I’m not really disagreeing with your main points, but ZeroCool gave the correct answer to the BCsven’s question as to how they came to exist.
As Wikipedia put it:
“Women were generally not permitted to join chess clubs until the early 1900s. Once allowed in, they were largely limited to competing against other women.”
That weasel-wording ought to be:
“Chess clubs were run and funded by men, who did not permit women to join until the early 1900s. Once the men allowed women in the club, they didn’t allow them to play against men, only among themselves.”
Women couldn’t own property and any money they had belonged to their husband or father so they had to accept these rules.
ZeroCool@piefed.ca 1 week ago
Did I say otherwise? I simply explained why “gendered chess tournaments” were ever a thing in the first place. There’s nothing for you to disagree with, so weird start.
When did I do that? Okay, I’m beginning to think you didn’t even read my comment before replying.
solrize@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
As is usual in a public discussion, the thread including my post isn’t entirely about you.
ZeroCool@piefed.ca 1 week ago
Well, nothing you’ve said is relevant to my comment, so perhaps you shouldn’t have replied to me? We’re done here.
solrize@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Maybe you should avoid posting in public forums if you don’t like the responses.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
As a buttinsky bystander, I think the Trump mention was more general just because he does ruin pretty much everything, but you are spot-on about the origin of gendered tournaments.