Why do we have woman categories?

Being a young nation, we Canadians don't yet have your millenia of experience :).

Some day some one will start a thread on this topic and I will be able to read it without finding that half or more of the posts are expressions of juvenile misogyny.

This topic is hardly knew and could be discussed by folks that read, as well as by those that pontificate their locker room psychology. Start with a 2009 Wall Street Journal article calling for abolishing women's titles, then read responses to the article by Alexandra Kosteniuk and Natalia Pogonina. WSJ offers some of the pop psychology found here, but it is presented with less misogyny. Even so, Kosteniuk and Pogonina lay bear the fallacious stereotypes perpetrated by the American newspaper.

There is no rational reason for these sub-categories.Only misogynystics oppinions support them.

That's the point of categories. I will probably never win an open tournament with 2000+ / titled players participation, but if I'll ever win a C tournament or my rating group in a round robin, I'll be quite happy :) I think the thought of W.. titles is not to make it easier for women to achieve titles at all, but to have them somehow represented in the world of titled players. When I view the situation here in Austria, we have several male GMs and no female GM. There's one WGM (who also holds the male IM title) and several WIMs and WFMs (but much less than male IMs and FMs). So I'd guess the percentage of GMs compared to all chess players and the percentage of WGMs compared to all female players might be similar - I think it's fair to give a "WGM" title to a player who might not be at GM strength but is the strongest female player in her country and the only one to have ever reached a 2400 rating. It would be unfair to lower the boundaries for the standard titles for women (so that e.g. while a man would need 2600 for GM, a woman could be GM with only 2400), but that's not the case, there's a difference between GM and WGM, and everyone knows that, so I don't see what could be wrong about the W.. titles.

"we'd see a decrease in the number of woman players, which is not what we want."

Are you a woman?

from 2009,

from the WSJ, Abolish Women's Chess Titles

from Kosteniuk's blog, Abolish Women's Chess Titles?  Ridiculous!

Let's just run a quick poll. How would you answer these questions without consulting any resources (make an intelligent guess):

a) How many women in the history of chess have crossed the FIDE 2500 mark?

b) How many became GMs?

 What difference does that make? Women should compete on the same scale, and if they don't become GMs, tough. If they do, great.

 because some guys are interested in finding a beautiful young chess playing girl to marry.

i have no idea but i would guess..

a) 20

b) 10

I think the "women only" titles are an insult to women to be honest.

 I agree with fyy0r, anyway.

Women only titles are sexist, by definition.  Given your post, it would be safe to assume you approve of their legitimacy thereby making you, also, sexist.  You know who else was sexist?  Hitler.  From this we see that Hitler and Fezzik share beliefs.  I can only imagine how your friends and relatives react when you say "To the contrary, I think Hitler had some great ideas!"  I'll be in my little corner with the weird and arcane idea that man and woman are equal.

Now shoo!

Men and women are not identical, or equal*. That is indisputable, because if they were, nearly -every- record and performance statistic would be equal between the two groups (think 100 meter dash, to soccer (football to the international crowd), swimming...I use sports examples because they're easy to measure) Is one group overall better than the other? Not at all. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. And that's fine. 

Perhaps these differences are intrinsic, and perhaps they're generated from societal conditions; it really doesn't matter, though it would be interesting to find out. The point is, recognizing that there may be differences between the sexes is not sexist (ok, depending on your definition it may be, but using the typical derogatory sense of the word, it isn't); it's realistic. We just don't know whether chess is one of those areas with pronounced differences, or if the percieved difference in strength is artifactual. 

Honestly, when I think about women's titles, my first thought is that they really shouldn't exist; everyone should be measured on the same scale. But when I really think about them, I can't think of a good reason to get rid of them, and I can think of good reasons to keep them, so I'm somewhat conflicted on the issue. My best answer is to ask the women who play and see if they want them, because they really don't affect me personally, so who am I to say if they should exist? 

In response to Natalia's poll, I'll guess that 30 have crossed 2500, and 20 became GMs. Women are artifically handicapped in this particular question because it was only recently that it was socially acceptable to pursue something like this, whereas in the 50s, such activities weren't really an option, at least in the US. I can't claim to know how women's rights/women's lib has progressed in other countries.

* "Equal" is often used without explicit definition. I use the definition that equal means 'the same as'. I am claiming nothing about the intrinsic worth of people or anything of the sort. I realize that "equal" can also mean "evenly proportioned or balanced" but I think that clouds the issue.

lol, godwin's law has been achieved!

I suspect the point of Pogonina's poll is that we're in a transition period between no women in chess and full participation, but I'm definitely interested in hearing her opinion.

I agree Lucidish_Lux.  But when we speak of Chess, an intellectual game, I believe it makes the titles themselves somewhat insulting.  Wouldn't it be acceptable to say man and woman are equal intellectually?  I can think of a good reason to get rid of them:  They aren't needed.

Anyway, it's not a big deal to me, just contributing to the thread.

African GMs, Queer GMs, 'special' GMs...

trollolololol

You have to fight logical fallacies with logical fallacies.  Atleast they're entertaining!

I'm trying to think of a category in which I could be a GM, but unfortunately I can't. 

Here's one for you:

Who would win: a male with an elo rating of 1800 or a female with an elo rating of 2000?

I think it would be pretty close...