Why Woman Grandmaster?

Because women's brains are not hardwired to be creative and thinking, they basically lack the intuitive skills to be good at chess and must stay in the kitchen.  *Grabs popcorn*

So you think you could beat a woman that practiced and trained more than you?  There are women well ranked over 2500 and all of them would beat you every single time.  I would enjoy eating popcorn and watching that to prove how wrong you are.  Maybe a guy like the one that posted above made the WGM/GM differential?

Women can earn normal titles, just like anyone else. If a WGM has a rating of over 2500 but not the GM title, she probably hasn't earned the required norms for a GM title, which are different from a WGM title.

So why womens titles? I haven't looked into why they made them, but I'm guessing it's to encourage more women to play chess. I really think people over think it way too much.

I'm pretty sure WGMs over 2500+ with the GM norms are generally referred to as GMs. Not exactly sure what issues you are referring to.

There are probably WGMs over 2500 without enough GM norms.

The rating requisite for WGM is 2300

I guess what I'm saying is, why not just remove the WGM and not hold tournaments separated by gender?  Just have GM be 2500.  If a woman becomes 2300 just call her FM.  I believe men and women are equal.  

I thought this thread was going to be 

"Why woman grandmaster, it should be grandmistress"

Men and women are equal, although different in certain ways (and that doesn't mean not equal). Even if men are generally better at chess they are still equal. (I'm not saying they are; even if they are, it's clear that women are better at a lot of things.)

Children and adults are equal, and yet we have scholastic tournaments. If an organizer wants to only invite certain people to a tournament (friends, top rated players, kids, women, men, or whoever) then they have that freedom (although maybe FIDE would only allow certain kinds if the tournament is with FIDE). And another person has the freedom to create a tournament for everyone a different set of people, or leave it as an open tournament.

There are two types of tournaments, "Women Exclusive" and "Open" tournaments.  Only Women are elible to compete in Women Exclusive tournaments.  While both men in women can compete in Open tournaments.  So there are no Men only tournaments. 

We typically think of open as the Mens because more men qualify then women.  But if you look at the last major open tournament - the Qatar Open - then you will see that both men and women competed-including Women's world champion Hou Yifan.

Now of course it is an interesting point that the women's only tournament may harm women by allowing them to have lower standards.  Especially instances where the prize pool is the same, i.e. US Championships.  Why would a woman want to compete in the open against Naka and So and the like when she could earn the same prize money playing a smaller field?  

But the womens events are FIDE's and other federations best attempt so far to overcome the gender gap in the chess community, so I cant blame them for that 

Less woman play chess, so FIDE promotes Woman's Chess by making the titles easier to achieve.

Also, there must be a reason why the top Man ever was ranked 200 points over the top Woman. 

I'm not a feminist by any means but it has its roots through history.

A few thousand years ago men were hunters/gatherers. We provided by means of building mud huts and killing animals in order to feed our family/ children. Whilst wives and so on raised children.

Men are now faced with a threat from a neighbouring village X. They want to expand, take our crops and pregnate our women. We're not very happy about this so we confer with one another, build some spears, devise some battle plan tactics and take them on.

During this period evolution was taking place between man and woman, and what evolution decided was to give women a slight edge in social communication (due to village aspects of raising children and greeting newcomers)  and man the slight upper in intelligence to devise and build a civilisation.

This is all interesting fodder to me, but it always makes me wonder, especially with the growing number of transexuals -- will we always separate women based on genitalia and not the MRI of their brain? 

Based on some of the (possibly sexist) arguments on this thread already, a lesbian woman (whose brain looks more like a straight man's brain than a straight woman's) should also have a distinct advantage, akin to the supposed advantage of hunter/gatherer men. 

In poker, Vanessa Selbst I think is an obvious example of my point. I think the fact that Vanessa Selbst can play in the Women's Only World Series of Poker Bracelet Event is unfair to all of the straight women in the event.

Am I second level sexist, or does this make sense?

Why has it yaken so long for someone to bring this topic up?

There's a difference between facts and sexist.

Put a handful of women in one room and a handful of men in the other for several minutes, I promise you that all the women in that room will be friends on Facebook when they leave. Hence my argument in post #14

There are woman's masters titles because there is women only tournaments. There are willing sponsors to finance these tournaments. As long as there are sponsors, women only tournaments and woman's title stays. 

Well, there are people who will say you are grossly sexist.

I think there are fairly clearly some innate differences between the [typical] brains of a man and woman.  But there is a lot of controversy about the details among experts.

Spatial intelligence is [likely] superior in the male so men would be expected to be better at chess.  But reading people is something women do better, so a woman, or a person with a typically female brain, would be expected to be better at poker [you sexist you:P].

And a transexual, say male to female, is likely caused by female brain development.  That is why they feel female [or that is what I think the evidence tells us].  Further, taking hormones as a transexual does will change the brain function.

So this is a complex topic with much that is debateable.

On the WGM title, it was only a little over 30 years ago when the first woman gained the GM title.  Now there are a lot of female GMs.  So the separate female titles made more sense when they were introduced.

This is 100% irrelevant to the topic I am talking about.  

Why not do away with women's only?  Then all the best women would be mixed in.  Some women would beat some men.  Anyone can have a private tournament and invite who they want but why are offical FIDE tournaments still separated?  

Maybe because they rarely play each other?  The first sentence might be the actual reason it is set up the way it is.  If that is the reason I am saying I oppose that reason.  If the top rated women had been playing top rated men this whole time their ratings would be quite a bit different.