@cormacobear said in #59:
> "More players mean more business"
>
> Yeah Lichess is so passionate about this because we famously always look at marketing and how much money we can make when issues of ethics arise. LOL rotfl That made my day.
It is always enlightening to witness someone attempting to engage in debate without first mastering the basic mechanics of quoting the argument they wish to refute. If your point is strong, why not present it in direct opposition to what was actually said? Instead, you offer a disjointed monologue, seemingly responding to an argument that exists only in your imagination.
Now, addressing the substance—or lack thereof—of your claims:
Yes, some football coaches recommend ballet for agility and coordination, which proves what, exactly? That ballet is physically beneficial? Certainly. That male participation in ballet is actively suppressed by a shadowy force? Hardly. It remains a choice, just as chess remains open to anyone willing to compete.
Finally, you claim that gender disparities in participation "should be corrected," yet offer no argument as to why. A preference is not an injustice, nor does an imbalance in numbers imply discrimination. Your entire stance is built on the assumption that all statistical disparities are problems in need of intervention, rather than reflections of individual choice. That assumption remains unproven.
You assume your opinions and how you perceive things is universal and therefore correct, I don't.
You're debating, I'm commenting.
You presume this forum is a structured point by point back and forth refutation where one sides opinions will win the day, I don't.
yet life will go on.
The arc of history may bend towards justice but only because we choose to bend it that way by doing things.
@OldTimes said in #37:
>
Lol, as I said keep up the great work...you've really given this article a lot more exposure than you realize.
And on embarrassment, I think you are the one embarrassing yourself by commenting so loudly on issues you have never experienced.
Take a break and ask a woman how the world treats her today...it might just help you.
And also try to keep your replies short, maybe you are still living in the 'OldTimes' of mailboxes and letters but nobody has the time to read an '100-page-long' reply anymore.
Peace.
Somehow i dont believe computahs at hominems will be deleted by this blog poster. Accidentally or not. Cause forum etiquette apparently is only for some.
@oldtimes you are completely right. And "long" posts are perfectly fine for most people. As lang as the contents are worthwhile.
@Computah23 said in #63:
> Lol, as I said keep up the great work...you've really given this article a lot more exposure than you realize.
>
> And on embarrassment, I think you are the one embarrassing yourself by commenting so loudly on issues you have never experienced.
>
> Take a break and ask a woman how the world treats her today...it might just help you.
>
> And also try to keep your replies short, maybe you are still living in the 'OldTimes' of mailboxes and letters but nobody has the time to read an '100-page-long' reply anymore.
>
> Peace.
I’ve asked repeatedly how exactly men are supposedly advantaged over women in chess, yet you keep avoiding any real answer. The silence is deafening. Should I assume you have no argument, or is it just easier to fill your posts with clumsy jokes to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say?
As for your claim that I’m somehow giving the article 'more exposure', that’s a rather naive understanding of how the forum works.
Comments don’t push a blog post higher or make people read it more carefully. And even if they did, it wouldn’t exactly be to your advantage.
More people seeing this discussion only means more people noticing that you still haven’t provided a single meaningful response.
Ah, the classic “You’re not a woman, so you can’t understand”; a truly bulletproof argument, right up there with “You’ve never been a chef, so you can’t say if the food is burnt” or “You’re not a bird, so you can’t have an opinion on flying”. By this logic, no one can discuss anything outside their own personal experience, which conveniently shields weak arguments from scrutiny. Reality, however, doesn’t work that way. Understanding an issue requires reason, logic, and evidence, not just personal anecdotes. But I get it, when actual debate is too difficult, claiming exclusive insight is a convenient escape.
@OldTimes said in #56:
>
I appreciate the discussion, but let’s be clear—your message wasn’t removed to "erase" opinions; it violated forum etiquette due to abusive language toward another participant. Respectful debate doesn’t involve personal attacks. As for the other deletion, it was a simple mistake (which I previously said) not an attempt to avoid discussion. In fact I already responded to it and you’ve already replied to that response.
On participation gaps, interest isn’t formed in isolation. Girls receive less encouragement and fewer opportunities in chess, while boys are pushed to take it seriously. The ballet comparison ignores the historical barriers women have faced in chess—barriers that don’t exist for men in ballet.
As for misconduct, over 100 female players signed an open letter calling out widespread issues in chess. Dismissing these concerns as exaggerations ignores real experiences. Keeping the "doors open" isn’t enough—chess should be a space where everyone feels welcome, not just tolerated.
If you’re interested in genuine discussion, it should be based on facts and mutual respect, not insults or misrepresentation.
@cormacobear said in #57:
>
The existence of special classes and cultural efforts to encourage boys into ballet acknowledges that underrepresentation can be a barrier—just as it is in chess for women. The difference is, when boys are a minority in ballet, we recognize societal factors at play. But when women are underrepresented in chess, it’s dismissed as "just personal preference." That double standard is exactly what I’m highlighting.
As for cultural differences, of course, experiences vary by country. But the participation gap in chess is a global trend, and studies consistently show that girls face more discouragement and fewer opportunities in the game. Acknowledging these structural factors isn’t about denying individual autonomy—it’s about recognizing the broader patterns that shape who feels welcome in certain spaces.
@OldTimes said in #65:
>
Your repeated demand for a single "real answer" ignores the multiple explanations already provided. Men in chess benefit from early encouragement, better training opportunities, and a lack of the biases and stereotypes that discourage many girls from pursuing the game seriously. Psychological barriers like stereotype threat and structural issues like unequal investment from parents and coaches have been well-documented. These aren’t vague theories—they’re backed by research and the lived experiences of female players.
As for your attempt to dismiss personal experience, there’s a difference between forming an opinion and fully understanding an issue. If every top female player, alongside studies on gender and chess, points to cultural and structural barriers, dismissing them as mere "anecdotes" isn’t reasoned debate—it’s willful ignorance. Logic and evidence matter, but so does listening to the people actually affected.
@WuraolaA said in #68:
> Your repeated demand for a single "real answer" ignores the multiple explanations already provided. Men in chess benefit from early encouragement, better training opportunities, and a lack of the biases and stereotypes that discourage many girls from pursuing the game seriously. Psychological barriers like stereotype threat and structural issues like unequal investment from parents and coaches have been well-documented. These aren’t vague theories—they’re backed by research and the lived experiences of female players.
>
> As for your attempt to dismiss personal experience, there’s a difference between forming an opinion and fully understanding an issue. If every top female player, alongside studies on gender and chess, points to cultural and structural barriers, dismissing them as mere "anecdotes" isn’t reasoned debate it’s willful ignorance. Logic and evidence matter, but so does listening to the people actually affected.
Your response is filled with assertions presented as unquestionable truths, yet they lack any substantive proof. You claim that men in chess receive more encouragement and better training opportunities, but where is the evidence? You point to "well-documented" research, yet fail to cite a single concrete study proving that boys are systematically favored in chess development while girls are actively discouraged. If anything, modern initiatives overwhelmingly focus on promoting female participation, offering scholarships, mentorships, and exclusive tournaments, privileges that male players do not receive. The notion that parents and coaches universally prioritize boys in chess is nothing more than an assumption, unsupported by actual data.
Your insistence on "lived experiences" as a substitute for objective reasoning is equally flawed. Personal anecdotes, no matter how numerous, do not equate to empirical truth. If logic and evidence truly matter, then you should recognize that dismissing counterarguments as "willful ignorance" is not debate but dogmatism. You accuse me of disregarding facts while simultaneously demanding that I accept subjective experiences as definitive proof. That is not reasoned discussion, it is an attempt to shut down dissent by labeling disagreement as 'ignorance'.
Regarding the forum moderation, I did not insult anyone, yet you openly accuse me.
If anything, it is you who resorts to subtle personal attacks, implying that I lack understanding simply because I do not align with your viewpoint. Respectful discussion is not about demanding unquestioning agreement; it is about engaging with ideas honestly.
If your position were as self-evident as you claim, it would stand on its own merits without the need for accusations and deflections.
Your take is simply disrespectful and offensive. As I already said I have never been handed invitations, discounts, or exclusive opportunities simply for existing. No boosts, no gender-specific titles to inflate my achievements, no tournaments dedicated to me, no prizes for my gender, no scholarships designed to "promote" my participation. Every step of my chess journey has been through self-study and perseverance, with no institutional support ensuring I feel "included", no coaches, just books I bought with my own money. Yet, if I were a woman, my current rating would make me one of the top female players in my country.
So where exactly is this supposed male privilege in chess? All I see is a system where certain players receive artificial advantages unrelated to skill, while the rest of us must rise through the ranks with no shortcuts and no illusions of special treatment.
And yet, those same players argue they are treated unfairly?
Should I remind you how you said in your first posts that no actual barriers existed? You changed your narrative quite a bit in a few posts, curious isn't it?
Why don't you link some of your vague 'well documented researches'?
To everyone who is not an uninformed mysoginist : These guys don't want "link to studies", and they don't want to have an honest discussion. In order to have an honest discussion, one must be ready to change their opinion, and to actively try to understand what the other person point is. these guys are not and do not.
Anyone who still refute the existance of structural discrimination against women (and ethnic minorities, and trans people, and a lot of other communities) in 2025 did a lot of work to avoid facing facts. Someone like that is not gonna read your comments in good faith.
@OldTimes said in #69:
> Why don't you link some of your vague 'well documented researches'?
Because you just want us to spend time and energy finding something that you won't want to understand. If you were genuinely interested, you would have been exposed to these documents looong ago. There is no point fighting against windmills. Yes you are a windmill. You are anchored in your narrow understanding of the world and don't want to move.
We have experiences with that on Lichess every time someone posts a blog post that is even remotely speaking about women rights, so we kind of figured out how this work. Either you are oblivious to understanding this matter, or you have an agenda. Both options makes it kind of useless to engage in constructive debate with you. Plus you don't seem to know how to have a constructive debate.
So go inform yourself, and maybe we can have this discussion at a later point :)
Or stay a loud warrior for the cause of the males, and keep ridiculing yourself ;)