Why do we have woman categories?

A woman deserves a title when she earns it; and she should have to do just as much to earn it as a man does.

I don't see evidence that you do.

That, exactly, is the situation that exists. The GM, IM, and FM titles are awarded for specific performance without regard to sex.

No, not exactly: she has the option of getting lower titles too; men do not.

However, due to evidence of social pressures discouraging women from developing their skills,

Have you even read my posts? I'm saying this may or may not be legit and applicable to all women; however, it's just another thing to overcome, is it not?

When isn't there something to overcome in life before you achieve something?

What if a man was under social pressure? What if he was called a nerd? For some reason this is not considered...

Elubas, the fundamental difference in our approach seems to be this: we both agree that the issue of gender performance is not conclusively resolved, but your stance is that to avoid sexism, it should be assumed that chess potential is unrelated to gender,

I'm glad you stated what you thought my position was, because that's not quite correct. What if women only don't play better chess because they don't feel like it? This kind of reason, in my opinion, should not give them compensation; do you think it should?

The point here is: the reason matters! It's clear men are doing better, but we don't know why.

And since it could be because of laziness or something (I don't actually think this, but just imagine if it was how ridiculous these titles would be!), women don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, which is what they are being given, because it disrespects the males who work their ass off to get to say 2100 but can't get a title, unlike women, who would be much more praised, at least publically, for their efforts. But can you really say that 2100 woman worked harder than the 2100 man, or had more talent? Depends! You certainly shouldn't JUDGE that the woman worked harder; had more to overcome, or vice versa!

But what if sexism weren't the absolute taboo that you make it out to be?

Well, some people have different values I guess -- personally I value stuff like fairness a lot and don't think it's worth it at all to deny us of these basic things for some unnecessary, unclear, radical measure.

And personally, I detest sexism. Also, hypocrisy, which is kind of what is happening in this society, as so much sexism against females is claimed, yet the sexism in the opposite direction is, as if subconsciously, quite conveniently overlooked or let go.

Read Dinesh d'Souza, William Bennett, and Shelby Steele. You'll find views very similar to your own, although these authors appear to grapple a bit more with details of social formation. They do share your tendency towards the evocation of fantasy worlds at critical junctures in the arguments, and rely extensiuvely on cherry-picked anecdotals to address counter-arguments.

I see - so, you're saying that on average, the registered female chess player is less inclined to play seriously than the registered male player. What this amounts to is that out of the ~10,000 female players registered with FIDE, a greater proportion are casual players than out of the ~100,000 male players; in other words, women would have a lower threshold to register for a FIDE rating. I'm sorry, but with these numbers, I don't buy it.

Well, maybe I don't buy the theory that it's mostly their brains. To me, although they are different in some ways, it's hard to believe that it's to such a significant degree that this is what puts them at an inherent disadvantage.

And, "women don't deserve the benefit of the doubt"? That's rather harsh, don't you think? Maybe a little sexist, too?

Ok, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume "We have no idea what the reason is; it could be social or biological reasons, which we have yet to figure out."

In my opinion, that's the most fair. See, by giving them the benefit of the doubt we risk disrespect; by not doing so, we risk that they are indeed at an inherent disadvantage and so their results suffer without the compensation.

Personally, I think the former is more risky! At least if we don't we maintain the respect for achievers. But like I said, I value this a lot, and I think there are few circumstances where it should be taken away.

Here's a little parable that came to mind. Just yesterday (true story!), I was sitting on our lab's terrace with a North African colleague, enjoying our coffee break in the warmth of the first true day of spring. We chatted there for about half an hour, and then she said that she was beginning to feel sunburned, and that it was time to go back to work. I said, jokingly, "If you're feeling sunburned, then I'd better go in, too!" And we both laughed.

It didn't occur to me until later that I had made what some might consider a racist comment: I had suggested that differences in our racial characteristics would allow one of us to perform better than the other. Granted, I was the one being "oppressed", since the implication was that I, being a pale-skinned native Finn, was inherently inferior at resisting sunlight. But I accept that. We are all different, and it serves us well to be pragmatic about it.

I agree with this general principle; but again, in our situation, the reasons right now are very unclear.

This is what I was referring to when I said that sexism shouldn't be an insurmountable taboo. If everything that anyone could ever conceive of as sexism were to be taken seriously, the world would be a chaotic place: in chess, segregating women to their own categories is sexist, because it implies that they are inferior; getting rid of women's categories is sexist, because women would be denied a realistic chance to succeed; and doing neither is, according to you, sexist as well, because it gives women better odds of success than it gives men. So what's the solution? The only thing left is to altogether deny women the right to play chess, but we can't do that, because that would be sexist.

The only problem I have with this is that you throw around "solution" so much as if this is a problem!! Less women playing chess is not a problem! If they don't want to take it that seriously, then they don't have to, and in fact shouldn't. But above all, they shouldn't complain about having EQUAL opportunity! If their brains are not inferior, then they have all the rights in the world to improve at this game!

You really think people just discourage others so quickly? Chess is not a game people encourage to play seriously, but that's because it's an esoteric obsession and so it's not expected that many people will take it up. But if they do and they are good, why not?

Like assuming "most people are generally good and safe to be around," or "most people aren't that racist," it seems pretty safe to presume that most people would not go as far as condemn chess and anyone who actually likes it. Therefore, a woman, if she has a passion for chess, has the ability to go as far as she wants to; like success in general, "it's all up to you!"

Ok, I did absolutely no reasearch on this kind of thing, but certainly, it's stereotypical and perhaps unwise to assume on the other hand that women are always discouraged and that they are the only people who suffer through it, even if there are a FEW reported cases.

I'm all for being pragmatic. Forget sexism - let's do what the clear majority of people want to do. We don't see (many) men complaining about separate women's categories, and the women who play in them don't seem to mind, either. And if some women want to try their luck in the big boys' category, then why should we stop them? I don't know about you, but I live in a democracy, where it is customary to afford people what they want.

You know, what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess it just bugs me because society seems to disagree with me, and to me the disrespect is downright obvious and difficult to tolerate! I just hope people realize the statements being made when they see these radical segregations, because it's possible that it never occurs to some.

Keep in mind that a democracy's philosophy is about equality though, too. True, we do stray from it a little -- obviously the government still makes most of the major decisions while the general people the more minor ones, but it's something that should be strived for within reason. I do think to be against these titles is within reason

Again, this is just too general. I certainly make some scenarios, but I think they are reasonable enough -- again the specific flaws in them hasn't been pointed out. They of course are only there to illustrate a point.

As far as you not having time to post an in-depth response -- I'm not going to challenge that. However, I think it is unethical to only post the general problems of the post and then say "maybe I'll support it later." In my opinion, you should wait until you have the time to both generalize my problems AND give more precise examples that, specifically, demonstrate the fundamental problems in my posts, all in one post. The fact that you have not done this means there is no way for me to be convinced.

It's like if I was arguing that chess was a stupid game with something like "Chess demonstrates a lot of suckage [in your case you vaguely mention "misunderstandings"], therefore it sucks. If I have time I'll say why later."

Ok, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume "We have no idea what the reason is; it could be social or biological reasons, which we have yet to figure out."

In my opinion, that's the most fair. See, by giving them the benefit of the doubt we risk disrespect; by not doing so, we risk that they are indeed at an inherent disadvantage and so their results suffer without the compensation.

Personally, I think the former is more risky! At least if we don't we maintain the respect for achievers. But like I said, I value this a lot, and I think there are few circumstances where it should be taken away.

Women are just too inferior to us men in just about everything, phyisical and none phyisical games. Women can be good at cooking though.

 Your "amazement" does offer additional evidence of my rather flippant remark that your "understanding" remains to be demonstrated. Your views, that you think are original, are quite pedestrian--they are common.

lol, seriously? You're going to judge me based on my amazement? Indeed it's great to know there are people who have wrote from my point of view. However, I have not heard of them -- perhaps because I'm young! I didn't say my views were original, but they had just seemed uncommon, having not seen it addressed before. But that was just my point of view -- I didn't claim anything regarding that. The fact that we are even discussing this as some apparent means of determining my understanding baffles me. It's much better to actually respond concretely to stuff I said.

Because I've grown weary fighting

Wait, hold up: "weary fighting?" You have to be kidding. All you had done was talk about the flaws of my posts very generally, and you continue to do so. It gets nowhere. Like I said, it's only ethical to make a general criticism AND the support in the same post, or else don't post a comment like that at all. I have been fighting if anyone and I continue to do so.

them I won't expend the time needed to show you the errors. You have a legitimate point of view that I am unlikely to change. I said my piece in the first couple of pages of this thread before you began to put forth your long screeds. I disagree with your perspective, AND I find very little of substance grounded in accurate social analysis in your remarks. If there were more, my attention might be piqued.

 You don't actually take my stories seriously, do you? I am not saying these things actually happen a lot; indeed I am cherry picking situations because they demonstrate how the titles can judge and disrespect.

Seriously, just give responding to some critical specific parts a shot.

Because, ironically, it seems that YOU do not have much substance in your responses here.

I think we might be getting somewhere. Do you assert that an inherent biological disadvantage would be the only acceptable reason for separate categories?

At this point in time, yes.

Your example of women not "feeling like" playing as well as men implies a voluntary, assumed disadvantage. I would agree with you if it could be proven that the gender performance gap is a result of voluntary female passivity. The most common explanation for the gap is social pressures: regardless of whether they have any impact, would women choose to be subjected to these pressures, or would they be forced upon them? And if the "correct" explanation is something else entirely - something we cannot now imagine - would it make any difference whether women have any choice in the matter? What if it's something that you can't just "snap out of"?

Well again, if we don't know then I would want to keep everything going with the philosophy of: "The better you perform, the more recognition and titles you get."

Others feel the opposite and give the benefit of the doubt to women and give them choice; but isn't this a little less democratic? You could say "They have choice"; or you could say "They have the power! They have the privilege!"

But perhaps my opinion is uneducated, because I don't know a lot about the differences between the male and female brain and the severity of which. But as a person who thinks the reasons are very unclear, I would prefer to reward the people purely based on how well they play.

I combat the views of d'Souza and Co. in real life as part of my work. My world is not limited to online chess sites.

Then don't post something like this until you have time. You should have just not posted if you weren't going to back it up.

I'm not judging you, nor would I. Your views are found wanting and not worth my time. If you cannot separate a person's views from his or her being, then there is one more reason to avoid further discussion.

I've offered you criteria if you want to continue a reasonable discussion: state your views clearly, succinctly, and with clear grounding in accurate observation of social realities.

It's not all about you. Even if my posts are terribly constructed that shouldn't mean they are impossible to specifically reply to -- just say what is (perhaps, fundamentally) wrong with some parts, pretty simple.

My quick skim of your verbose posts suggests that clear, grounded, and succinct is not how you approach these issues. That's too bad, as you are raising interesting points, wrong-headed and naive though they are.