zoomermogg
Iron
- Joined
- May 13, 2026
- Posts
- 238
- Reputation
- 219
TL;DR: The fact that women and men don’t play in the same open division in chess, but rather in separate divisions, is due to men’s superiority in the game. Shouldn’t chess tournaments be held without gender segregation, if women are supposedly just as talented as men?
The argument “Yes, but we have to support women, otherwise young female chess players won’t have the confidence to compete” is perverse, because it raises the question: Why single out the characteristic “woman” of all things?
You might as well organize a 100-meter race just for Black people or create a separate division for Uzbeks and Tibetans because they’re underrepresented?
I might as well say, “Well, Chileans and Bolivians are underrepresented, so I’ll create a separate category for them.”
Same Logic
The same applies to the women’s quota…why a women’s quota, of all things? Why not a quota for people with disabilities, immigrants, or anyone else?
If the argument that “historical disadvantage justifies special treatment” is to hold, it would have to apply to many groups // minorities, people with disabilities, those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The fact that gender is almost exclusively privileged makes this seem selective rather than principled.
It is a perverse system of cherry-picking and an agenda that portrays women as victims, while everyone else is either found guilty (men) or treated as second-class citizens due to the preferential treatment of women (e.g., people with disabilities).
In Chess They Well know that men would annhilate Most women thats Why they create separate classes
The argument “Yes, but we have to support women, otherwise young female chess players won’t have the confidence to compete” is perverse, because it raises the question: Why single out the characteristic “woman” of all things?
You might as well organize a 100-meter race just for Black people or create a separate division for Uzbeks and Tibetans because they’re underrepresented?
I might as well say, “Well, Chileans and Bolivians are underrepresented, so I’ll create a separate category for them.”
Same Logic
The same applies to the women’s quota…why a women’s quota, of all things? Why not a quota for people with disabilities, immigrants, or anyone else?
If the argument that “historical disadvantage justifies special treatment” is to hold, it would have to apply to many groups // minorities, people with disabilities, those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The fact that gender is almost exclusively privileged makes this seem selective rather than principled.
It is a perverse system of cherry-picking and an agenda that portrays women as victims, while everyone else is either found guilty (men) or treated as second-class citizens due to the preferential treatment of women (e.g., people with disabilities).
In Chess They Well know that men would annhilate Most women thats Why they create separate classes
