Why do women have their own niche carved out in the chess world?

Because women don't need to prove they are better than men.

They JUST are better.

So what does it take to qualify as a WGM? Since the FIDE rating process is the same for everyone, I assume they just qualify for a GM title at a lower rating? If they hit the rating that men have to get to receive the GM title, are they then simply referred to as a GM or are they still classified as a WGM?

 Yes, obviously.

J.Polgar was the closest. She was a top 10 player. 

Renegade,  certainly a Women's World Champion could theoretically pursue the standard World Championship title.   I suspect WC title holders have contractual obligations to FIDE,  and those might preclude holding both titles?   I'm not really sure.  I do not believe there have been any women in contention for the WC in recent history.  Women's titles do have lower ratings floors, and can generally roughly pretty much sort of be equated with the standard title one rank lower.  Standard titles pre-empt women's titles of the same name.  

And, yes - it is in part sort of a marketing thing -- it encourages stronger women to stay involved by providing a section they can be competitive in, much the same way Junior, Senior, and rating limited sections do. 

Cool, thanks for the info. According to some real quick research, it looks like the WGM title is awarded to any female player that hits 2300.

Another interesting stat from Wikipedia: As of February 2016, the FIDE rating list records 287 women holding the WGM title alone and an additional 33 who are GM.

true. somehow women act all outraged if they don't like a man's comment, but trash and bash men with impunity. same goes for assault. 

Fixed that for you.

And yes, of course different people have opposing views, and when you pretend they're the same person it creates contradictions.

You would notice that the best players in the world are all male, so it seems logical by that observation that guys are smarter than girls.  But then you think about it, what is the most powerful piece on the board???  You're dang right!  The queen!  (insert mouth, chew thoroughly) 

Just noticed, this "Judit Polgar" {youtube}, "Ted Talk"..[uploaded, Nov. 1st, 2016}.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ttu7dyBCU

because they are smarter than us.

It is a fact that men are, in general, stronger than women at chess, and that the very best men are stronger than the very best women.

Whether this is because of genetic differences ( which is why the fastest runners and swimmers, highest jumpers, strongest lifters, ... are men,) or because too few women play the game for us to know their true potential, or whether those who do play aren't as motivated as men to work hard at it ... WE DO NOT KNOW, and, in our present stage of knowledge, anyone that says otherwise is pretending to have some secret source of knowledge that is denied to the rest of us.

I do think that the WIM/WGM/WFM/WCM titles are silly, and progressively sillier as the requirements get lower. Why do we have to "attract women to the game" in an artificial way. Isn't the game itself attractive enough? No-one is fooled by the titles. At least no-one that plays chess is fooled. We know that the entry level for WGM is "only" the same as for the FM (Fide master) title, i.e. FIDE: 2300. So why a separate and more prestigious title for women? What is wrong with women simply earning the FIDE master title? It might be a long way from being a grandmaster, but it is still a high standard of chess and a very admirable achievement.

Here are the other equivalences:

WIM = CM (Candidate Master) = FIDE 2200+
WFM = 2100+
WCM = 2000+
Come off it FIDE. 2000 is no more than a strong club player. 2100 is respectably strong by all ordinary standards, but it is still weak, weak, weak by IM and GM standards. Both are a very long way from "mastering" chess.

Some national associations have gone even further in introducing titles for relatively weak players. The ECF (English CHess Federation) has REgional Master, Country Master, Club master, Team Master adn Chess Maestro titles for anyone needing an ego boost.

The Club Master title can be claimed by anyone whose rating hits ECF 145. That is only mid-1700's on most Elo-based scales. That is not any kind of Master. It gets ridiculous at the Chess Maestro level. It is ECF 95 which equates to roughly FIDE 1350. I am sorry to break the bad news, but whatever the ECF's certificate might say, at an ECF rating of 95 you are not a Maestro. You are a Novice!

The West is the best!

look at the reaction of these ladies after the game.

are they not awesome?

Please explain. I see nothing "awesome"

What is awesome about playing on for so long in a completely lost position, a piece down, with no counterplay.?  What is awesome about being able to win a clear piece ahead when the opponent cannot do much? And why did Black think for so long about some very obvious moves?

Their reaction after the game was awesome, they were smiling and friendly, how this could have escaped your notice especially in the context of the discussion I have really no idea.  In fact I even state, 

look at the reaction of these ladies after the game, are they not awesome?

Please try to be more observant.

Yes they were friendly. How is that "awesome". It did not inspire a sense of awe in me?

Context of the discussion?  I thought the discussion was about why there are separate titles for women.  So I do not see how their friendliness is relevant to that either.

Please excuse me for being exceptionally stupid.

That it did not inspire a sense of awe in you is neither here nor there you are not the bench mark of what constitutes awesomeness.  

The context if the discussion is why women chess players have a niche of their own and one of the reason proffered was that ladies are more polite and mannerly as opposed to men who are rather more aggressive and infact do not take defeat that well, generally.   This video was a demonstration of the friendliness of ladies chess, now it is a rather tedious affair having to point these things out to you and it would be rather less tedious if you engaged your mind and thought about things prior to positing instead of asking questions which for the most part are self evident to anyone with two brain cells and a functioning synapse.

Your exceptional stupidity has been excused, fear not.

Judit Polgar peaked at #8 in the world rankings and had won single games against many world champions, so clearly the very best woman at chess so far could compete with the best of men.

Which is good, but also shows the double standards we still have in our supposed gender equality.

Imagine a sport where women were the world leaders and imagine someone to suggest to both retain a mixed section but also take funds out of the sport and from sponsorships to create a men-only section with a prize money pool available only to males while no such section would exist for females.

Maybe it could be created under a pretext, like "attracting more men to the sport".

Feminists would go crazy about it.

Yet for some weird reason, we're to accept the same thing in chess.

It never made any logical sense at all- EITHER women *can* compete with the best of men in chess, OR they need their own special needs section. 

But somehow, in a stunning reversal of the old saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too" they expect us to believe both are true at the same time.

They even came up with a thin pretext like "to attract more women to the sport" for it and dare calling men sexist who point out the obvious flaw in logic.

Sorry women, I'm all for gender equality, but it goes both ways. If you want me to take your title seriously, it better not start with a "W". And if you want me to think you're playing at the top level of chess, you better do it in the mixed section.

Cause everything else is just pretense and make-believe.

That is rather rude and un-called for.  Being modest and polite does not mean taking insults lying down.  If you would take time to read my earlier post on this thread you'd see that it is a well thought out and helpful contribution.

Besides, if I am not the arbiter of what is "awesome" then neither are you.  You are welcome to think it "awesome" that two players can be friendly after a game.  I think it is admirable, but not awesome.

If you persist in assuming that anyone that does not think like you is stupid then you are in for a lifetime of being misunderstood.