Esports Org Divides Men & Women, Changes After Outcry

By Nathan Grayson on July 4th, 2014 at 9:00 am.

There are many ways to go about legitimizing a sport. Cleaning up your broadcast, treating players well and ensuring they have good post-pro-career options, maybe referring to players by real names instead of handles like “Balls,” etc. I would say, then, that the Finnish Assembly eSports Tournament was on The Wrong Track. They decided to prohibit women from competing against men in games like Hearthstone and Street Fighter, and women pros only had two options (StarCraft 2 and Tekken Tag 2) instead of men’s four (Dota 2, Starcraft 2, Hearthstone, Ultra Street Fighter IV). They did it in the name of making the sport “legitimate.”

All this in a sport where traditional physical prowess – the kind that’s necessitated men and women’s divisions in other sports – doesn’t factor. However, after a day of fielding confused and incensed responses from fans, pros, media, and Blizzard itself, the larger league that Finnish Assembly is a part of, IeSF, decided to rethink its policy.

The extremely arbitrary divisions were baffling on their own, but the  Finnish Assembly eSports Tournament is only a qualifier for a much bigger show, the IeSF World Championship. IeSF’s explanation for all this was especially troubling. They wrote on Facebook:

“The decision to divide male and female competitions was made in accordance with international sports authorities, as part of our effort to promote e-Sports as a legitimate sports.”

That viewpoint is about as archaic as it gets, but it’s indicative of a broken system, a series of busted, nonsensical gears that badly need replacing. These are eSports. To be good at them, you only need quick wits and reflexes. Bone structures, musculature, etc are out the window. The division IeSF proposed, then, was simply arbitrary, rooted in sporting tradition that has no place here.

In the wake of an outpouring of outrage, IeSF responded with further explanations for their choices, neither of which really made a whole ton of sense.

“1 – promoting female players. We know that e-Sports is largely dominated by male players and females players are actually a portion of the overall player base. By hosting a female-only competition, we strive to promote female gaming on a global scale.”

“2 – International standards. IeSF is very close to get e-Sports recognized as a true sports like it should be. Part of that efforts is to comply with the international sports regulations. For example, chess is also divided into male / female leagues.”

As to one, why not offer a women’s Hearthstone tournament, then? Or Dota 2, for that matter? Why restrict which games they can compete in? The goal was admirable, but the method made about as much sense as robbing a homeless person after they politely ask if you can spare some change. Two, meanwhile, also got a red mark since, as PC Gamer pointed out, women can enter the World Chess Championship and compete against men.

It was all a really big mess, in other words. So, after a day’s deliberation on requests by everybody from fans to Blizzard itself, IeSF decided to change its policy. Now the previously male-only competitions will be open to all, and previously women-only tracks will remain that way to “improve representation.” IeSF explained in a statement:

“The IeSF Board addressed its reason for maintaining events for women, citing the importance of providing female gamers with ample opportunities to compete in e-Sports – currently a male-dominated industry. Female gamers make up half of the world’s gaming population, but only a small percentage of e-Sports competitors are women. The IeSF’s female-only competitions aim to bring more diversity to competitive play by improving the representation of women at these events. Without efforts to improve representation, e-Sports can’t achieve true gender equality.”

However, there will also be open-to-all competitions in every game, so anyone can compete in, say, Tekken Tag.

All of which seems like a pretty decent outcome, all things considered. IeSF started in a miserable place, listened to people who were very legitimately upset, learned from its mistakes, and acted on that knowledge. That said, it will be interesting to see how the remaining women’s only competitions turn out, as that setup strikes me as a little clunky (not to mention potentially patronizing) given how things have changed.

However, I do not disagree in the slightest that representation of women in eSports is abysmal (and the community can be incredibly toxic about it), so I’m glad IeSF is trying something. I think heaps upon heaps upon heaps more still needs to be done, but starting guns are important too. They draw attention. Now the real work begins.

, , , .

59 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. natendi says:

    Very bizarre! Not really followed eSports much (i’m a single player gamer at heart :P), but the idea of splitting virtual tournaments based on gender is crazy.

    As for physical sports, I’m all for more mixed, some sports it might not work where there is a lot of contact, but sports like volleyball could easily have mixed gender teams. But I digress…

    • fsantox says:

      I’m no quite sure that volleyball is a good example, seeing that even the height of the net is differente for male and female competitions.
      Maybe golf would have been a better example. Since the equipment and setting don’t change between genders. I could be wrong though, I know nothing about golf.

      • theslap says:

        Tee lengths are shorter for women in golf as well.

        I don’t understand the point of separately men and women in eSports unless, over time, it’s shown through the results that women are not on equal footing due to reaction time or whatever the reason. As far as I know, men and women should be equally capable of playing video games to the same level of expertise.

  2. Commander Gun says:

    Great thing that they do something about it. I think it is a very important day for the health and future of Esports! Now if tournaments on Twitch can also do away with the scarcely clothed women that seem to be present at major tournaments just to look pretty for male gamers, it will be even better :)

  3. NukeWithG says:

    Having female only tournaments shouldn’t be allowed either. No discrimination based on gender should be allowed.
    Suomi mainittu, torilla ei tavata :(

    • tetracycloide says:

      [Insert underrepresented group] only [events and/or awards] are like the blue shell or lightening in Mario Kart, they make recovering an equal position easier. The only difference is in Mario Kart first place is earned more through merit than privilege in real life.

    • Horg says:

      There is some strong evidence that womens only leagues hurts the womens game as well as being discriminatory. There is a frequently quoted chess study study, which I don’t have a link to, that followed female chess players doing a blind opponent test. When the women thought they were playing against a man, the trend was to play below their Elo rating. When they though they were playing another women, the trend was to play at, or slightly above above, their Elo rating. Psychologically most of the women seemed to be holding themselves back when they believed they were playing a male opponent, possibly because there was a subconscious belief that the womens game was inferior. This is of course not the case, as many women have been able to achieve Grand Master level or the world champion title in the non female bracket. Interesting enough, those that have done so rarely ever compete in womens only competitions. The artificial segregation may just reinforce that subconscious feeling of inferiority, and really has no place in e-sports.

      • Premium User Badge

        Harlander says:

        In eSports specifically, women-only ladders might help to entice those who might otherwise be put off by the Internetty “tits or GTFO” attitudes that are lamentably pervasive.

        Whether that is effective or necessary isn’t something I can speak with authority on, but I’d be willing to lay a small bet that it’s worse in esports than any analogous effect in chess.

        • Horg says:

          It probably is worse in e-sports, but it’s also arguably more of a moderation issue than anything else. Segregating leagues isn’t really tackling the root of the problem.

          • shadowmarth says:

            The original problem was fucking stupid. The eventual solution was doubly stupid. Having a women’s tournament and then a all-inclusive tournament is contradictory. There should be three (womens, mens, all inclusive (preferably going off rankings from the first two), two (womens and mens), or one all inclusive. Their solution is nonsense.

          • Horg says:

            No event would want to run 3 consecutive leagues for the same game.

        • HauntedQuiche says:

          The other thing to be very wary of with Gender Segregation in any sports is prize money and broadcasting priority. There is nearly always this really weird thing where the organisers forget to talk about the womens tournament, or the prize just seems to…. somehow be less big. Nobody has yet solved the mystery. *rolls eyes*

      • Dances to Podcasts says:

        “as many women have been able to achieve Grand Master level or the world champion title in the non female bracket.”

        There have been female world champions?

        • Clone42 says:

          No there haven’t. Said to be the best female chess player in history, Judit Polgár, achieved 8th place in the World Chess Championship Tournament, finishing 8th, in 2005. No other woman has come close.
          As of June 2014, Polgár was ranked 60th in the world FIDE ratings list with an Elo rating of 2685, the only woman on FIDE’s Top 100 Players list, and has been ranked as high as eighth (in 2005).
          Facts. People don’t like them.

          • joa says:

            The human brain is quite exceptional at filtering out facts it doesn’t like.

          • YeGoblynQueenne says:

            Sure, by all means, let’s see the facts about Judit Polgár:

            Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age.[5] “Geniuses are made, not born”, was László’s thesis. (…)

            Traditionally, chess had been a male-dominated activity, and women were often seen as weaker players, thus advancing the idea of a Women’s World Champion. However, from the beginning, László was against the idea that his daughters had to participate in female-only events. “Women are able to achieve results similar, in fields of intellectual activities, to that of men,” he wrote. “Chess is a form of intellectual activity, so this applies to chess. Accordingly, we reject any kind of discrimination in this respect.” This put the Polgárs in conflict with the Hungarian Chess Federation of the day, whose policy was for women to play in women-only tournaments. Polgár’s older sister, Susan, first fought the bureaucracy by playing in men’s tournaments and refusing to play in women’s tournaments. Susan Polgár, when she was a 15-year-old International Master, said in 1985 that it was due to this conflict that she had not been awarded the Grandmaster title despite having made the norm eleven times.

            (From wikipedia).

            Facts then: discrimination seems to be the only reason that there aren’t more female players at the top tiers of the sport.

          • Clone42 says:

            “Facts then: discrimination seems to be the only reason that there aren’t more female players at the top tiers of the sport.”
            Whatever it “seems” to be to you has nothing to do with fact. That’s an opinion. It’s true that there appears to have been discrimination, but we’ll wait for a female grand master chess champion to emerge before we declare that discrimination is the “only” reason, and we’ll certainly wait for a female grand master chess champion to emerge before we declare that there has actually ever been one…

          • YeGoblynQueenne says:

            Why? What would that prove? Not much- you wouldn’t learn much about why women
            haven’t done so well in chess either way.

            With the case of the Polgar sisters on the other hand there is a clear
            indication that if you give the right training to girls they can do just as well
            as boys in the same subjects and competing directly with boys. The Polgar’s
            experiment proves everything it set out to prove: that you can train a genious
            and it doesn’t matter what sex they are.

            In any case, that’s how I interpret the fact that there’s no women world
            champions in chess: as an example of discrimination against women. What about
            you? What do you think your facts go to show?

          • Clone42 says:

            I think my facts show the facts, and I didn’t attempt an interpretation of them like you did. As for other facts, testosterone causes males, including their brains, to be larger than females. After correcting for body height or body surface area, male brains are about 100 grams heavier than female brains regardless of race. Brain scans also indicate that the two hemispheres of the male brain are more disconnected, while female brains feature more cross-hemispheric connectivity. What bearing does this have on intelligence? Perhaps the greater connectivity grants females higher average intelligence, perhaps larger brain mass benefits the male, but you would have to completely ignore the facts to claim that there are no differences between the sexes. The genders have different strengths and weaknesses, that’s how evolution works: organisms adapt over time through selective pressures to better suit their environments and their roles. Women breast feed and men can’t. Pretending there are no differences between men and women, including their brains, is ignorant of the facts. It’s possible that these differences actually do result in the average male being more attracted to chess, or having a skill-set that suits chess, more than the average female. Unlike you I don’t attribute success in chess to “genius.” Grand master chess champions could be morons in many facets of life, but they’ve obsessively memorized the opening rules and strategies of chess very well and have a knack for thinking within the space of a chess board. Good for them. Just the facts ma’am.

  4. P-Dizzle says:

    This is one of the rare times when an article about female discrimination actually holds some weight.

  5. Ender7 says:

    I do not follow E-Sports at all, however there is a point about having a women play against women groups would help bring more women in. Having nothing but mixed groups when the field is vastly overwhelmingly male is a good way to scare off women players. I know if the situation was reversed and there was a game vastly overwhelmingly female players and I was a rare male player, I would probably avoid it honestly.

    • Rosveen says:

      I can speak only for myself, but as a woman I’d refuse to play in a women-only division. I play with men all the time, I have many gamer friends of both genders and it makes absolutely no difference to me if I’m competing with a man or a woman. I’d hate to have this variety taken away.

  6. C0ntnu1ty says:

    This entire thing just feels a bit depressing and confusing to me. I dislike the idea that we even *need* segregated gender tournaments of any form.

    At school and university I used to compete regularly in NRA Target Shooting competitions, all of which were gender neutral. And before you say it yes the shooting community does have a bit of this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJd842n0dhQ ). That said I dont think any of my female team mates experienced any form of gender discrimination, sexist behavior or intimidation. Whilst there were significantly less women competing (at a stab at it i’d say 1 in 10) there average scores were just as good if not better than male competitors.

    So if a bunch of toffs with guns can treat women with sufficient respect that they feel comfortable competing year after year why cant we?

    The whole Finnish train wreck aside the IeSF seems to have two primary goals with the way they treat female competitors:

    – Keep the trolls from upsetting them: Ugh I know but there are some daylight averse members of the gaming community that do and say pretty unpleasant things to women. The intention is good but cant we just eject these fools instead?
    – Separately promote women so they don’t get lost in the crowd: Yeah ok thats lovely and making it clear that there are girls who can hold there own is admirable but cant we do that by treating women like human beings and allowing them to win by actual skill? Putting them in a box creates a glass ceiling that reinforces the troll attitude that there “fake geeks”.

    Here’s a better idea: what about doubles divisions? Things like StarCraft can handle a 2V2 structure and if your going to do an exhibition event to show that women have nothing to worry about wouldn’t it be better to show them working with men against other mixed teams rather than having them in some kind of eye-candy class?

    • Grygus says:

      Actually what they’re trying to do is create a glass floor; the best women would rise to the top regardless, and they know that. What they didn’t want was for the sport to be 2,000 guys and 2 girls, making girls feel like they didn’t belong. The errors in their thinking were (1) in order for the sport to be 2,000 guys and 2 girls, it would have to feel unwelcome to begin with, and (2) there is really no reason to make the distinction in the first place; why count them, ever? Will we also get a breakdown by skin color, religion, and favorite Skittle flavor?

      • Potem says:

        The Finnish organizers have nothing to be sorry for, they were hosting a qualifier for a non mixed tournament., which they actually stated was regrettable. They made it not mixed to remain coherent, There was virtually no chance for a woman to be qualified among the select few, what would be the point of allowing women to compete when they simply can’t reap any benefits regardless of their position. I am against gender segregation in e sports, we can’t state for certain (contrary to what people seem to think) that men and women are on an absolute equal footing biologically un this field, but whatever the differences might be there is no sign of their prevalence in the grand scheme of things.
        I do however have a problem with the assumption that abstract “equality” of outcomes should be sought in esports, skills have to be trained, maintained, and polished, it requires a tough and persistent drive to compete, and we have no indication that behavioral differences are strictly environment based and socially cultivated.
        on the scale of the individual, a promising male player will have a much tougher time rising to the top compared to an equally skilled, equally driven female, this is the age of streaming and endorsements, where exposition serves to finance your progression. Women might encounter more extreme reactions on both sides of the spectrum, but there is already de facto affirmative action going on, there is no doubt that any woman who achieves results will gain much more visibility, much more support, which is essential.

        Incentives are already massive, anyone who follows an esports scene could tell you that.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          “we can’t state for certain (contrary to what people seem to think) that men and women are on an absolute equal footing biologically un this field”
          That’s not the way it works. We also can’t state, for certain, there men and women are on an absolute equal footing in “guess how many jelly beans in the jar” competitions.
          There is no evidence, or reason to think, that there is any difference it video game playing ability between the sexes. If someone comes up with some evidence at some point in the future, then that is the point at which this becomes a relevant debate. Until that time, this is all steaming horse shit.

          • joa says:

            Right, except that if men consistently did better in guess-how-many-jelly-beans competitions, and there were convincing reasons why being better at guess-how-many-jelly-beans competitions would be an evolutionary advantage for males and not so much for females, then it would be kind of crazy to think that men and women are in fact equal in guess-how-many-jelly-beans competitions.

          • Potem says:

            For the time being I don’t believe gender separation is a positive, as there is no evidence of a real, significant difference in terms of the base skill required. However, please don’t state we have no reason to even envisage it, assuming abstract equality between the sexes in anything non “physical” (which is nonsense, how is the brain not subjected to the same evolutionary process?) is a political position, not a scientific one.

            As for the actual appeal of competition to women when it comes to videogames, evidence keeps stacking up against abstract equality, even though women play more core games, some competitively, there is not even one statistical outlier out there to provide any basis for that assumption, even at intermediate levels they are almost absent in games like stracraft, league or Dota, even worse for fps.

          • YeGoblynQueenne says:

            how is the brain not subjected to the same evolutionary process?

            Hi. I don’t understand what is that “evolutionary process”. Can you please explain it to me? Thx.

    • Nate says:

      Thank you for bringing up shooting.

      While some shooting events are mixed sex, Olympic shooting events are segregated. This is in part because the top male competitors tend to outperform the top female competitors. (I’ve heard it said that women, on average, tend to outperform men in shooting, but that changes with high-level competition.)

      The effort to segregate sports is usually because of the sense that without segregation, women won’t have a place on the podium– which is the case with chess, where there has never been a female world champion. (There are other potential reasons for this than “male master sex!” so maybe we can head off all the irrelevant “not innate!” stuff. In particular, the number of participants is a good explanation when it comes to chess. People organizing events don’t care if female under-representation at the top tier is due to innate differences or not. And neither do most young women who either see or fail to see female role models in any particular field.)

      I’m unfamiliar with how this has been playing out with e-sports. How is participation? How is representation at the top tier?

      • YeGoblynQueenne says:

        there has never been a female world champion. (There are other potential reasons for this than “male master sex!”

        What are those reasons? I can’t think of any characteristic of chess that would
        make males better suited to it. Both sexes are equally well equipped for it,
        unless of course you take the dearth of female chess champions as proof to the
        opposite. But in that case you’ve just gone full circle: how do we know that
        women are not as good as men in chess? Just look at the world champions, they’re
        all men. And why are the chess world champions all men? Because men are better
        than women in chess.

        In fact, I think that’s what you’ve been doing there with all that talk of
        champions in shooting, chess and whatnot. You’re trying to explain the result of
        unequal opportunities as proof that opportunities should remain unequal.

  7. PsychoWedge says:

    You know, I can wrap my head around the intentions they had and understand the thought processes and reasonings with this whole thing. And sure, I see it very much completely different but still, I do understand. But what I just don’t get is the limitation of games to two. Seemingly arbitrarily chosen two. No matter how hard I twist my brain in 42 different directions simultaneously I remain baffled…

  8. Geebs says:

    Even if the original thinking behind the decision wasn’t stupid (it was), the decision to chose different games for different groups was head scratch-inducingly obtuse.

    As somebody who is against stupid things and in favour of not-stupid things a) the change is a good thing b) this was a much more sensible cause than the usual “pr guy gets punctuation wrong, internet goes nuts” nonsense.

    It is a problem that sports need to have a personality cult around each competitor and that the games can’t be anonymised during the tournament and revealed afterwards, though – although it should be feasible to blind the players but not the casters and crowds.

    I think the answer to this, as well as to so many other problems is: Lucha Libre masks.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      You’re thinking in the right direction, though I should point out that women are distinguished from men by many features besides just their face. What I’m really saying is: inflatable sumo wrestling suits.

  9. Lionmaruu says:

    oh boy that’s pretty retarded… why in the hell they would want to separate genders on a fucking video game tournament?

    well at least they seems to be thinking about it now and realizing how stupid it is.

  10. steviebops says:

    I thought RPS was for safe spaces for women?

    • tormos says:

      well in its original incarnation the tournament was locking women out of it entirely, thus hardly providing a safe space

  11. waltC says:

    Yea…suppose I am a man (which I “are”) and I want to attend one of these colleges…gee, I can’t. Just because I am a man.

    http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegerankings/tp/top_womens_colleges.htm

    Should that bother me? I can’t see how or why it should. So it’s a shame to see people knuckle under to the mob sentiment so quickly.

    Knee-jerk public reaction to events is rarely well considered. Suppose, for instance, that the company had conducted a poll asking the following question:

    * For a woman’s tournament, which of the following games would you prefer to compete in…

    … and the two aforementioned games were selected…by the majority of women respondents. Should they be summarily ignored? I can’t see how or why, as those responding to such a poll are likely the very women who will enter the tournament.

    For some very strange reason, some folks like to deny the reality that men and women are different sexes and are therefore *different* from each other in a wide variety of preferences and dislikes, general psychologies, and last but not least, of course, physical attributes. Previous generations have always known and appreciated–celebrated–those differences, and enjoyed the fact that men women have complementary roles to play–but not necessarily the same roles at all (ie, much as some men might wish otherwise, as a rule men can’t become pregnant and give birth, etc.) Today people have gotten sort of stupid, though, and would rather deny that such differences exist. Well, *some* people today feel that way. Most people, even today, know better. It’s very simple. “Different” does not mean “inferior.” It never has.

    • HauntedQuiche says:

      You do know that what people consider to be the ‘traits of men’ and the ‘traits of women’ have been massively inconsistent, right?

      Things which were considered to be outright a Thing That Men Do are now considered Womenfolk Exclusive? Or the other direction?

      • joa says:

        Can you actually think of a single example of this though?

        • Premium User Badge

          Litany says:

          Aside from the famous “pink used to be for boys and blue for girls” example which a lot of people are familiar with, my favourite one is that throughout most of Western history women have been considered to have much higher libidos than men . Another one is that crying used to be considered a super manly and virtuous thing to do.

          Video games designed for men prior to the 1800’s would have been pink and chaste. Master Chief would have wept all the way through Halo.

          • joa says:

            Has anyone ever asserted that pink is inherently girly and blue inherently manly? I think not. There is evidence however that girls prefer warmer colours and boys prefer colder colours, from infancy.

            Who cares if people used to think women had higher libidos? It’s clearly true the opposite is the case. People used to have all sorts of regressive beliefs in the 1800s because they were more interested in religious morality than they were about facts. Who cares if crying was considered a manly thing to do? That says nothing about who was more likely to cry, and I’d wager that even in the 1800s women were more prone to crying.

          • Phasma Felis says:

            Wow, Joa, look at those goalposts move.

        • Inverselaw says:

          Nursing is a big one. During the American Civil war, the north started using female nurses and it freaked the fuck out of everyone. Battlecry of Freedom has a fun part on it, and also the rise of women in health services in general (anti cholera leagues, hygiene leagues).

          A century later the idea of a male Nurse was downright silly, even today they are pretty rare.

          • joa says:

            Which again has fuck all to do with the biological nature of manhood and womanhood and is instead about people’s perceptions about masculinity and femininity in different careers.

          • tormos says:

            gee it’s almost like you have an ideology which is going to force you to assert that any example we give doesn’t refute your point.

        • Premium User Badge

          Litany says:

          Sorry Joa I’m not sure I understand your point. You asked specifically for a “single example” of inconsistencies in “what people consider to be” the traits of men and women. Me and Inverselaw have both provided examples of this.

          Is your argument actually that there are evolutionary, genetic reasons why women and men should not compete against one another in the arena of e-sports? Because I’d be interested to see the evidence you’d use to reach that conclusion!

          • tormos says:

            It’ll be the same evidence joa and his pack of equally tedious friends tend to use: asserting their viewpoint over and over (while moving the goalposts as necessary) until everyone else leaves and then declaring victory.

    • Premium User Badge

      Banyan says:

      Your starting theoretical is flawed, as there was no way for female Hearthstone players to participate.

      The actual equivalent would be if you wanted to go to college and no colleges anywhere accepted men. In that case, I imagine that many people would be bothered. If someone said that your access to 48 of 4599 colleges or universities in the US was limited because you were a man, there is, as you say, very little cause to get upset.

      • PsychoWedge says:

        Also, there still are a couple of colleges for the grizzly chined menfolk only in the US (at least accoring to google xD), so he didn’t even bother to mention that in his argument.

  12. Gryel says:

    To add Finnish Assembly organizers were the ones fighting against the seperation. They where the pushing force for the change also. Markus Koskivirta who is running Finlands qualifiers wrote that “the Finnish eSports Federation is currently lobbying the equal rights of male and female players in the IeSF tournament” Also Finnish Assemblys organizers has always been against gender segregation.

  13. rikvanoostende says:

    Gender segregation in general sports based on physical strenght and whatnot is a dumb idea anyway. ‘White men can’t jump’, but do they have a seperate basketball league? Skinny people run faster than fat people, should we split marathon runners up in weight classes?

    Can’t we just have Olypics the old fashioned way, where it’s decided who’s the best one at a certain game, no matter the gender/weight/whatever?

    /angry rant

    • Zelos says:

      It’s already a forgone conclusion that women would not be able to compete in the vast majority of events at all then, with a smaller subset where men are not able to compete.

      That essentially makes every sport a single-sex event. Is that what you want?

    • Sleepy Will says:

      I for one would love a “heavyweight” marathon category, I’m big, I weigh 18 stones but have less than 6% body fat. I would do extremely well in such a category!

      • Volcanu says:

        Are you a bodybuilder? That’s an insanely low bodyfat percentage.

        (I’m not calling you a liar btw- just the only people I know who have bodyfat under 6% are bodybuilders during competition time).

        • Sleepy Will says:

          Not a bodybuilder, no, I am a professional sportsman however and the reason my bodyfat is so low (and being monitored) is because I am struggling with a genetic disease for the last four years!

  14. Grauth says:

    It’s good that the women that want to play can play.
    A question to anyone that is a woman: would you prefer a mixed gender Hearthstone tournament, or a gender separated tournament?

  15. Zelos says:

    The interesting part of this is that while it *shouldn’t* be the case, it has been repeatedly shown that women do not compete on the same level as men in these games.

    Whether that’s because there simply aren’t enough playing or because they’re actually worse is hard to tell. I do wonder though if a women’s league would be something of a solution though, because it could help get more women into being really competitive.