GC is an interesting league but I feel like regulating it wasn't something Riot properly thought about. They can't be too harsh on regulations, otherwise they are no longer inclusive, but they also need to be harsh enough to prevent opportunists. Welp, I suppose that's their problem to figure out.

"I recently learned that Game Changers in NA does not allow transgender males - which I believe is an obvious contradiction to their want to be inclusive to marginalized genders - and I'm hoping that changes in future," Bob said.

I see, sounds like a pretty big decision so chances are we would have heard something if things were reversed. But I would like to know what their reasoning is and if I am right in assuming that identifying as male separates them from being a part of "marginalised genders". People in this thread seem to agree that being trans would be the marginalised part, so I wonder what their justification was to prevent female-to-male players from competing.

This turned out way longer than I expected but I wanted to be thorough.

I dont get how you cant grasp the concept of women finding it harder to find success in male dominated spaces

I understand this concept, I just don't agree it is for the reason people claim (being held back). That is why I made the point that we could just be witnessing a lack of interest and drive from most women in this area.

so we can get to a point where eventually its equal or similar

This is assuming that the lack of female Esport talent is due to discrimination and not lack of interest. There is no need to "fix" something if it simply comes down to a lack of interest from the underrepresented group. For example, we don't need to fix the lack of female oil rig workers.

You generalising an entire nation of girls, just cause one girl had the support and opportunity to compete doesn't mean they all have them

Gaming, for a long time, has been looked down upon as being for losers (which is still also the opinion of many women, mind you), yet despite this men have continued to play video games and become good at them. You make it seem as though male gamers are blindly supported and that is why they do well, which is not true.

cause were talking about esports broski, obviously its going to be different in significantly different proffesions

If women can defy entire career fields and replace the majority of men in those fields, is it believable that they would be held back from being good at Valorant, of all things? I don't know about you, but my opinion of women is higher than that.

In Rocket League there was a female player (Karma) who competed in a co-ed team against other male teams. Other female Rocket League players were inspired by her and wanted to compete one day too, but guess what? They were not putting in the effort that she did to get to her level, and so they never got there. GC, at the moment, looks the same way. Where you have players like Mel taking as many opportunities as they can to try and compete but then a larger group of female pros whose commitment I honestly question. There is no excuse for not being able to at least get to Immortal and compete with ranked players when you are an employed "pro" player.

Even if he isn't serious, is it that dumb? I really don't get what good there is when people just dismiss things like this which are evident in our history/nature/biology. Maybe it's too deep of a conversation for a video-game. But is it really that bad to recognise if the average female gamer plays differently to the average male, maybe that actually plays a role in this whole "there are less women in eSports" conversation?

Maybe I am too open to discussion but I don't see the value in ignoring something like that as just "incel" stuff.

I started watching GC some time last year and this was the first thing that I noticed, their playstyle is very different. I wonder if it's similar in other games.

There are general cultural expectations in a household that could be the cause of girls not being motivated to try or compete.

Why has this not been represented in other areas of "cultural expectation"? Women currently dominate education and are prevalent, if not overrepresented, in other areas that were once "for men" e.g. medical careers. "Culture" isn't really doing a good job at holding women back if this has been the result.

I will not accept that being good at videogames is so much of a challenge for women, that the reason they aren't as good as men is due to other people holding them back. GC is not comprised of women from Afghanistan, it is comprised of players from countries which actually recognise women's rights and opportunities. If most women are expressing those rights in directions which don't lead to eSports, then so be it.

Also, gc teams do try to scrim with proper teams BUT why would a team want to scrim against such low level teams
so no its not an excuse, its a legitmate reason.

I'm recommending playing with better players, they do not have to be established teams. Most GC players are not highly ranked, and so even highly ranked players would suffice.

Others are saying being trans would make female-to-male marginalised, even if they identify as males. I am confused because I assume identifying as a male removes the marginalised aspect especially if people treat you as a male. Not sure what the clear answer is. Not that it really matters either, I am just curious due to how often people bring up male-to-female players and noticed that I hadn't yet heard of the opposite.

I don't really believe that "society says women can't play videogames" is the prime deterrent preventing females from competing with males and male-to-females in professional eSports. I also don't think it's down to biological differences like reaction time.

It could genuinely just be that most women don't really care about eSports...Especially not enough to invest the time and training required to become better than 99% of the player base. This may sound a little sexist but these types of gendered trends are observable in every area of life; there are just certain things men are more likely to be interested in than women, and grinding competitive eSport titles just happens to be one of them.

Riot can try to develop the talent pool amongst women and provide them with an audience, but the female players also need to care enough to out-train and out-compete the male players they'll eventually be up against. I am also not a fan of the "lower player pool" excuse as to why the female talent is lagging behind...Play with the males!? Even arranging scrims with a few ranked demons would be better training than stomping GC teams that aren't fighting back.

Isn't that different? I thought males are not considered to be marginalised because society treats them better. If you do not think you are a male or a female then you are just in the middle but if you are female-to-male then wouldn't you also get treated better because you are now a male?

That is why I asked because I didn't understand why a female-to-male would still be marginalised if they were considered to be male. But someone noted that it is because they are trans that makes them marginalised, so being female-to-male doesn't exclude them.

It was my understanding that male-to-female and female-to-male want to be identified by how they view themselves so I wondered if female-to-male would be excluded similarly to other males. But someone else has pointed out that a female-to-male player is in the league so that answers my question.

Got it, then it's settled. Thanks.

Is this a female-to-male player? If so then I guess that answers my question.

I know this will look like a troll because this is a new account but I usually only read things on here.

Anyways, with all this talk that happens about trans players whenever GC is on, I wanted to know where female-to-male players stand in GC? Riot says GC is supposed to be for marginalised genders which, as far as I can tell, is just another way of saying "no men". But then where would female-to-male players stand? I haven't seen any in GC unless I missed them. Are they excluded from the marginalised category because they identify as men? Or does being women in the past make them marginalised?

Please answer this seriously, I don't know much about these new things so I am curious about this.