Why do we have woman categories?

The reason why men and women compete in different categories in e.g. tennis is because of physical differences that affect performance. Why does it seem to be forbidden to consider that these physical differences may extend to performance in chess as well? Just like with the rest of the body, male and female brains are also different - male brains are about 10% larger on the average (source). As such, while there is no simple established correlation with cognitive performance, it would be foolish to declare that male and female thought processes would be completely identical, which seems to be an unquestioned assumption with many people.

With this in mind, why would it be insulting to women to have separate titles and tournaments? It certainly isn't considered insulting to have them in tennis.

Plus, there is this perception that the majority of chess players are men. In my country, actually women are the ones who play chess more. Still, everyone thinks that men are better players

 :)

 I agree. We can't just ignore more than 50% of the planet's population when we are either trying to find a decent playing partner or searching for a future World Champion. 

As said, if a biological superiority in what makes up competent performance in chess could be proven, then I totally agree. But not only isn't this clear, even if there was an inherent superiority it need not be to such a high degree that women get this kind of advantage.

There are tons of potential reasons for males being more successful in chess, and if it's something like "women prefer to go shopping" [an exaggeration, just to make that clear] then I do not think they should get easier titles, as chess, like any career or skill, rewards dedication as well as talent.

Hard to believe that this is actually true; if it is, your country is a very exceptional (and lucky ) case.

So his country is a lucky case just because there are many woman chess players?  I suppose just because you're male you find it lucky if there were lots of women in an area who share your interests.

Well if you were really not sexist, then you wouldn't see it as a bunch of women, but would be just excited if you were surrounded by lots of male chess players.

You dirty sexist you 

Nope, it doesn't count as sexism if it's not against women

Just ask everyone

As far as today's registered chess players are considered, all the proof that one should need is that the average male is rated about 100 points higher than the average female, and that there is only one woman in the FIDE top 100 (at 41st place today). Opinions on whether or not this will change in the future should not be allowed to deny women a fair chance at a top title. What would be most fair for both sexes, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, would be to segregate women completely to their own titles and tournaments, until such a possibility is realized that there are no longer any statistical differences in favor of male players.

And speaking of sexism, here's something I just thought of this morning: if indeed male brains are about 10% larger on the average than female brains, then suggesting that men and women have equal cognitive abilities is tantamount to suggesting that the male brain is less efficient. How's that for sexist?

are you there AnthonyCG ...Anthony ?

......   just testing 

I'll choose..."or something"

Oh my. Time to shed some light.

In most competition settings men are superior to women. Physical differences are often the cause, but that certainly isn't all!

Mens and womens brains are wired differently-in multiple ways. In short, men are better at concentrating at a single task, while women are better at concentrating at multiple tasks. Men prefer to be in one "mode" at a time.(work, chess, sex, relax, social, etc.) Women tend to always be in multiple things at once.

There is PLENTY of material online if you want to study it.

Here's one video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjnLLw5BTmc

There's nothing to refute here. I'm just hoping to help anyone who is reading this to learn a bit more on a very important subject, as it can influence how one treats his or her own sexuality, sexism, etc.

Sources:

Aside from extensive specialized studying on gender, my Psychology degree.

 I saw a documentary the other day about primordial dwarfs. They had two of them on TV, who were brother, and sister. They were talking about how their brains are one fourth the size of a normal sized person's yet they both had normal intelligence.

Couldn't one argue that a woman's "ability" to multitask could help on the chessboard? Instead of going into a trance on just one variation (guilty!!), perhaps she would be more capable of looking at a variety of variations?

Clearly, the differences in mental ability between the sexes are, in terms of ultimate supremacy, not nearly as clear cut and indubitable as physical strength. Yes, our brains are different, but are probably pretty close in overall competence. I mean, sports are only segregated because the intrinsic difference in physical strength is so unanimously agreed upon -- that's a lot of agreement!

there has been  study saying that multi-tasking maybe unhealthy for anyone.

I'm glad, then, that I'm lousy at multi-tasking.

Like I said, there's no simple established correlation. It may be that these dwarves have adapted to using their brains more efficiently than regular humans to function effectively in society. My point was only that since we know that there's a difference between male and female brains, it wouldn't be wise to disregard it simply for the sake of political correctness. Whether or not brain volume correlates directly with intellectual prowess (which it clearly doesn't) is irrelevant.

Getting back to the subject, I must reassess my previous statement (post #214) after thinking about it some more. Completely segregating male and female chess players would be detrimental to the rating evolution of female players, as I suggested way back in post #20. In addition, by separating the rating pools, male and female ratings would become incomparable. Therefore, it wouldn't allow continuous testing of whether or not the gender skill gap is diminishing.

All arguments considered, this seems to be a no-win situation...

 That's why I've always said they shouldn't separate the rating pools.

wrt brain size, it is simplistic to just say men have +1 brains; it actually varies by brain region, women have more grey matter, men more white etc. 
And the data are not there to say that differences in brain physiology are responsible for the frequency of players at the top levels.

But to answer the OP more directly: because people want to watch women play, and there are few women that can compete at the very highest level yet. The tournaments exist because the demand is there, rather than as a social statement.