SurfKansas said:
The game publishers could very easily adjust their terms of use to prevent this from happening by inserting a clause that prohibits use of IP in for-profit tournaments that segregate based on gender.
They don't want a ban on tournaments that segregate by gender. They want a ban on tournaments that don't permit women. They want a setup like chess where there are tournaments in which anyone can compete, and tournaments in which only women can compete. You'd be surprised in how many forms of competition that is actually the norm. It's not just chess, but did you know that the NBA and NFL both technically admit women players if one can keep up with the men? Neither league has had a rule requiring players to be men for a long time (because that would be horrible and sexist for exactly the reasons that the WNBA [which does not admit men] isn't). There just aren't enough women who can compete in those sports at the same level as the men (a lot of people thought Brittany Griner would be the first woman to play in the NBA, but she went with WNBA and set a single game record and tied a career record in her first game).
RatRace123 said:
And they're kinda missing the point of gender exclusion in other sports, those ones actually involve physical activity and hard, brute force collisions. It makes sense that you don't see too many women linebackers in the NFL,
Actually, the NFL technically admits female players, but none have come through who can compete well enough against the men to actually get a spot on a team. The number who have ever tried out can be counted on your fingers. The most recent one was injured during tryouts.
Hiramas said:
Since women are often actively hindered in participating in things by misogynist words-i-am-not-allowed-to-say-here, a womens only league is perfectly allright. Of course it sounds strange and illogical to rage about the one thing but not the other, but our reality makes such things a necessity. Maybe one day we won't need them anymore.
Remember, if someone says mean words to a woman, she wilts like a flower and is incapable of competing against the mean man who said the mean words and potentially proving him wrong.
Or it could be like chess, where despite no relative biological advantage the best female players don't do that well against the best male players, which is then used as an excuse why female players shouldn't have to play against male players, and should accordingly have their own special women-only tournaments.
Mcoffey said:
Women-only leagues are a response to the sexist bullshit that is men-only leagues. It's either womens leagues or nothing. Maybe if you had actually read the article you might have figured that little detail out, hmmm?
Again I bring up chess. There are leagues open to anyone, and leagues only open to women. Women-only leagues aren't a response to men-only leagues in some kind of general case -- they're a response to women wanting to not have to compete against men, while not giving men the option not to compete against women (because keeping women out of a group is misogyny, but keeping men out of a group is empowerment).
Stu35 said:
That's not sexism, that's pure and simple fairness - let them compete in their own events so that they actually get to win something.
You can't claim the same thing with video games.
...or chess? Such a great example for this stuff.
What is such bullshit is the whole "If women can't or don't want to compete with men, then they shouldn't have to and that's OK. If men can't or don't want to compete with women, then they are sexist assholes who need to be punished" thing.