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

"Should be" no such differences? What about more physical sports such as running, or team sports such as football? Has it been scientifically proven that the male build is superior to the female build in such a way that separate contests are warranted, or has it only become so due to years of accumulated knowledge on the performance of both sexes? If the latter, then why does similar accumulated knowledge on the current chess performance of both sexes (i.e. men outperform women on average) not warrant separate contests and titles in chess?

WGM is easier than GM because generally men is better than women at chess. Women can earn the GM title aswell ofc.

men should also compete with women in beauty contests.

Unfortunately, that's not allowed. We're not that far yet in gender equality...

Women fight for supremacy, not for equal right.

To give some example, ever heard a woman campaigning for equality on the casualties in the workplace? 97% of workers who get injured and die in the workplace are men.

Or how about equality on public funding for breast cancer and prostate cancer? With an almost equal number of deaths, prostate cancer receives less than half the funding of breast cancer and zero public awareness campaining.

Sorry for getting off topic but this is an issue I'm sensitive about.

lol

I'm going to sound sexist saying this, but when it's the truth, it's the truth.

In general, with many, MANY exceptions, of course, men tend to be more logical and women more artistic in nature.  Chess is a logical game.  You may have noticed if you go to over the board tournaments, there is an extreme percentage of men over women at the events.

If all you had was "GM", very few women would have titles.  Of course the Polgar Sisters would, and a number of others, but WGM actually has lower requirements than GM.  Chess, just like other sports, requires separation of gender in some aspects as men and women are build differently, both physically and mentally.  It doesn't make men more intelligent than women, but men tend to accel in the specific areas necessary for chess, just like how men are, for the most part, physically stronger than women. 

Look at the speed of first serve in Men's tennis vs Women's.  You think Maria Sharapova can hit the ball with the same strength as Federer?  There's also a reason that the Men go 5 sets and the Women only 3.

Look at the NBA vs WNBA, or NCAA Men's Basketball vs NCAA Women's Basketball.  There are 2 major differences I see.  Most the women aren't tall enough to dunk, and most of the women have no vertical in their jump shot.  It's more a flat foot shot, or maybe an inch off the ground.

It's just a fact of life that certain areas men accel more than women, and others women accel more than men.  I think there should be the title of Grandmaster and Men's Grandmaster (a weaker title) when it comes to areas like Dance, Gymnastics, etc.

Men are better than women at gymnastics.

Ah, you beat me to it.

A fitting end though to a post that (to me), seemed poorly thought out and not well informed.

I've said something like this before but, if there is a woman out there who gets to 2800, then she is a 2800 -- whatever the women around her achieves are irrelevant regarding her abilities -- any generalization of gender won't apply to her. Any woman who is, say, a master, doesn't really need to worry about the fact that there are more male masters -- it doesn't suddenly make the women who are masters any weaker than that.

I think if people emphasized this point more when they made generalizations (and I mean of any kind), people probably wouldn't be offended by them. Technically, my above paragraph is self-evident, but I think it helps to put some emphasis on the exceptions -- I know how irritating the feeling can be when people talk about the tendencies of a certain type of person, when they say "x's generally tend to be y," and you happen to be an x that is nothing like y, and you think to yourself "I am nothing like what these guys describe!"

I like how you sugar coated your post eh eh.

Science says that men, ON AVERAGE, are more intelligent than women. That's why men are better at chess. Or poker. And well... absolutely anything.

"More artistic in nature"? Art has always been produced by men. Just walk into any museum.

It seems to me that the justification for the existence of women only titles is mostly forward-looking: The point is to give more prominence to women chess players to diminish the stereotype of chess as male-only and encourage girls to start playing chess at rates similar to those of boys.

OF COURSE, if the overwhelming majority of people that learn to play chess are men, the overwhelming majority of IM's, GM's, super GM's, will be men. But this in turn reinforces the stereotype of chess as (mostly) a male activity, creating a self-reinfocing cycle.

You have to break this cycle somehow, and measures that would be unfair and illogical in a perfect world forever free of sexism may be necessary given that, well... we don't live in such a world.

There are fewer high ranking women chess players out there because (a) most cultures do not encourage young girls to be intellectually competitive enough to acquire the kind of obsessive fascination with games like chess necessary to eventually reach the top levels, and (b) the demands on women to do almost anything else with their free time (and money), like raise children, means less opportunity to single-mindedly study, practice, and go to distant qualifying tournaments as necessary for achieving the required title norms.

This has nothing to do with biological gender differences in the brain and everything to do with practical, culturally-reinforced gender priority discrepencies.

Let me stop you right now, because reality is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. It is men who are, since a young age, discouraged from intellectual pursuits.

The overwhelming majority of teachers, especially in primary schools, are females. This causes a subconscious conditioning in which we see learning, studying, and reading as a FEMININE activity.

To see this just think of when you were in school. Who were the cool boys? The ones good at sports or the ones who got good marks? Actually the boys who got good marks were frowned upon and in many cases psychologically or even physically abused. I assure you if a kid plays chess at school his popularity is not going to go up. Much more likely that he's going to be mocked for being a "nerd".

On the other hand, females live in a positive environment for learning. While a father might want his son to be good at sports, you can bet the girl is expected to be good at school. You'll never see a girl mocking another because she gets good marks (while this happens a lot among boys).

The fact that women still fail hard in producing anything culture-related (quick, tell me a female writer) is the proof of their biological intellectual inferiority. Of course instead of admitting this they'd rather blame the men for it, under the communist ideal that if some group is not as good as the other groups it necessarily means the former is being discriminated against.

what if Carlsen decides to turn tranny ?

Then "she" may win quite a few title matches

If your looking for a comparison of mental acuity, then I would look at the history of the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal. While this may be biased based on the nature of the awards committee being predominantly men, there is a trend none the less. Evolutionary biology also makes clear distinctions between the physiological differences between men and women. To say there is no difference between men and women would be a dubious comment, indeed. However, I have a slight issue with this this. The issue cannot be as simple as comparison of IQs, which is a tremendously biased way of testing intelligence. I teach Organic Chemistry which is (the last time I checked) the most failed course in US universities, presumably due to the over abundance of premed majors who think they will become doctors. That being said, I find that women almost always produce higher quality scientific reports, and score better than men on examinations. I would say that in my current class of 150 students, ca. 55% are women. Organic Chemistry is notoriously difficult and requires development of an entirely new type of thought process dependent on logic, creativity, and the capacity to visualize complex compounds in three dimensions. I find chess to be similar in many facets. Visual recognition of patterns, shapes, the ability to see how the board looks five steps ahead in your head..all of these bear similarities to the field of Organic Chemistry. However, men still dominate the field. Why is this? It is not in accord with my own experiences as a teacher and researcher. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the field of Biology is dominated by many females. Interesting. It is a topic much too complex for me to even begin to pretend I understand, or have some depth of knowledge in. The social "rules" for men and women plays a deep role as well. Men are fiercely competitive...women are not...men are this, women are that....the truth is, none of us know shit about this issue. We can all throw opinions around, but this leads nowhere. Psychology is in its infancy as a science. We have a long time before we can begin to answer these questions. Much of this will depend on the advancement of brain imaging in the ensuing decades to come.

good one!