First off, I&#x27;d like to mention that I don&#x27;t think that sounds very unreasonable, so I&#x27;m not responding out of feeling offended. I am taking that as being a fairly reasonable position. I just currently think it is probably at least incomplete. Now on to the actual response:<p>What would be your view of a tournament which only allows people to enter if they have a different &lt;x&gt; than the majority of the winners of the &quot;main&quot; tournament during the last 5 years?<p>(Example: If &lt;x&gt; is gender, then if 3 men had won the &quot;main tournament&quot; in the last 5 years, then only people who are not men could enter the alternate tournament, and if 3 women had won the &quot;main tournament&quot; in the last 5 years, only people who are not women could enter the alternate tournament.<p>(If there was no most common &lt;x&gt; then the alternate tournament would not be run, because there would not be any eligible participants. For example if one year, the two semifinalists refuse to continue.)<p>Would you say that there should also be another alternative tournament in which participants are only eligible if they have the same &lt;x&gt; as the majority of winners of the &quot;main tournament&quot; over the last 5 years?<p>I agree that there is not &#x2F;inherently&#x2F; a problem if one gender (or other quality) is more common in an activity, and that the problems are in the causes or effects of such a situation. But I am not certain that trying to apply pressure to make the ratio closer to equal can&#x27;t be a good way to address whatever problem might be causing , or caused by, the ratio to be unequal. I&#x27;m not certain that doing that when there aren&#x27;t problems related to the inequality in outcome causes any harm.<p>If someone decides they want to give money to left handed, or to right handed, people, what harm does that cause?