r/worldnews Jun 17 '22

Chess - Nino Batsiashvili wins Georgian Women’s Chess Championship, for the 4th time, same number of times as Nona Gaprindashvili, the 1st female grandmaster. Not Appropriate Subreddit


[removed] — view removed post


View all comments

Show parent comments


u/TheManInTheShack Jun 17 '22

We have women’s basketball, golf, all of the Olympic sports, and more that I’m not thinking of. Those are all appropriate because there are undeniable physical differences that make it difficult for women to compete against men in many sports.

But mental competitions shouldn’t be amongst them. Heck, if anything I think women may have an edge there.


u/nicbentulan Jun 17 '22

Yeah my question is is there REALLY men's, say, basketball? Or is there just basketball for either men or women that happens to be 99% men?


u/TheManInTheShack Jun 17 '22

There are professional woman’s basketball teams.


u/nicbentulan Jun 17 '22

I know! But what I'm asking is:

Are there MEN-EXCLUSIVE basketball teams as opposed to men-or-women basketball teams that HAPPEN to be 99% men, i.e. they CAN allow women, but they don't have any women because women just haven't reached that high a level yet?

If not, then I guess it would be the same deal with chess and 9LX (and csgo and valorant...I guess basically mind sports, esports and other non-physical sports). The idea here, which you may not necessarily agree with: is that because of sexism and stuff women have not reached that high a level compared to men even though biologically they are capable of reaching such a high level. Thus, women's tournaments (and women's chess titles and stuff) exist as a form of feminism to compensate for the sexism. However, there are no men's only tournaments. There are men-or-women tournaments that just so HAPPEN to be 99% men, i.e. they CAN allow women, but they don't have any women because women just haven't reached that high a level yet.

When I found out that this was the case for chess and 9LX (and the other stuff), it made me rethink as to what was the case in the usual physical sports.

I thought there was a dichotomy between physical sports and non-physical sports in that physical sports are segregated (i.e. have men-exclusive, have women-exclusive but don't have men-or-women events) while non-physical sports merely have women-exclusive (i.e. have men-or-women events, have women-exclusive events but don't have men-exclusive events).

But then I realised that would be kinda nonsensical.

I think what happens in all sports/games/esports/mind sports is that when people say 'men's sports' what they mean is 'men-or-women sports that just so HAPPEN to be 99% men, i.e. they CAN allow women, but they don't have any women because women just haven't reached that high a level yet'.

I mean, are there really women who are that good at, say, basketball like can compete with the top men but simply aren't allowed to play with them?

Ah well in that case if the answer is really yes, then I think I'd like to turn it around and ask why there are/were women who were as good as lebron or kobe but weren't allowed to compete with or against lebron or kobe.


u/TheManInTheShack Jun 17 '22

Woman are no disallowed from playing in the NBA. In fact, the NBA did once draft a woman.

I suspect the problem is that there a few women who believe they could perform well enough to have a chance. In basketball, men are likely to have too much of a physical advantage.


u/nicbentulan Jun 18 '22

oh hell wow RIP thanks for sharing.

But anyway, so you see? I don't think basketball is actually different from chess / 9LX.

But then I think your question is correct in spirit but wrong in letter: I think your question should be like

'Women cannot compete with men in physical sports possibly for a combination of sexism and physical disadvantage as part of inherent physical differences of men and women. What about in non-physical sports? Is it just sexism then? Or are there neurological things too? And is sexism really that big a thing in the physical sports too?'

However, I do think that the people who responded to your original phrasing of the question are wrong too. Eg see my response here to u/ascpl who said here:

It's something of a perennial question in chess.

The 'perennial question' has a wrong answer.

  • They usually say like 'unlike in physical sports, women's tournaments exist as feminism to combat sexism in chess / 9LX blah blah blah in that because of sexism, women do not achieve as much of their potential in chess / 9LX, assuming they even get into chess / 9LX' as if chess / 9LX is any different from physical sports in this regard. What they should answer IMNSHO is that chess / 9LX is the same as in physical sports: I don't believe any sport has 'segregation'. They just have extra women-exclusive.
  • Then, the answer should guide the 'perennial question' to the real perennial question as I quoted above where I ask why women can't compete when there are no relevant physical, except possibly neurological, differences between men and women when it comes to non-physical sports, why can't women compete.

In this case, if the answer for non-physical sports is, say, 99% sexism and 1% (physical or) neurological differences, then what does this say about the physical sports? Surely it's not 99% vs 1% too? Then that's when we get to the studies conducted so and so as to how prevalent sexism, how much sexism impacts females, etc.

I haven't really read up on those studies, but I have a feeling it's nowhere near 99% vs 1%. Maybe 60% vs 40%?

What would be really cool is if we didn't have sexism in the world to really control for this 3rd variable and then we can see this physical sports vs non-physical sports thing. Maybe men and women will be about equal in non-physical sports but they won't be in physical sports, and then people will say 'Oh I guess it wasn't really sexism for physical sports after all. Go figure.'