Has anyone challenged CCA's "Mixed doubles" yet?

It has nothing to do with there being "more males than females." It would be equally wrong if there were 50% of each. Again, I should be able to team with who I please. Gender means absolutely nothing. At all. Forcing people to factor it into their choice of who to team with is disgusting.

I stand by my claim that gender, outside of a doctor's office or fertility discussions, means absolutely less-than-nothing. But fine, I'll give a more concrete statement you can't try to shoot down : Gender means absolutely nothing when it comes to chess, and as such has no basis for being a descrimination factor in the chess world.

"Even if there were equal males and females (which there aren't), I should be able to team with who I please, without evaluating people based on their gender."

If there were equal males and females I have no problem with the mixed doubles. The opportunities given are equal and if you don't like only being able to team up with a female, you don't have to participate.

Hmm, so the main point is that at a chess tournament, you're giving better odds of winning money based on something unrelated to skill in chess.

At least I see how that's unfair now.  If the prizes compared to first overall (individual prize) and compared to the entry free is substantial, then I'd be willing to call it unethical too.  In the case you mentioned ($900) I'd probably agree with you.

Ok, so by that logic, if there were an equal number of minorities and whites as a tounrament, you'd have no problem with "minority + white" mixed doubles teams? It's still descrimination and drawing attention to factors that people have no control over, at a chess tounrament.

Post #21: There's nothing wrong with disliking a rule, but no one is forcing you to do it. It's like saying I don't like stalemate not being a win, therefore any chess tournament that recognizing stalemate as not a win is disgusting. You don't have to like stalemate being a draw, but people have every right to organize a tournament where that's the rule, and the people who are willing to go with that rule are the ones that subscribe to it, and the people that don't, don't. Everyone gets what they want and there is no discrimination of gender, race, etc.

That's one problem, but the other is a matter of principle. The fact that I'm being -forced- by the tounrament to choose a partner based on their gender (or, yes, not participate in mixed doubles and lose prize money for no reason - also unfair), is a disgusting 1950s concept. Gender is irrelevant to chess, so my choice of partner should not have to consider gender.

"Ok, so by that logic, if there were an equal number of minorities and whites as a tounrament, you'd have no problem with "minority + white" mixed doubles teams?"

No, I wouldn't. I'm fine with that logical consequence ;)

I'd have no problem with that.  Is race something to be ashamed of?  It makes the tournament fun.  Gay-straight, tall-short, fat-skinny teams, why not.

If it was something like "best pretty-ugly team prize" then maybe that's a bit too much lol.

Ok, so again, you'd have no problem with a minority "mixed doubles" tounrament?

Or, by that logic, you'd have no problem with a tounrament banning black people, right? It's their choice! Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to play, right?

...No. We need to speak up and fight against injustice, and it being "their tounrament" is no excuse.

What do you mean, no descrimination of gender is occuring? I'm being forced to descriminate! When I consider my selection for partner, I am forced to EXCLUDE males, for no other reason than their biological gender. What part of that are you not understanding as being "descrimination?" It fits the definition perfectly.

Whether you would want to participate in the mixed doubles at that point would be a matter of taste, not of unequal opportunity. You are free to do the same thing everyone else is free to. And you are free not to. If you think it's weird or pointless to participate in mixed doubles that's fine. That's you.

You get worked up over some hypothetical tournament that bans a particular race of people... why not mention female only tournaments, titles, and prizes?

In any case, a tournament where any individual is welcome and where each participant has equal opportunity to form a team is completely different from a tournament where certain people aren't allowed to play.

Doesn't that sound a bit like the homophobe argument that "You're free to get a marriage just the same as everyone else, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else has! See, it's fair and completely non-descriminatory."

Except, you know, it's not. I should not be forced to gender-descriminate when I pick a partner for a chess tournament. There's no legitimate basis for it.

Post #31: Yes, zezpwn, but you're not looking for my point. The discrimination doesn't come in who is given the opportunity to participate, because everyone has the same ability to when the numbers are equal. That was the discrimination I was referring to and I don't think it's that hard to tell since it goes in line with my whole point.

The discrimination you're referring to I do agree is discrimination, but I don't find that to be a problem. Now that one is strange -- it almost seems like by that logic it's wrong to be sexually straight, since you are making sure the people you're with are of the opposite sex. But surely you would agree being straight is not being sexist, but just a matter of personal preference?

Oh, I do, and I'm completely and utterly sickenened by those as well. 

No, it's not equal oppertunity to "form a team," because I'm being forced to gender-descriminate when selecting a partner. That's like telling gay people they have the same oppertunity to marry as straight people - they just have to pick a partner they won't be happy with.

I shouldn't have to consider someone's gender at a chess tounrament. There's no reason for it. 

I actually do have a slight problem with being sexually straight or sexually gay, since I even think that form of sex descrimination is distateful - but I fully understand that people can't control who they're attracted to, so I don't judge :).

People do, however, have control over whether or not they'll tolerate chess players being forced to sex-descriminate in tounraments.

That comparison only works if everyone were bisexual and attracted to an equal number of males and females who are both single and willing partners.

"Doesn't that sound a bit like the homophobe argument that "You're free to get a marriage just the same as everyone else, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else has! See, it's fair and completely non-descriminatory.""

Haha, perhaps a little, but you're equivocating a bit.

They are giving each individual an option. You can take the option or leave it. Partnering with the opposite sex is an option given. You can do whatever you want with it. They didn't have to give you any option at all. They could have said no one can partner with anybody. Why would you complain over being given more choice? Sure they could have given you more choices than that, but two choices (play alone or with an opposite sex partner) is more than one.

No, it'd be much better with no teams at all - just like the government recognizing no marriage at all would be much more fair and reasonable than only recognizing certain kinds. Put the prize money back into what counts - individual performance.

If you're going to have teams, fine, but a) don't force people to fund the prizes for sections they're not entering, and b) Make them teams of any two people, period. Without regard to any random, arbitrary, irrelevant factors like gender or race.