Semantics and obfuscation. The "participation disparity" is the exact same thing - only people good at chess participate on a scorable level. If you were reasoning honestly, you'd admit the likelihood that women generally are so ill-equipped for things like chess, they don't even try.
Someone a bit earlier said the "null hypothesis" is no difference between men and women. That's an arbitrary designation and a shifting-burden fallacy. So much empirical evidence points to them being different, you cannot presume the opposite.
An entire intellectual generation has been lost to politically-motivated wishful thinking.
Sounds like you are not disagreeing with anything I actually said in my precisely worded claim about participation disparity.
I mentioned the null hypothesis earlier, and do believe like most scientists that it is important to find statistically significant empirical evidence to refute the null hypothesis before assuming otherwise. That is a due diligence scientific principle and has nothing to do with politics or wishful thinking, but you do you.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.