of a rich guy paying for his title instead of playing heh)

disagreed 

@redgirlz , OP would like to point out the unfair advantage for women and he would like to get somewhat fair competition. For example, In a local club, if there are 30 men and 3 women going for competition, the top 3 men will get prize for men  competition meanwhile all 3 women participants may also gain prizes in women category.

Do you think it is a fair compeition.

I saw  about news in Africa, where a 1000 rated amateur become a National Candidate Master, cos there were very few women participants., meanwhile other hundred men had to compete  similar title against men. 

I think it is the main point of OP. 

Oh, look at what is near the top of all of reddit today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/8t0wpb/are_you_gonna_play_the_victim_all_life_long_my/

A female board gamer gives her perspective on what it's like being a female in the board gaming world.  Look no further than this when wondering why women don't play chess or even other board games very much.

Here's a quote from the end of her post:

"

I'm tired of being polite and non-accusatory. There is a problem with how women are treated in this hobby. It's not the Magic players. It's not a few random men. It's pervasive and it's frustrating and, since it doesn't impact the majority, it's not taken seriously. At the same time, men wonder why so few women are in the hobby. Often, I see a lack of interest in difficult games blamed. That's wrong. The reason women don't join the hobby is not the games, it's the men.

If you think that the problem isn't a big deal because lots of people are nice, you're wrong.

If you think that the problem is only at cons, you're wrong.

If you think the problem is only obvious creeps, you're wrong.

If you think that the problem is only blatant sexual assault, you're wrong.

If you think that there is no problem, you're very wrong."

You people that are ridiculing me for pointing it out and saying I must be a terrible teacher and shouldn't be around children for pointing this out are part of the problem.  And yes, I fight it with these kids constantly.  It's hard to do without patronizing the girls, but I do the best I can.  It doesn't stop it, but it's better than it used to be.

And as you can see, it is absolutely not just the kids.