Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, you're right. We cannot draw any gender specific conclusion of the facts mentionned. Silly me. Sorry.
The original question is interesting in another aspect:
In muscle intensive sports there is humhum for men, and humhum for women. Why? The difference of muscle mass of gender reason. But still, there are lots of women that are stronger than me men that "For being a woman you are quite good!" And rarely she takes this as a compliment.
Again Fabian sprinkles us with bad examples to try to prove his point.
The question isn't (and has never been) if women are inferior in "brain assisted sports" (btw, if there's one where the brain doesn't assist, please let me know). That would only follow if ALL "brain assisted sports" used THE SAME brain functions. Which they don't.
So the question is simply, is the female brain more, less or equally adapted for success in the game of chess? The differences between male and female brain are well-documented. Does the analysis of these differences serve as evidence for any of the three cases mentioned above?
These are the questions that matter to the issue at hand, not some politically correct comments like the ones you've been making.
Regarding the issue of whether competitions should be separate or not, I would be in favour of them not being separate. This because even if there is a natural advantage for one of the sexes, there is no guarantee that the randomness of nature won't provide a champion from the disadvantaged one. So even if males (or females) were shown to be less adapted to the game of chess, I would still prefer that the categories were not separate.