Is there a reason why female chess is separated from mainstream chess?

I am just confused as to why this is the case. I mean men are physically stronger than women yes but why separate them in chess?

no idea 

Yup, i can't find any particular reason for it. Blows my mind that this is still done.

Well, sexism had existed in the game; and it still does I suppose to a lesser extent. "Women are not nearly as smart as the men in chess" was the theory even after the arrival of Judit, sadly.

*Change*!

I am more surprised that feminists haven't revolted against it yet

Well removing female category would help resolve any differences. The guy above is right, feminists should revolt against it and make sure that the women titles go away

For some reason women do worse than men in chess. I hope that changes but that explains why titles for women are easier to get. I heard it was due to different thought processes or something

The category was there to help women compete so I don't know

Women are allowed to participate in tournaments with men except if it is a world champion deciding tournament (like the candidates, the world cup, etc...) I Think it is to elect one man champion and one woman champion and there is no harm in doing this

I have seen a lot of games played between a man and a woman

A lot of strong female players do not compete for women's titles. Judit Polgar is the most famous among them. It is insulting to have the same titles but 'Woman' is added and the rating required is lower. It basically implies that women need lower standards to achieve the same status as men. There is no reason women cannot compete with men in a game as cerebral as chess, and the existence of segregated competition encourages this view.

With all due respect to the ladies, i think there is a higher chance of an alien invasion than the female champion beating the male champion in a match right now( Magnus Carlsen)... Again, no disrespect intended, i am making that statement solely based on the rating difference.

You don't have to be a "feminist" to believe in equality.  It's a stupid segregation.  But there are a lot of stupid opinions in the chess world. 

When we will see the next Judit Polgar this claim will be wrong

I mean judit was never the world champion nor was she even a top rated player(or even among the top 5 rated players) so even if we do get another judit it won't mean anything

Women are allowed to play for the overall World Championship - Judit Polgar played in the FIDE championship tournament in 2005.  But they have to qualify for it the same way as men do, and so far only Polgar has played at that level.

The fact that Polgar did not play women-only events is noteworthy, and may lend some credence to the notion that women players at the GM level overall are hurt more than they are helped by the presence of women-only titles and tournaments.  These events mean that the strongest female players will play fewer games against the strongest male players, and that they will generally see a narrower range of players and thus playing styles over the course of a given year.

The one reason which speaks in favor of women-only events is that it gives more girls a chance to play in a welcoming environment, but even this I have a hard time with.  I, like many, would like to see more women and girls take up chess, but in general it seems to me that girls (at least in this country) put far more pressure on each other than their male counterparts would ever think of burdening them with.  From what I've seen, girls quit chess because of other girls far more often than they quit chess because of men.

I don't think women are inherently worse at chess - all three of the Polgar sisters were phenomenal players, which if anything affirms their father's belief that every healthy child has genius potential.  So to answer the OP's question, there are reasons women-only events occur, I'm just not convinced that they are good reasons.

Judit's peak was top 8 in the world. How can a person in the top 99.9999999999999999 percentile of players in her era not be considered top rated. Anyway, the premise of removing women's titles in chess is not the idea that any woman HAS become a world champion before. The point is that a woman CAN become a world champion. There's no lack of strong female players that can compete at the top level. There's no need for separate women's titles.

There are professional studies that discuss the reason why there's more men in the top level than women. One thing is for sure, it's not because of a perceived gender-related performance gap.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-are-there-so-few-female-chess-grandmasters

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129214019

2735 july 2005 ," just" number 8 in the world , i count that as a top rated player 

I feel like it would mean something. To be coined as a great player in chess on the internet and all over the world is something to be proud of. Unfortunately, Chess is a male dominating game so having that female disposition is full of great possibilities.