I have no idea about the actual numbers, but lets say, for the sake of argument, that rarity of a potential 2700 player is 1 in 1 million among the general population.
So then, if you take in a billion males to the chess population, and 100,000 females, you can't point to there being ~1000 males over 2700 vs zero females over 2700 as proof of anything. That would be silly.
I mean, I assume everyone understands this, but just to be sure we're on the same page.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/visual-analysis-of-malefemale-rating-distributions?page=2
Middle Age FIDE Players
Male vs Female
Therefore no need for silly 200 point gap titles that imply being a female is a 200 point handicap.
If you want special money and tournaments and other incentives to attract women and girls, fine, but don't try to argue "there are no 2700 females, therefore we need special divisions for the weak minded ladies"
since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.
Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.
I dont think anyone is talking about exclusive tournaments (as far as gender goes), but rather exclusive divisions within tournaments. Not just gender, but age, rating, etc. You are right, there are plenty of men who are not top players. But there are plenty of women who are not top players either.
Saying the best women are not as good as the best men has lots of meaning, because it's true. The sample size is the whole world, including all men chess players and all women chess players. I think everyone agrees most of the top spots are held by men. If you want the same number to participate so you can compare that way, probably wont happen. I doubt I will ever play in a tournament ever again, for me it defeats the whole purpose of chess.
Again, this is really odd. You want a special division within a tournament? What does that mean? Prizes, pairings? Both?
If I enter a tournament as a 2000 male player, I might be competing for something like the U2100 or U2200 prize money (if it exists). Why would a 2000 female player need more than that? Because there are no female 2700-2800 players? That makes no sense. Again, achieving rarity is a function of the sample size. It seems you think women as a whole are rated much lower, (for example a bell curve shifted a few 100 points lower than the male's) but if you look at rating graphs this is not true.