Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Why are men and women playing chess in different leagues? Chess isn’t atheltic, nobody is going to have an advantage over another player because of gender or sex.

    • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Historic systemic sexism means women are under represented in the game. Different leagues aim to bring more women and girls into play because for example, a young girl can see women playing and want to get involved. It is much less likely if all they see is a boy’s club.

      Anyone can enter the ‘mens’ league, so whenever a woman is good enough to complete they can (and do).

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Agreed. I’m not a chess player, but I view it as an intellectual sport or challenge. There’s no reason not to eliminate all gender specific separation IMO.

      I think it’s fun to see people in competition and achievements where we don’t have to care about the person’s physical attributes.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players. At the top, the grandmaster title, only 41 women have it, out of like 2000 overall titles. So they created the women’s tournaments to encourage more of them to play chess. There are only two types of tournaments, open, where everyone can play, and women’s only, where only women play. A lot of female players play opens as well as women’s

      • JoBo@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players they were excluded, creating the illusion that they were weaker players

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They weren’t excluded. Since early 1900 they played chess in chess clubs. Since 1920s women competed in high level tournaments. There isn’t many women in chess, so the chances of a higher rated player are lower amongst women. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, or that women are weaker players. There is simply less of them.

      • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The fact that there are only 41, is due to under representation not ability. That under representation is cause by many factors, including ignorant and damaging comments such as yours. You should be ashamed.

        In our life time it is entirely possible to see a female world champion and even the removal of the WGM (and other W titles) due to progress in repairing the damage caused by sexism.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I said in other posts, that women aren’t worse at chess - there is less of them, so higher ranked players aren’t as common. But keep your outrage.