It is a terrible format to run the Women FIDE candidates & the FIDE candidates at the same time.

@Wasted_Youth said in #14:
> Bit of a Freudian slip there I think. Women ́s chess is basically not chess for you?

No, it's not a slip. I make a distinct distinction between "Chess" and "Womens Chess" the same way that I make a distinction between a "Water Fountain" and a "Whites Only Water Fountain". One is discrimination, and one isn't.

As long as women have their own titles and championships then it is "Womens chess" and not "Chess". I don't say that Open Chess is "Men's Chess" because it's open. So I call it "Chess" or "Open Chess". Women are allowed to compete in that field. Nobody is stopping them. Men are not allowed to play in Womens chess.

I am not allowed to go an get a WFM title for example (Which is 200 rating points easier than an FM title) because I have a penis. So, women chess is discriminatory by nature. I don't like promoting discrimination. As simple as that!

It's not like this "Boxing" or "MMA" or "Football" either... I wouldn't protest against a female MMA tourney, or female boxing. We don't need to physically protect women from men that have on average larger bodies, and more muscle mass, and thicker bones. It is "Brain against brain". A smart 9-year-old girl could beat a grown man that is a marine in the game of chess if he isn't any good and she is. The same is not true of other sports. Because there are physical differences between men and women.

Saying that "Women need their own chess league" is like saying "Women are mentally inferior to men". I disagree.

Further, this often robs young women of an opportunity to play stronger players, and get better. Coddling women in chess by having a women only league hurts women.

You ́re still saying that there ́s women ́s chess, and there ́s chess.

See my post #20: so Ju Wenjun beat Alireza Firouzja at Tata Steel. Question: which of them was playing chess, according to your definition?

When Judit Polgar beat Kasparov in 2002, which of them was playing "women ́s chess"?

@Wasted_Youth
They (the women from your example) played chess as it was an open tournament.

Alireza and Kasparov can't play "women chess" as they have penises, though they can't get women chess titles.

So again, as you don't understand. What we call "women chess" are tournaments where only women are allowed to play.

There are no "men chess" as there are no tournaments where only men are allowed.

@I_am_lame : I understand the differences. The OP seems to think that women who are playing chess are not playing chess.

Some people still ignoring the fact that many countries don't allow men and women to compete, in anything.

So if there is a national championship where only citizens of certain country (or players registered at its national federation) are allowed to participate, it's a discrimination and they are not playing chess there. Any U20 (U18 etc.) tournament is a discrimination and they are not playing chess there. Any "U2000" section of an open tournament is "not chess" etc. Do I understand your position correctly?

@mkubecek I know it is not very polite, but I will respond to your question with a question. Imagine creating a tournament where women are not allowed to participate, no matter how well they play. Would it be fine, would you call it a normal chess tournament? ;)

@Wasted_Youth said in #22:
> You ́re still saying that there ́s women ́s chess, and there ́s chess.

Correct

> See my post #20: so Ju Wenjun beat Alireza Firouzja at Tata Steel. Question: which of them was playing chess, according to your definition?

She was playing chess at that point in time, and not women chess. She did a great job beating someone 200 points higher rated.

> When Judit Polgar beat Kasparov in 2002, which of them was playing "women ́s chess"?

Nope, she was playing in "Open Chess" or just plain old "Chess". Judit never played women chess.

Women's chess is a separate segregated league that implies women are so inferior to men mentally that they need their own category to compete in.

Which is something I think is "Reasonable" to have when it comes to children, as children are mentally less developed than adults.

However, it is "Unreasonable" when it comes to adults. Are women so weak mentally that they need to be a protected class like children in the game of chess?

I don't think they are. I think Judit polgar proved that point by getting into the top 10 and getting past 2700.

@I_am_lame said in #23:
> @Wasted_Youth
> There are no "men chess" as there are no tournaments where only men are allowed.

This 100%

There are 3 categories of chess.

"Open" "Youth" and "Womens"

Open = Anyone, at any age, and any gender may compete. If there is a 14-year-old grandmaster they are welcome to play with the adults. Women and girls are welcome as well.

Youth = This is for children and teenagers, and it may also be separately further segregated into age brackets. Because a 9 year old is less mentally developed than a 17 year old.

Womens = No men allowed! Girls only club! We don't care if you are Magnus Carlsen, or Garry Kasparov or Bobby Fischer. Men are not welcome! Women only!

Ironically, women chess is even more infantalizing then youth chess because there are "Womens Only Titles" but there are no "Childrens Only Titles". There is no "Child Grand Master" title. If you are 8 years old and 2000 rated you don't get some special title for being so high rated as a kid... However, there is a "Womens Grand Master" title, and WFM and WIM and all sorts of women titles.

"There are no "men chess" as there are no tournaments where only men are allowed."

False.