What are the requirements to make WNM

Society has historically discriminated against women, as evidenced by the specific examples of women not being allowed to vote; Chess has been a part of society and not independent of it, so the natural and incredibly logical argument is that chess has also historically discriminated against women, as evidenced by the specific examples of their low participation rate and low representation amongst internationally rated players.

The fact that you are unable to understand that seems to be unrelated to your education but everything to do with your attitude.

Given that you were unable to grasp or even deal with any of the substance of this discussion but simply resorting to ad-hominem attacks on my education and intelligence, I think that's a good idea. I hope you can go & show the women in your life more love & kindness than you do to strangers on the internet.

womens titles were brought in to encourage more women to play chess, since chess was traditionally seen as an activity for men

You're trying to apply a rigid logic to an inherently fuzzy situation. A better application of your example is that aggressive sharks have killed humans; if nurse sharks are aggressive sharks, then it seems quite possible - indeed, some would say "logical" - that nurse sharks have also killed humans. Let's look around for what evidence may exist that affirms or refutes that premise, but which side of it seems more likely until we can gather such evidence?

Do you disagree that society has historically discriminated against women? Or are you trying to say that chess has not been enough a part of society to discriminate against women in similar ways?

can u guys like... not -_-

It exists? wtf

This is not a science experiment: it is not a physics challenge where we are trying to figure out what velocity is required to enter orbit for an object of particular mass. This is a humanities question, and your hangup with this "IT HAS TO BE LOGICAL" is interfering with your ability to engage with the actual question.

Chess exists as part of society. The people who play chess are from their society. It affects the way they think about the game, how they administer the game, how they think about how it should be played, where it should be played, who is playing it. Why is not logical to you that chess - as an organised endeavour rather than the game itself - would therefore also experience some of the same challenges? It's still evident today - Iranian women can't compete in chess without wearing a headscarf, Afghani women can no longer go to university, let alone play in a chess tournament. As most societies have become more inclusive of women, chess has too - great! But women were still only 15% of internationally rated players as recently as 2020, so to try and argue that there's no problem here, nothing to see, no action required is not to me a "logical" stance to take, but one made by someone who doesn't understand that historical context.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Again with the personal insult. You understand that really hurts your credibilty when you're trying to cast yourself as the "cool, logical one"? And makes it seem like you're having to cling on to this logic thing because you have no answer to the bigger questions that really matter here?

I also see that you're still here in this thread, rather than leaving it as you said you would. That's not a good look for you either. Untick the "Follow notification", you'll feel better for not being challenged outside of your box.

-_-

its `12 in the morning rn... cant deal with this

Same advice: untick the "Follow" checkbox and you'll stop getting notifications

Or get a mod to come into the thread and close it or the discussion down.

mhm

Why?

Have you ever met a 12-year-old?

I know that you just wanted to trashtalk, but come on, that was pathetic.

And remember, the whole fight started over a women title that doesn't exist. Pretty pointless.

Earn by teaching, and learners can also earn based on playing in the tournament while learning the topic.

Website:

That’s amusing, since you clearly have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.

I also suspect that you meant to use the noun “argumentation” rather than the adjective “argumentative”. See how easy it is to kick up a fuss about the little things while completely ignoring the larger point being made? Which is all you’ve done this entire thread.

Okay, so seriously, where are the moderators? This topic has long ago degenerated into abusive trolling, and it didn't have any sense to begin with (talking about a nonexistent female title).

It exists in some countries.

https://www.chess.com/members/titled-players/woman-national-masters