Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?

I believe the reason has little to do with a difference in gender abilities and more to do with encouraging participation in a demographic that is struggling in that area relatively.

No harm in believing what you like, but it doesn't explain why there has been an explosion in Chinese chess talent recently when as a demographic Chinese people have been playing serious chess for a lot less time than women have. You can say you believe women's abilities are as great as men's but - at the top flight - where's the evidence?

And yet I suspect you will struggle to name one skilled female tennis player who'd be able to make a living out of tennis if she had to play against men.

Well, I think you missed the point of my comment regarding tennis. I wasn't arguing that women are more physically capable than men, I was suggesting a reason as to why there tend to be more "good" female tennis players. Indeed your comment only serves my point further, because it is not that they are female that makes them good, but that there is more competition among the larger population of female tennis players. Physical capability (at least on average) is much less debatable. The average man tends to be more physically capable than the average woman (assuming similar health/nutrition/genetics).

You are asking for "evidence" that women are capable of being equally capable as men, yet there is no evidence to the contrary either. There lacks a sufficient base for scientific comparison because there are vastly more men than women that play chess competitively.

Neither of these arguments venture far from the realm of unfounded misogyny.

While I can see practical arguments against women tournaments, I have never understood the bias against women titles. They were originally created in recognition of women's incapability (at the time) to compete successfully against men  and to promote inclusivity.   As time progressed and more women have taken up competitive chess, the gap has narrowed considerably, but the W titles remain.  Outside of offering a goal attainable by more women, the titles are outliving their original intent, but their continued existance doesn't detract one iota from men's chess.  The titles, I believe, simply reflect a woman's status against other women.  To relflect an overall status a female must still earn a non-female specific title.

Very eloquently put - +1.

Pointing out that women tennis players cannot compete successfully with men is the same as misogyny. Asking for evidence of women's ability to play chess as well as men is the same as misogyny. Got it. There's no need for scare-quotes around the word "evidence" - the evidence is that barring Judit Polgar there has been a dearth of women able to compete with the best men, and even Polgar did not hit the highest heights and has since faded. Produce counter-evidence that women can compete with men at the top level and you'll have no need to accuse anyone of misogyny.

I agree absolutely with batgirl. There may well come a time when the W titles are indeed obsolete because women will be successfully competing with male GMs, will be winning GM tournaments, will be mounting a credible challenge for the World Championship, may even be winning it. But "may well" has not happened yet, and arguments that it must happen seem to be more ideological than just plain logical.

@LongIslandMark - again, allow me to rehearse the chef argument. Males in our culture hear from an early age that men are useless in the kitchen, can't even boil an egg, can't open a can of beans without dirtying every utensil and every work-surface in sight... and yet men repeatedly ignore cultural expectations and become master chefs. To those with ability, cultural expectations are no bar. See also: male ballet dancers.

No bar, eh? Are you aware of how few male ballet dancers there are? Not to mention the fact that not many of those dancers are even taught to dance en point because so few ballets are centered around male dancers. Male ballet dancers are in fact an excellent example of cultural expectations discouraging interest and participation in an activity, and quite frankly, the cultural stigmas relating to male ballet dancers are far greater then the stigmas relating to male cooks. I've rarely seen a man insulted or bullied for cooking, but I've seen plenty of men attacked for any association with ballet dancing.

My problem with the call for evidence is that you are claiming that a lack of proof for one argument is the same as the presence of proof for the opposite. (ie: "There are few women GMs therefore women are less capable of earning the title.") At that point of your argument, it sounded mighty misogynystic. You have moved beyond that with your acceptance of "may yet".

To claim that a man is more physically capable (speaking in terms of an average specimen) is not misogynistic, and I should retract that claim immediately.

To call for evidence in support of an argument (ie: show me these strong female minds) when lack of evidence has already been cited as problematic (ie: a limited female population makes comparison difficult) appears to be an argument for argument's sake, which in this context comes off as leaning toward the misogynistic. I didn't mean to sound accusatory with the use of that word, merely analytical.

99.2 %.

If she weren't female, she could have been maybe 6th.

Did I get it wrong or are you saying there tend to be more good female tennis players? I believe the top 100 tennis players are all men. 

The gulf in ability, between the sexes, is far greater in tennis, than in chess.

but if the guy can't even hit it back over the net, what am i supposed to do? start a thread about how crap, men chess players are at tennis

Calm down, Dear!

he's dead , doggy, you trying to tell me something?

* Whistles whilst wandering away *

[COMMENT DELETED] by me

C ya!

Spanish Harlem?