|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27306 Posts
On July 06 2026 06:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:GH, you clearly wanted me to contribute to the conversation: On July 04 2026 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2026 20:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2026 19:59 Artesimo wrote:On July 04 2026 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I want to thank you for bringing this issue in the competitive CS scene to my attention. Answer my questions coward or go into hiding. While I'm not sure why he went full-asshole against WombaT in this specific conversation, GH doesn't seem to be interested in having a good-faith conversation right now on this legitimately important topic. I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely answers your statement with a faux-shocked "how dare you tell a person of color to go into hiding; this is exactly what I mean about you all making this a terrible place for us". That's a shame. You were one of those I was holding out hope for as not pretending you don't know that/why "female" is a problematic way to refer to women's leagues in order to ignore the systemic critique to focus on the personal. On July 05 2026 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 03:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Why is female problematic? That is a genuine question, because I don't get it. Does the term "female identifying" in an attempt to include trans women genuinely not immediately stand out to you as problematic for obvious reasons? No one (besides DPB who I'm hoping will elaborate)? On July 05 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:22 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:08 Artesimo wrote:[quote] I am happy to throw my full weight behind this cause after you convinced me that you have done anything of meaning in regards to my earlier repeated request. + Show Spoiler +Or is that too much work for the cause you champion?
Like cmon dude, even the most pathetic loser would have come up with a simple lie by now.. . As a rational adult your support shouldn't be conditioned on me meeting your demands to prove my credentials as a genderqueer revolutionary socialist. Well you already established that I am woefully ignorant and uneducated on the issue, so I am looking for a figurehead to put my trust in. I just need something that shows me you are deserving of this trust. + Show Spoiler +Else I might support something that goes completely against of what my intention was, and this is such a difficult to understand issue for someone as ignorant as me, that there simply is no other way than to blindly follow not just any forum shizo, but the right forum shizo. Maybe try DPB or DanHH since they agreed and aren't conditioning their support respectively? And I did: On July 05 2026 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2026 06:55 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 06:47 WombaT wrote:On July 05 2026 06:39 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I think it is about the incel-style somewhat dehumanizing usage of "females" as a noun to describe women and girls. But i agree that i don't think this extends to female as an adjective. That after pages one has to ‘think’ what GH’s point is actually based on probably speaks poorly on him as a communicator. I would agree 100% that the incel sphere use ‘female’ in a generally dehumanising manner. Equally I don’t think it invalidates its use as a descriptor at all, there’s just some unfortunate associations. I thought the incel one was "femoid" or something like that. If they indeed just use "Female" now then my stance on that would be firmly "we can't let these clowns dictate out language". Its a normal word, already in everyday use, and overall this would just be the alt right dogwhistle bullshit all over again. They use an either ridiculous or normal term for their heinous shit, the normies catch up on it with a bit of a delay, have overreaction to it, alt right moves on, picks another term and points fingers at the rest making a fuzz over a word that is now harmless again. You can't win that by letting them dictate language, you need actions that show "this is not what we mean when saying female", not a different word. In general that is what seems to always be missing in the first place, actions that speak louder than the big nono words. I'm just catching up on the discussion now - I've been away for most of the day - and I'd like to share my understanding of the issue. I think everyone has brought up different ways where the word "female" (or similar words) may or may not be perceived as microaggressions... or at least awkward. One more related example: changing an adjective to a noun - like "the females" or "the gays" or "the Blacks" - is also no longer used by most people because it defines someone as that (and only that) trait. If you say "gay people" or "the Black community" or "women" (i.e., "female people"), then you're still humanizing those individuals and just using the adjective for additional context. Some of this is semantics and I'm sure a lot of this doesn't translate well or matter to everyone, but marginalized communities have historically been reduced to a single aspect of their identity, and an argument could be made that calling them the noun version of that trait perpetuates that prejudice. Now, that's only the first part of this two-part thought process: changing the adjective to a noun is one thing, but what's wrong with the adjective itself? Can't we use "female" as an appropriate and accurate adjective without it being seen as offensive? My answer is: usually yes, but there are some unique situations where the wording is adjacent enough to the first part that it's been poisoned even as an adjective. We say our pets are male or female, and that's fine because not everyone uses a collective term that indicates "male dogs" or "female cats" (and in fact, we even humanize them by saying they're a good boy or a good girl), and we can use "assigned male or female at birth" when talking about a person's sexual identity. However, even with good intentions, saying "Female League" or "Female Team" or "Female Sport Association" doesn't quite work the same way. "The men's team" is said almost universally, yet there are still conversations about whether we need to match that wording with "The women's team" - which I think is still said most of the time, thankfully - or whether we can also say "The female team". The men's team refers to "a team of men". The women's team refers to "a team of women". And even though "female" is used as an adjective in "the female team", it is reasonably adjacent to "a team of females", which is a problematic use of a noun as per part one. It's essentially been tainted by association. We also have Women's Tennis Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Women's Soccer League, Professional Women's Hockey League, and more. They use "Women", not "Female", and if that's their preferred name, then I'm going to respect it and use it, even if I didn't think it was a big deal. Now with all this being said, GH first brought up this issue when he criticized you for writing "I can tell you what I have done, I build up and coached some female cs teams." But your sentence right before that one is "Lets purity check on this, what have you done to further say women in gaming?" So it's not like you were refusing to use the ideal term of "women", and you were clearly making a good-faith effort to contribute over the past few pages. This was a missed opportunity for an interesting academic conversation about sociological nuance, and I think it was mostly because GH started off by demonizing everyone, hyper-focusing on a single word instead of the overall posts, and not elaborating on his concern when he was prompted to do so. https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5834#116662 What feedback do you have for my long post? What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with, and what parts am I missing? It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine. The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. True but I’m talking about the few of that asked the women in our lives. The reality is this is just stupid shit disturbing. Female can mean biological sex, or gender the same as the word women can. That GH made up that female only means biological and women only means gender is just BS he is using to try to make himself superior. Definitions of women OED English–An adult female human being. The counterpart of man MW an adult female person Cambridge an adult female human being: And hilariously when I swapped the definition to female this was there. She was voted the best female vocalist. She was the school's first trans female athlete. I really really hope he’s not trying to “educate” trans women on the troublesome usage of the word female. I really hope no one is gullible enough to go along with this.
This doesn’t make sense to me because of the women = adult part.
If one objects to the use of the word female for, some reason, what does that mean for children or young teens who are trans and identity as female?
Such folks aren’t women, it doesn’t accurately describe them. Whereas the female descriptor would also include them.
It’s genuinely not a controversy I’ve encountered before, and I’m usually on top of even the more niche ones!
Ironically when doing a modicum of digging, some of the complaints I did find were basically the opposite of inclusivity. I saw more complaining (absolutely erroneously imo) that using the female designator rather than women was somehow an accommodation to trans people who, most such folks didn’t want competing.
|
On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:GH, you clearly wanted me to contribute to the conversation: On July 04 2026 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2026 20:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2026 19:59 Artesimo wrote:On July 04 2026 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I want to thank you for bringing this issue in the competitive CS scene to my attention. Answer my questions coward or go into hiding. While I'm not sure why he went full-asshole against WombaT in this specific conversation, GH doesn't seem to be interested in having a good-faith conversation right now on this legitimately important topic. I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely answers your statement with a faux-shocked "how dare you tell a person of color to go into hiding; this is exactly what I mean about you all making this a terrible place for us". That's a shame. You were one of those I was holding out hope for as not pretending you don't know that/why "female" is a problematic way to refer to women's leagues in order to ignore the systemic critique to focus on the personal. On July 05 2026 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 03:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Why is female problematic? That is a genuine question, because I don't get it. Does the term "female identifying" in an attempt to include trans women genuinely not immediately stand out to you as problematic for obvious reasons? No one (besides DPB who I'm hoping will elaborate)? On July 05 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:22 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:08 Artesimo wrote:[quote] I am happy to throw my full weight behind this cause after you convinced me that you have done anything of meaning in regards to my earlier repeated request. + Show Spoiler +Or is that too much work for the cause you champion?
Like cmon dude, even the most pathetic loser would have come up with a simple lie by now.. . As a rational adult your support shouldn't be conditioned on me meeting your demands to prove my credentials as a genderqueer revolutionary socialist. Well you already established that I am woefully ignorant and uneducated on the issue, so I am looking for a figurehead to put my trust in. I just need something that shows me you are deserving of this trust. + Show Spoiler +Else I might support something that goes completely against of what my intention was, and this is such a difficult to understand issue for someone as ignorant as me, that there simply is no other way than to blindly follow not just any forum shizo, but the right forum shizo. Maybe try DPB or DanHH since they agreed and aren't conditioning their support respectively? And I did: On July 05 2026 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2026 06:55 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 06:47 WombaT wrote:On July 05 2026 06:39 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I think it is about the incel-style somewhat dehumanizing usage of "females" as a noun to describe women and girls. But i agree that i don't think this extends to female as an adjective. That after pages one has to ‘think’ what GH’s point is actually based on probably speaks poorly on him as a communicator. I would agree 100% that the incel sphere use ‘female’ in a generally dehumanising manner. Equally I don’t think it invalidates its use as a descriptor at all, there’s just some unfortunate associations. I thought the incel one was "femoid" or something like that. If they indeed just use "Female" now then my stance on that would be firmly "we can't let these clowns dictate out language". Its a normal word, already in everyday use, and overall this would just be the alt right dogwhistle bullshit all over again. They use an either ridiculous or normal term for their heinous shit, the normies catch up on it with a bit of a delay, have overreaction to it, alt right moves on, picks another term and points fingers at the rest making a fuzz over a word that is now harmless again. You can't win that by letting them dictate language, you need actions that show "this is not what we mean when saying female", not a different word. In general that is what seems to always be missing in the first place, actions that speak louder than the big nono words. I'm just catching up on the discussion now - I've been away for most of the day - and I'd like to share my understanding of the issue. I think everyone has brought up different ways where the word "female" (or similar words) may or may not be perceived as microaggressions... or at least awkward. One more related example: changing an adjective to a noun - like "the females" or "the gays" or "the Blacks" - is also no longer used by most people because it defines someone as that (and only that) trait. If you say "gay people" or "the Black community" or "women" (i.e., "female people"), then you're still humanizing those individuals and just using the adjective for additional context. Some of this is semantics and I'm sure a lot of this doesn't translate well or matter to everyone, but marginalized communities have historically been reduced to a single aspect of their identity, and an argument could be made that calling them the noun version of that trait perpetuates that prejudice. Now, that's only the first part of this two-part thought process: changing the adjective to a noun is one thing, but what's wrong with the adjective itself? Can't we use "female" as an appropriate and accurate adjective without it being seen as offensive? My answer is: usually yes, but there are some unique situations where the wording is adjacent enough to the first part that it's been poisoned even as an adjective. We say our pets are male or female, and that's fine because not everyone uses a collective term that indicates "male dogs" or "female cats" (and in fact, we even humanize them by saying they're a good boy or a good girl), and we can use "assigned male or female at birth" when talking about a person's sexual identity. However, even with good intentions, saying "Female League" or "Female Team" or "Female Sport Association" doesn't quite work the same way. "The men's team" is said almost universally, yet there are still conversations about whether we need to match that wording with "The women's team" - which I think is still said most of the time, thankfully - or whether we can also say "The female team". The men's team refers to "a team of men". The women's team refers to "a team of women". And even though "female" is used as an adjective in "the female team", it is reasonably adjacent to "a team of females", which is a problematic use of a noun as per part one. It's essentially been tainted by association. We also have Women's Tennis Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Women's Soccer League, Professional Women's Hockey League, and more. They use "Women", not "Female", and if that's their preferred name, then I'm going to respect it and use it, even if I didn't think it was a big deal. Now with all this being said, GH first brought up this issue when he criticized you for writing "I can tell you what I have done, I build up and coached some female cs teams." But your sentence right before that one is "Lets purity check on this, what have you done to further say women in gaming?" So it's not like you were refusing to use the ideal term of "women", and you were clearly making a good-faith effort to contribute over the past few pages. This was a missed opportunity for an interesting academic conversation about sociological nuance, and I think it was mostly because GH started off by demonizing everyone, hyper-focusing on a single word instead of the overall posts, and not elaborating on his concern when he was prompted to do so. https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5834#116662 What feedback do you have for my long post? What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with, and what parts am I missing? It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine. The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit.
"just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu.
They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that.
|
At least we got LibHorizons back for 2026
|
Northern Ireland27306 Posts
On July 06 2026 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:GH, you clearly wanted me to contribute to the conversation: On July 04 2026 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2026 20:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2026 19:59 Artesimo wrote:
[quote]
Answer my questions coward or go into hiding. While I'm not sure why he went full-asshole against WombaT in this specific conversation, GH doesn't seem to be interested in having a good-faith conversation right now on this legitimately important topic. I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely answers your statement with a faux-shocked "how dare you tell a person of color to go into hiding; this is exactly what I mean about you all making this a terrible place for us". That's a shame. You were one of those I was holding out hope for as not pretending you don't know that/why "female" is a problematic way to refer to women's leagues in order to ignore the systemic critique to focus on the personal. On July 05 2026 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 03:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Why is female problematic? That is a genuine question, because I don't get it. Does the term "female identifying" in an attempt to include trans women genuinely not immediately stand out to you as problematic for obvious reasons? No one (besides DPB who I'm hoping will elaborate)? On July 05 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:22 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As a rational adult your support shouldn't be conditioned on me meeting your demands to prove my credentials as a genderqueer revolutionary socialist. Well you already established that I am woefully ignorant and uneducated on the issue, so I am looking for a figurehead to put my trust in. I just need something that shows me you are deserving of this trust. + Show Spoiler +Else I might support something that goes completely against of what my intention was, and this is such a difficult to understand issue for someone as ignorant as me, that there simply is no other way than to blindly follow not just any forum shizo, but the right forum shizo. Maybe try DPB or DanHH since they agreed and aren't conditioning their support respectively? And I did: On July 05 2026 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2026 06:55 Artesimo wrote:On July 05 2026 06:47 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
That after pages one has to ‘think’ what GH’s point is actually based on probably speaks poorly on him as a communicator.
I would agree 100% that the incel sphere use ‘female’ in a generally dehumanising manner. Equally I don’t think it invalidates its use as a descriptor at all, there’s just some unfortunate associations. I thought the incel one was "femoid" or something like that. If they indeed just use "Female" now then my stance on that would be firmly "we can't let these clowns dictate out language". Its a normal word, already in everyday use, and overall this would just be the alt right dogwhistle bullshit all over again. They use an either ridiculous or normal term for their heinous shit, the normies catch up on it with a bit of a delay, have overreaction to it, alt right moves on, picks another term and points fingers at the rest making a fuzz over a word that is now harmless again. You can't win that by letting them dictate language, you need actions that show "this is not what we mean when saying female", not a different word. In general that is what seems to always be missing in the first place, actions that speak louder than the big nono words. I'm just catching up on the discussion now - I've been away for most of the day - and I'd like to share my understanding of the issue. I think everyone has brought up different ways where the word "female" (or similar words) may or may not be perceived as microaggressions... or at least awkward. One more related example: changing an adjective to a noun - like "the females" or "the gays" or "the Blacks" - is also no longer used by most people because it defines someone as that (and only that) trait. If you say "gay people" or "the Black community" or "women" (i.e., "female people"), then you're still humanizing those individuals and just using the adjective for additional context. Some of this is semantics and I'm sure a lot of this doesn't translate well or matter to everyone, but marginalized communities have historically been reduced to a single aspect of their identity, and an argument could be made that calling them the noun version of that trait perpetuates that prejudice. Now, that's only the first part of this two-part thought process: changing the adjective to a noun is one thing, but what's wrong with the adjective itself? Can't we use "female" as an appropriate and accurate adjective without it being seen as offensive? My answer is: usually yes, but there are some unique situations where the wording is adjacent enough to the first part that it's been poisoned even as an adjective. We say our pets are male or female, and that's fine because not everyone uses a collective term that indicates "male dogs" or "female cats" (and in fact, we even humanize them by saying they're a good boy or a good girl), and we can use "assigned male or female at birth" when talking about a person's sexual identity. However, even with good intentions, saying "Female League" or "Female Team" or "Female Sport Association" doesn't quite work the same way. "The men's team" is said almost universally, yet there are still conversations about whether we need to match that wording with "The women's team" - which I think is still said most of the time, thankfully - or whether we can also say "The female team". The men's team refers to "a team of men". The women's team refers to "a team of women". And even though "female" is used as an adjective in "the female team", it is reasonably adjacent to "a team of females", which is a problematic use of a noun as per part one. It's essentially been tainted by association. We also have Women's Tennis Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Women's Soccer League, Professional Women's Hockey League, and more. They use "Women", not "Female", and if that's their preferred name, then I'm going to respect it and use it, even if I didn't think it was a big deal. Now with all this being said, GH first brought up this issue when he criticized you for writing "I can tell you what I have done, I build up and coached some female cs teams." But your sentence right before that one is "Lets purity check on this, what have you done to further say women in gaming?" So it's not like you were refusing to use the ideal term of "women", and you were clearly making a good-faith effort to contribute over the past few pages. This was a missed opportunity for an interesting academic conversation about sociological nuance, and I think it was mostly because GH started off by demonizing everyone, hyper-focusing on a single word instead of the overall posts, and not elaborating on his concern when he was prompted to do so. https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5834#116662 What feedback do you have for my long post? What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with, and what parts am I missing? It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine. The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit. "just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu. They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that.
How many posters here didn’t come here initially for competitive StarCraft?
TL’s expanded into various eSports, but it’s a different generation, they ain’t coming here. Minibat will support TL in Rocket League for example, but he’s not on the forum
I’d imagine some Discords exist that have less of a huge gender disparity than this forum, although I’m not a big Discord user.
I’m inclined to think based on my personal experiences that there just aren’t a huge amount of hardcore women StarCraft players/fans proportionally.
How does one directly act on this? What are the barriers there?
|
On July 06 2026 05:38 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 05:18 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 04:34 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 03:59 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm not proud of my contribution to this saga or where it ended up. I (as seemingly all of us did) took the original statement (regarding paraphrased"you all don't even realize how toxic you all make these spaces" personally) and responded defensively. I don't know what the correct response is/was, but I don't think it's the level of shitting on GH we've seen.
I think it's trivial for us to collectively agree that the (women's league) should be named in accordance to the people who would be included in it. I think it stands as reasonable criticism for our part of gamer spaces and inclusivity, and while I might disagree with GH on its severity or value as evidence that we're all unaware of how toxic we make an environment, I don't think where this has ended up looks good for any of us. I'd rather we have fewer shitty and mean voices, and as much as we all enjoy a good Kwark snipe now and then I don't wish for that as the general tenor of any conversation. Nah, it absolutely is. When you see someone making a genuine effort, and you have a problem with what they are doing, you don't attack them. You go like "hey nice job, but you could improve here...". You definitely don't cherry pick some minute detail and attack them over it as if what they did was irrelevant or even counterproductive. Because again, I have encountered this type of person while trying to make things actively better for my players. They NEVER made anything better, they only ever made my job harder, and rarely have they ever contributed anything themselves apart from their constant nitpicking. At least for me that was and still is where all my outrage towards him comes from. I don't expect a "well done" or pat on the back, but I expect useless little shits like him to either zip it or contribute in a way that doesn't actively hurt what they pretend their cause is. Instead the clown walks around and acts all high and mighty while still having shown 0 contribution to the issue himself, made no case for his own criticism (he basically just piggy backed on the sensible ideas that others have suggested as his intentions)... shall I continue? He doesn't contribute to the issue he claims to be of importance, he doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, all he does is at best provide nothing, and at worst hurt things even more. Did my behaviour reflect badly on myself here? Probably yeah, when it comes to showing self control. I shouldn't have engaged with him in the first place. But I'll just point towards the fact that all my anger comes from the fact that I have made an effort, however flawed it may have been, but the intention was definitely there and call it overall balanced out at that point. I take the hit on self control in exchange for "fought the enemy of the cause". Not to mention that I did not find the reactions much defensive at all. It was less "how dare you attack my honour" and more just utter confusion at what the hell he is even on about. I gave a rough idea of how a defensive action from me would have looked like. If all your criticism boils down to "overall good, but not perfect" you deserve to be driven out of town with thorny sticks. Especially when presenting it in the way he did, which again, at best does nothing and at worst drives people away from the cause. At best he is an incompetent enemy, at worst just an enemy. Have you tried not being a cis dude and a piece of shit sexist? Well in all fairness, being a women has never been more accessible in my lifetime, so maybe this really is on me. I could just become one, join the tl female/womens team, and sort this all out by just demanding whatever I feel like is the best solution. Unfortunately I am too washed for competition these days... man it really does always come down to "not good enough"... 
I absolutely get this and am similarly uncomfortable answering the question "what should we do for/about womens' spaces" when most of us here aren't women. I'm glad we had a number of people responding with "I don't know, so I asked -woman- and here's what they said.". It isn't a problem we should solve, it's a problem we should help the impacted solve.
The cause of the personal offense (on my part and others) wasn't about 'female leagues', though, it was the blanket statement before that indicating we all had no idea what a toxic environment we create for everyone non-white-male. Obviously I think that statement itself was problematic for the strength and absoluteness of the wording, but it's impossible for me to say it was wrong to say unless I know what GH's goals were in saying it.
It could have been a chess move prompting an action and revealing 'our mistake' after our reaction (I don't think this happened and isn't true in hindsight?)
It could have been GH just frustrated as fuck and communicating poorly
It could have been GH just being a troll and communicating with malice
It could have been some reason I can't imagine.
I can't speak to GH's goals or motivations, all I can offer is that it was nearly impossible for me to not react defensively and take it personally. The 'female league' stuff is fair enough criticism, but I think the core of the issue is what GH is saying now, that we've passively chased multiple trans people off of this site, and maybe that's a bad thing we could look at.
Even if I think GH didn't and doesn't have a right to imply I'm not an ally and have only ever been an ally to white power, I still don't have to think his criticism comes from nowhere and is just vindictive.
(This whole post is preachier than I'd like. You're obviously on top of your life and a better ally than I've been to marginalised groups. Not trying to tell you how to live, you already know that. Just offering my perspective and why I'm trying to shift it.)
|
On July 06 2026 07:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:GH, you clearly wanted me to contribute to the conversation: On July 04 2026 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2026 20:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
While I'm not sure why he went full-asshole against WombaT in this specific conversation, GH doesn't seem to be interested in having a good-faith conversation right now on this legitimately important topic. I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely answers your statement with a faux-shocked "how dare you tell a person of color to go into hiding; this is exactly what I mean about you all making this a terrible place for us". That's a shame. You were one of those I was holding out hope for as not pretending you don't know that/why "female" is a problematic way to refer to women's leagues in order to ignore the systemic critique to focus on the personal. On July 05 2026 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 03:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Why is female problematic? That is a genuine question, because I don't get it. Does the term "female identifying" in an attempt to include trans women genuinely not immediately stand out to you as problematic for obvious reasons? No one (besides DPB who I'm hoping will elaborate)? On July 05 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2026 05:22 Artesimo wrote:[quote] Well you already established that I am woefully ignorant and uneducated on the issue, so I am looking for a figurehead to put my trust in. I just need something that shows me you are deserving of this trust. + Show Spoiler +Else I might support something that goes completely against of what my intention was, and this is such a difficult to understand issue for someone as ignorant as me, that there simply is no other way than to blindly follow not just any forum shizo, but the right forum shizo. Maybe try DPB or DanHH since they agreed and aren't conditioning their support respectively? And I did: On July 05 2026 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2026 06:55 Artesimo wrote:
[quote]
I thought the incel one was "femoid" or something like that. If they indeed just use "Female" now then my stance on that would be firmly "we can't let these clowns dictate out language". Its a normal word, already in everyday use, and overall this would just be the alt right dogwhistle bullshit all over again. They use an either ridiculous or normal term for their heinous shit, the normies catch up on it with a bit of a delay, have overreaction to it, alt right moves on, picks another term and points fingers at the rest making a fuzz over a word that is now harmless again. You can't win that by letting them dictate language, you need actions that show "this is not what we mean when saying female", not a different word. In general that is what seems to always be missing in the first place, actions that speak louder than the big nono words. I'm just catching up on the discussion now - I've been away for most of the day - and I'd like to share my understanding of the issue. I think everyone has brought up different ways where the word "female" (or similar words) may or may not be perceived as microaggressions... or at least awkward. One more related example: changing an adjective to a noun - like "the females" or "the gays" or "the Blacks" - is also no longer used by most people because it defines someone as that (and only that) trait. If you say "gay people" or "the Black community" or "women" (i.e., "female people"), then you're still humanizing those individuals and just using the adjective for additional context. Some of this is semantics and I'm sure a lot of this doesn't translate well or matter to everyone, but marginalized communities have historically been reduced to a single aspect of their identity, and an argument could be made that calling them the noun version of that trait perpetuates that prejudice. Now, that's only the first part of this two-part thought process: changing the adjective to a noun is one thing, but what's wrong with the adjective itself? Can't we use "female" as an appropriate and accurate adjective without it being seen as offensive? My answer is: usually yes, but there are some unique situations where the wording is adjacent enough to the first part that it's been poisoned even as an adjective. We say our pets are male or female, and that's fine because not everyone uses a collective term that indicates "male dogs" or "female cats" (and in fact, we even humanize them by saying they're a good boy or a good girl), and we can use "assigned male or female at birth" when talking about a person's sexual identity. However, even with good intentions, saying "Female League" or "Female Team" or "Female Sport Association" doesn't quite work the same way. "The men's team" is said almost universally, yet there are still conversations about whether we need to match that wording with "The women's team" - which I think is still said most of the time, thankfully - or whether we can also say "The female team". The men's team refers to "a team of men". The women's team refers to "a team of women". And even though "female" is used as an adjective in "the female team", it is reasonably adjacent to "a team of females", which is a problematic use of a noun as per part one. It's essentially been tainted by association. We also have Women's Tennis Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Women's Soccer League, Professional Women's Hockey League, and more. They use "Women", not "Female", and if that's their preferred name, then I'm going to respect it and use it, even if I didn't think it was a big deal. Now with all this being said, GH first brought up this issue when he criticized you for writing "I can tell you what I have done, I build up and coached some female cs teams." But your sentence right before that one is "Lets purity check on this, what have you done to further say women in gaming?" So it's not like you were refusing to use the ideal term of "women", and you were clearly making a good-faith effort to contribute over the past few pages. This was a missed opportunity for an interesting academic conversation about sociological nuance, and I think it was mostly because GH started off by demonizing everyone, hyper-focusing on a single word instead of the overall posts, and not elaborating on his concern when he was prompted to do so. https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5834#116662 What feedback do you have for my long post? What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with, and what parts am I missing? It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine. The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit. "just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu. They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that. How many posters here didn’t come here initially for competitive StarCraft? + Show Spoiler +TL’s expanded into various eSports, but it’s a different generation, they ain’t coming here. Minibat will support TL in Rocket League for example, but he’s not on the forum
I’d imagine some Discords exist that have less of a huge gender disparity than this forum, although I’m not a big Discord user.
I’m inclined to think based on my personal experiences that there just aren’t a huge amount of hardcore women StarCraft players/fans proportionally. How does one directly act on this? What are the barriers there? Do UMS maps count as "competitive SC"? That's how I initially ended up here
I mean I've been pretty clear about us starting with doing the simple task of using our community's influence on Liquipedia to move away from "Female Tournament" https://liquipedia.net/chess/Female_Tournaments nomenclature to "Women's (& girls where applicable) Tournaments"  Category:Women%27s Tournaments. Move away from language like "Female Only Tournaments are tournaments that only permit entry to female and/or female-identifying players." to something like "Women's tournaments are tournaments that permit entry exclusively to women and girls, welcoming both cisgender and transgender participants."
|
Northern Ireland27306 Posts
Last I checked Liquipedia were crying out for more contributors so go for it
|
You are only going to accomplish upsetting a different group of people who will explain to you that a trans woman is just as female and a cis woman.
No way this even makes a top 20 list of why sc or video games are not more inclusive.
|
On July 06 2026 08:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 07:04 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine. The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit. "just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu. They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that. How many posters here didn’t come here initially for competitive StarCraft? + Show Spoiler +TL’s expanded into various eSports, but it’s a different generation, they ain’t coming here. Minibat will support TL in Rocket League for example, but he’s not on the forum
I’d imagine some Discords exist that have less of a huge gender disparity than this forum, although I’m not a big Discord user.
I’m inclined to think based on my personal experiences that there just aren’t a huge amount of hardcore women StarCraft players/fans proportionally. How does one directly act on this? What are the barriers there? Do UMS maps count as "competitive SC"? That's how I initially ended up here I mean I've been pretty clear about us starting with doing the simple task of using our community's influence on Liquipedia to move away from "Female Tournament" https://liquipedia.net/chess/Female_Tournaments nomenclature to "Women's (& girls where applicable) Tournaments" Category:Women%27s Tournaments. Move away from language like "Female Only Tournaments are tournaments that only permit entry to female and/or female-identifying players." to something like "Women's tournaments are tournaments that permit entry exclusively to women and girls, welcoming both cisgender and transgender participants." Last I checked Liquipedia were crying out for more contributors so go for it
I bet someone here has some technical skills/knowledge I don't that would make it a lot easier to find and change the undoubtedly very many places this could be improved on Liquipedia? For those that were asking, that's another type of thing an ally could do. Use their somewhat unique skillsets/knowledge to assist in a task like this.
|
GH unwilling to actually make even the slightest effort to do anything well talking down to others who are doing things, must be a day of the week that ends in y.
|
Northern Ireland27306 Posts
On July 06 2026 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 08:02 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 07:04 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 06 2026 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's not terrible relatively. It's a reasonable interpretation of the nouning issue. Fleet's right about mistakenly taking it personally and reacting defensively. To be fair, it is the only reason we're having the opportunity to address this (overall minor but symbolic) issue with Liquipedia (an overlapping community with us) calling tournaments for women and girls "female tournaments" that I didn't even personally realize was happening. I guess I'd say you're also overintellecualizing to avoid the personal responsibility we all share for there functionally not being women here comfortable to opine.
The word, responses, and general tenor was just emblematic of the issues I'm trying to bring attention to. It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting. I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there. Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit. "just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu. They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that. How many posters here didn’t come here initially for competitive StarCraft? + Show Spoiler +TL’s expanded into various eSports, but it’s a different generation, they ain’t coming here. Minibat will support TL in Rocket League for example, but he’s not on the forum
I’d imagine some Discords exist that have less of a huge gender disparity than this forum, although I’m not a big Discord user.
I’m inclined to think based on my personal experiences that there just aren’t a huge amount of hardcore women StarCraft players/fans proportionally. How does one directly act on this? What are the barriers there? Do UMS maps count as "competitive SC"? That's how I initially ended up here I mean I've been pretty clear about us starting with doing the simple task of using our community's influence on Liquipedia to move away from "Female Tournament" https://liquipedia.net/chess/Female_Tournaments nomenclature to "Women's (& girls where applicable) Tournaments" Category:Women%27s Tournaments. Move away from language like "Female Only Tournaments are tournaments that only permit entry to female and/or female-identifying players." to something like "Women's tournaments are tournaments that permit entry exclusively to women and girls, welcoming both cisgender and transgender participants." Last I checked Liquipedia were crying out for more contributors so go for it I bet someone here has some technical skills/knowledge I don't that would make it a lot easier to find and change the undoubtedly very many places this could be improved on Liquipedia? For those that were asking, that's another type of thing an ally could do. Use their somewhat unique skillsets/knowledge to assist in a task like this.
Nah, you do it. It takes very little technical skills and knowledge to edit a bit of text on Liquipedia.
I mean it’s your sacred cause not mine, why don’t you actually do something for once instead of lecturing?
|
Northern Ireland27306 Posts
On July 06 2026 07:05 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 05:38 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 05:18 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 04:34 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 03:59 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm not proud of my contribution to this saga or where it ended up. I (as seemingly all of us did) took the original statement (regarding paraphrased"you all don't even realize how toxic you all make these spaces" personally) and responded defensively. I don't know what the correct response is/was, but I don't think it's the level of shitting on GH we've seen.
I think it's trivial for us to collectively agree that the (women's league) should be named in accordance to the people who would be included in it. I think it stands as reasonable criticism for our part of gamer spaces and inclusivity, and while I might disagree with GH on its severity or value as evidence that we're all unaware of how toxic we make an environment, I don't think where this has ended up looks good for any of us. I'd rather we have fewer shitty and mean voices, and as much as we all enjoy a good Kwark snipe now and then I don't wish for that as the general tenor of any conversation. Nah, it absolutely is. When you see someone making a genuine effort, and you have a problem with what they are doing, you don't attack them. You go like "hey nice job, but you could improve here...". You definitely don't cherry pick some minute detail and attack them over it as if what they did was irrelevant or even counterproductive. Because again, I have encountered this type of person while trying to make things actively better for my players. They NEVER made anything better, they only ever made my job harder, and rarely have they ever contributed anything themselves apart from their constant nitpicking. At least for me that was and still is where all my outrage towards him comes from. I don't expect a "well done" or pat on the back, but I expect useless little shits like him to either zip it or contribute in a way that doesn't actively hurt what they pretend their cause is. Instead the clown walks around and acts all high and mighty while still having shown 0 contribution to the issue himself, made no case for his own criticism (he basically just piggy backed on the sensible ideas that others have suggested as his intentions)... shall I continue? He doesn't contribute to the issue he claims to be of importance, he doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, all he does is at best provide nothing, and at worst hurt things even more. Did my behaviour reflect badly on myself here? Probably yeah, when it comes to showing self control. I shouldn't have engaged with him in the first place. But I'll just point towards the fact that all my anger comes from the fact that I have made an effort, however flawed it may have been, but the intention was definitely there and call it overall balanced out at that point. I take the hit on self control in exchange for "fought the enemy of the cause". Not to mention that I did not find the reactions much defensive at all. It was less "how dare you attack my honour" and more just utter confusion at what the hell he is even on about. I gave a rough idea of how a defensive action from me would have looked like. If all your criticism boils down to "overall good, but not perfect" you deserve to be driven out of town with thorny sticks. Especially when presenting it in the way he did, which again, at best does nothing and at worst drives people away from the cause. At best he is an incompetent enemy, at worst just an enemy. Have you tried not being a cis dude and a piece of shit sexist? Well in all fairness, being a women has never been more accessible in my lifetime, so maybe this really is on me. I could just become one, join the tl female/womens team, and sort this all out by just demanding whatever I feel like is the best solution. Unfortunately I am too washed for competition these days... man it really does always come down to "not good enough"... I absolutely get this and am similarly uncomfortable answering the question "what should we do for/about womens' spaces" when most of us here aren't women. I'm glad we had a number of people responding with "I don't know, so I asked -woman- and here's what they said.". It isn't a problem we should solve, it's a problem we should help the impacted solve.
The cause of the personal offense (on my part and others) wasn't about 'female leagues', though, it was the blanket statement before that indicating we all had no idea what a toxic environment we create for everyone non-white-male. Obviously I think that statement itself was problematic for the strength and absoluteness of the wording, but it's impossible for me to say it was wrong to say unless I know what GH's goals were in saying it. It could have been a chess move prompting an action and revealing 'our mistake' after our reaction (I don't think this happened and isn't true in hindsight?) It could have been GH just frustrated as fuck and communicating poorly It could have been GH just being a troll and communicating with malice It could have been some reason I can't imagine. I can't speak to GH's goals or motivations, all I can offer is that it was nearly impossible for me to not react defensively and take it personally. The 'female league' stuff is fair enough criticism, but I think the core of the issue is what GH is saying now, that we've passively chased multiple trans people off of this site, and maybe that's a bad thing we could look at. Even if I think GH didn't and doesn't have a right to imply I'm not an ally and have only ever been an ally to white power, I still don't have to think his criticism comes from nowhere and is just vindictive. (This whole post is preachier than I'd like. You're obviously on top of your life and a better ally than I've been to marginalised groups. Not trying to tell you how to live, you already know that. Just offering my perspective and why I'm trying to shift it.)
I think that’s rather an important discussion to be had, both in this specific instance, but also more generally.
But have a discussion, not whatever this became.
I’m pretty acutely aware that I’m a cis white dude in a scene pretty dominated by dudes, which I’m working on, and have worked out. Equally I’ve got to kind of intuit what barriers I may inadvertently be putting up, because I simply don’t get feedback from various other groups, be it positive or negative. Feedback I’d absolutely welcome
GH decided to just shit on everyone’s efforts and provide nothing useful in terms of actionable feedback or suggestions. It’s his incompetence in communication that’s pissed people off, well, I can only speak for me.
I think folks would actually be open to critique or better ways of doing things if like, it was actually a sensible discussion instead of this nonsense. Not your post here, which I think is great, just the general direction
I said I’d nope out of this thread tangent and got drawn back in, but I’ll try to stick with it this time.
|
On July 06 2026 08:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 07:05 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 06 2026 05:38 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 05:18 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 04:34 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 03:59 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm not proud of my contribution to this saga or where it ended up. I (as seemingly all of us did) took the original statement (regarding paraphrased"you all don't even realize how toxic you all make these spaces" personally) and responded defensively. I don't know what the correct response is/was, but I don't think it's the level of shitting on GH we've seen.
I think it's trivial for us to collectively agree that the (women's league) should be named in accordance to the people who would be included in it. I think it stands as reasonable criticism for our part of gamer spaces and inclusivity, and while I might disagree with GH on its severity or value as evidence that we're all unaware of how toxic we make an environment, I don't think where this has ended up looks good for any of us. I'd rather we have fewer shitty and mean voices, and as much as we all enjoy a good Kwark snipe now and then I don't wish for that as the general tenor of any conversation. Nah, it absolutely is. When you see someone making a genuine effort, and you have a problem with what they are doing, you don't attack them. You go like "hey nice job, but you could improve here...". You definitely don't cherry pick some minute detail and attack them over it as if what they did was irrelevant or even counterproductive. Because again, I have encountered this type of person while trying to make things actively better for my players. They NEVER made anything better, they only ever made my job harder, and rarely have they ever contributed anything themselves apart from their constant nitpicking. At least for me that was and still is where all my outrage towards him comes from. I don't expect a "well done" or pat on the back, but I expect useless little shits like him to either zip it or contribute in a way that doesn't actively hurt what they pretend their cause is. Instead the clown walks around and acts all high and mighty while still having shown 0 contribution to the issue himself, made no case for his own criticism (he basically just piggy backed on the sensible ideas that others have suggested as his intentions)... shall I continue? He doesn't contribute to the issue he claims to be of importance, he doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, all he does is at best provide nothing, and at worst hurt things even more. Did my behaviour reflect badly on myself here? Probably yeah, when it comes to showing self control. I shouldn't have engaged with him in the first place. But I'll just point towards the fact that all my anger comes from the fact that I have made an effort, however flawed it may have been, but the intention was definitely there and call it overall balanced out at that point. I take the hit on self control in exchange for "fought the enemy of the cause". Not to mention that I did not find the reactions much defensive at all. It was less "how dare you attack my honour" and more just utter confusion at what the hell he is even on about. I gave a rough idea of how a defensive action from me would have looked like. If all your criticism boils down to "overall good, but not perfect" you deserve to be driven out of town with thorny sticks. Especially when presenting it in the way he did, which again, at best does nothing and at worst drives people away from the cause. At best he is an incompetent enemy, at worst just an enemy. Have you tried not being a cis dude and a piece of shit sexist? Well in all fairness, being a women has never been more accessible in my lifetime, so maybe this really is on me. I could just become one, join the tl female/womens team, and sort this all out by just demanding whatever I feel like is the best solution. Unfortunately I am too washed for competition these days... man it really does always come down to "not good enough"... I absolutely get this and am similarly uncomfortable answering the question "what should we do for/about womens' spaces" when most of us here aren't women. I'm glad we had a number of people responding with "I don't know, so I asked -woman- and here's what they said.". It isn't a problem we should solve, it's a problem we should help the impacted solve.
The cause of the personal offense (on my part and others) wasn't about 'female leagues', though, it was the blanket statement before that indicating we all had no idea what a toxic environment we create for everyone non-white-male. Obviously I think that statement itself was problematic for the strength and absoluteness of the wording, but it's impossible for me to say it was wrong to say unless I know what GH's goals were in saying it. It could have been a chess move prompting an action and revealing 'our mistake' after our reaction (I don't think this happened and isn't true in hindsight?) It could have been GH just frustrated as fuck and communicating poorly It could have been GH just being a troll and communicating with malice It could have been some reason I can't imagine. I can't speak to GH's goals or motivations, all I can offer is that it was nearly impossible for me to not react defensively and take it personally. The 'female league' stuff is fair enough criticism, but I think the core of the issue is what GH is saying now, that we've passively chased multiple trans people off of this site, and maybe that's a bad thing we could look at. Even if I think GH didn't and doesn't have a right to imply I'm not an ally and have only ever been an ally to white power, I still don't have to think his criticism comes from nowhere and is just vindictive. (This whole post is preachier than I'd like. You're obviously on top of your life and a better ally than I've been to marginalised groups. Not trying to tell you how to live, you already know that. Just offering my perspective and why I'm trying to shift it.) I think that’s rather an important discussion to be had, both in this specific instance, but also more generally. But have a discussion, not whatever this became. I’m pretty acutely aware that I’m a cis white dude in a scene pretty dominated by dudes, which I’m working on, and have worked out. Equally I’ve got to kind of intuit what barriers I may inadvertently be putting up, because I simply don’t get feedback from various other groups, be it positive or negative. Feedback I’d absolutely welcome GH decided to just shit on everyone’s efforts and provide nothing useful in terms of actionable feedback or suggestions. It’s his incompetence in communication that’s pissed people off, well, I can only speak for me. I think folks would actually be open to critique or better ways of doing things if like, it was actually a sensible discussion instead of this nonsense. Not your post here, which I think is great, just the general direction I said I’d nope out of this thread tangent and got drawn back in, but I’ll try to stick with it this time.
Not exactly apples to apples but the growth in female hockey has been pretty darn amazing. There are tons of factors and lots of resource's given that hockey is a big part of Canadian identity.
Maybe you can gather some insights from that?
https://www.hockeyalberta.ca/news/032025/hockey-alberta-growing-female-game-2064/
https://sirc.ca/articles/participation-in-womens-ice-hockey/
|
On July 06 2026 08:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 08:02 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 07:04 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 06:30 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 06:09 Simberto wrote:On July 06 2026 06:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 06 2026 05:47 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
It would help the tenor of the conversation a lot more if you put in the same amount of effort in your posts as DPB did in the post you're quoting.
I also severely doubt the lack of women viewpoints in this thread is a result of using the wrong word here or there.
Especially given that no one has been able locate even a single woman that had this issue. Giving so much oxygen to non issues is one of things that GH constantly belly aches about to the thread in regards to right wing posters. When his real issue is clearly that he just wants the attention. Fleet, you don’t need to feel bad for him, this is what he wants. If he wanted actual discussion he would just do it, he has been given plenty of opportunity. To be fair, locating women on TL is generally somewhat hard, given that the sites core demographic is mostly the people who were into competitive Starcraft roughly 20-30 years ago. I think there a few more male men-dominated online spaces than this site. Yeah that might be tricky, although I’m sure there are more than I think who just don’t disclose. Off the top of my head I can recall like, two cis women posters and two trans women who post(ed) semi-regularly here. It’s not a growing hobby. I do wonder if modern TL standards had been around back in the day if representation might look a bit better. Perhaps not hugely but a bit. "just don't disclose" is doing a lot there. TL has women's teams. They have fans that are women. Nevermind that basically every audience for SC stuff has women in it. Logically then, women should also be here posting about gaming, supporting their favorite teams/players/games, and engaging in the general milieu. They aren't (at least openly). That's not unique to TL, but TL (and Liquipedia) are spaces where we can directly act on changing that. How many posters here didn’t come here initially for competitive StarCraft? + Show Spoiler +TL’s expanded into various eSports, but it’s a different generation, they ain’t coming here. Minibat will support TL in Rocket League for example, but he’s not on the forum
I’d imagine some Discords exist that have less of a huge gender disparity than this forum, although I’m not a big Discord user.
I’m inclined to think based on my personal experiences that there just aren’t a huge amount of hardcore women StarCraft players/fans proportionally. How does one directly act on this? What are the barriers there? Do UMS maps count as "competitive SC"? That's how I initially ended up here I mean I've been pretty clear about us starting with doing the simple task of using our community's influence on Liquipedia to move away from "Female Tournament" https://liquipedia.net/chess/Female_Tournaments nomenclature to "Women's (& girls where applicable) Tournaments" Category:Women%27s Tournaments. Move away from language like "Female Only Tournaments are tournaments that only permit entry to female and/or female-identifying players." to something like "Women's tournaments are tournaments that permit entry exclusively to women and girls, welcoming both cisgender and transgender participants." Last I checked Liquipedia were crying out for more contributors so go for it I bet someone here has some technical skills/knowledge I don't that would make it a lot easier to find and change the undoubtedly very many places this could be improved on Liquipedia? For those that were asking, that's another type of thing an ally could do. Use their somewhat unique skillsets/knowledge to assist in a task like this. Nah, you do it. It takes very little technical skills and knowledge to edit a bit of text on Liquipedia. I mean it’s your sacred cause not mine, why don’t you actually do something for once instead of lecturing?
Changing the text on a particular page seems relatively simple. Though it seems like it has to be approved by someone https://liquipedia.net/chess/Female_Tournaments and I don't think I can change the URL? Not sure about the "Female Only" tab thing either?
I guess you guys could force me to change each page myself/build some technical skill to figure out some more effective way to find and change these, or we could make it a collaborative effort? I think the former is demonstrative of my point and the latter would be consistent with being allies.
|
On July 06 2026 08:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 07:05 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 06 2026 05:38 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 05:18 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 04:34 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 03:59 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm not proud of my contribution to this saga or where it ended up. I (as seemingly all of us did) took the original statement (regarding paraphrased"you all don't even realize how toxic you all make these spaces" personally) and responded defensively. I don't know what the correct response is/was, but I don't think it's the level of shitting on GH we've seen.
I think it's trivial for us to collectively agree that the (women's league) should be named in accordance to the people who would be included in it. I think it stands as reasonable criticism for our part of gamer spaces and inclusivity, and while I might disagree with GH on its severity or value as evidence that we're all unaware of how toxic we make an environment, I don't think where this has ended up looks good for any of us. I'd rather we have fewer shitty and mean voices, and as much as we all enjoy a good Kwark snipe now and then I don't wish for that as the general tenor of any conversation. Nah, it absolutely is. When you see someone making a genuine effort, and you have a problem with what they are doing, you don't attack them. You go like "hey nice job, but you could improve here...". You definitely don't cherry pick some minute detail and attack them over it as if what they did was irrelevant or even counterproductive. Because again, I have encountered this type of person while trying to make things actively better for my players. They NEVER made anything better, they only ever made my job harder, and rarely have they ever contributed anything themselves apart from their constant nitpicking. At least for me that was and still is where all my outrage towards him comes from. I don't expect a "well done" or pat on the back, but I expect useless little shits like him to either zip it or contribute in a way that doesn't actively hurt what they pretend their cause is. Instead the clown walks around and acts all high and mighty while still having shown 0 contribution to the issue himself, made no case for his own criticism (he basically just piggy backed on the sensible ideas that others have suggested as his intentions)... shall I continue? He doesn't contribute to the issue he claims to be of importance, he doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, all he does is at best provide nothing, and at worst hurt things even more. Did my behaviour reflect badly on myself here? Probably yeah, when it comes to showing self control. I shouldn't have engaged with him in the first place. But I'll just point towards the fact that all my anger comes from the fact that I have made an effort, however flawed it may have been, but the intention was definitely there and call it overall balanced out at that point. I take the hit on self control in exchange for "fought the enemy of the cause". Not to mention that I did not find the reactions much defensive at all. It was less "how dare you attack my honour" and more just utter confusion at what the hell he is even on about. I gave a rough idea of how a defensive action from me would have looked like. If all your criticism boils down to "overall good, but not perfect" you deserve to be driven out of town with thorny sticks. Especially when presenting it in the way he did, which again, at best does nothing and at worst drives people away from the cause. At best he is an incompetent enemy, at worst just an enemy. Have you tried not being a cis dude and a piece of shit sexist? Well in all fairness, being a women has never been more accessible in my lifetime, so maybe this really is on me. I could just become one, join the tl female/womens team, and sort this all out by just demanding whatever I feel like is the best solution. Unfortunately I am too washed for competition these days... man it really does always come down to "not good enough"... I absolutely get this and am similarly uncomfortable answering the question "what should we do for/about womens' spaces" when most of us here aren't women. I'm glad we had a number of people responding with "I don't know, so I asked -woman- and here's what they said.". It isn't a problem we should solve, it's a problem we should help the impacted solve.
The cause of the personal offense (on my part and others) wasn't about 'female leagues', though, it was the blanket statement before that indicating we all had no idea what a toxic environment we create for everyone non-white-male. Obviously I think that statement itself was problematic for the strength and absoluteness of the wording, but it's impossible for me to say it was wrong to say unless I know what GH's goals were in saying it. It could have been a chess move prompting an action and revealing 'our mistake' after our reaction (I don't think this happened and isn't true in hindsight?) It could have been GH just frustrated as fuck and communicating poorly It could have been GH just being a troll and communicating with malice It could have been some reason I can't imagine. I can't speak to GH's goals or motivations, all I can offer is that it was nearly impossible for me to not react defensively and take it personally. The 'female league' stuff is fair enough criticism, but I think the core of the issue is what GH is saying now, that we've passively chased multiple trans people off of this site, and maybe that's a bad thing we could look at. Even if I think GH didn't and doesn't have a right to imply I'm not an ally and have only ever been an ally to white power, I still don't have to think his criticism comes from nowhere and is just vindictive. (This whole post is preachier than I'd like. You're obviously on top of your life and a better ally than I've been to marginalised groups. Not trying to tell you how to live, you already know that. Just offering my perspective and why I'm trying to shift it.) I think that’s rather an important discussion to be had, both in this specific instance, but also more generally. But have a discussion, not whatever this became. I’m pretty acutely aware that I’m a cis white dude in a scene pretty dominated by dudes, which I’m working on, and have worked out. Equally I’ve got to kind of intuit what barriers I may inadvertently be putting up, because I simply don’t get feedback from various other groups, be it positive or negative. Feedback I’d absolutely welcome GH decided to just shit on everyone’s efforts and provide nothing useful in terms of actionable feedback or suggestions. It’s his incompetence in communication that’s pissed people off, well, I can only speak for me. I think folks would actually be open to critique or better ways of doing things if like, it was actually a sensible discussion instead of this nonsense. Not your post here, which I think is great, just the general direction I said I’d nope out of this thread tangent and got drawn back in, but I’ll try to stick with it this time.
Yeah it seemed like an absurd angle of attack to me, but I don't have all the info so that's hard to say as a truth rather than an opinion.
At the end of it all I'll take the nugget reminder of us all having participated in Plasmid's departure, and us allegedly having pushed at least one other trans person away, as a wakeup call that we're not doing 'enough'.
I don't know what 'enough' is but I can accept that we're not getting there, and if we're not getting there maybe more inclusive language on what seems trivial to me is a good place to start pushing for 'enough'
|
On July 06 2026 08:49 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2026 08:23 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 07:05 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 06 2026 05:38 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 05:18 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2026 04:34 Artesimo wrote:On July 06 2026 03:59 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm not proud of my contribution to this saga or where it ended up. I (as seemingly all of us did) took the original statement (regarding paraphrased"you all don't even realize how toxic you all make these spaces" personally) and responded defensively. I don't know what the correct response is/was, but I don't think it's the level of shitting on GH we've seen.
I think it's trivial for us to collectively agree that the (women's league) should be named in accordance to the people who would be included in it. I think it stands as reasonable criticism for our part of gamer spaces and inclusivity, and while I might disagree with GH on its severity or value as evidence that we're all unaware of how toxic we make an environment, I don't think where this has ended up looks good for any of us. I'd rather we have fewer shitty and mean voices, and as much as we all enjoy a good Kwark snipe now and then I don't wish for that as the general tenor of any conversation. Nah, it absolutely is. When you see someone making a genuine effort, and you have a problem with what they are doing, you don't attack them. You go like "hey nice job, but you could improve here...". You definitely don't cherry pick some minute detail and attack them over it as if what they did was irrelevant or even counterproductive. Because again, I have encountered this type of person while trying to make things actively better for my players. They NEVER made anything better, they only ever made my job harder, and rarely have they ever contributed anything themselves apart from their constant nitpicking. At least for me that was and still is where all my outrage towards him comes from. I don't expect a "well done" or pat on the back, but I expect useless little shits like him to either zip it or contribute in a way that doesn't actively hurt what they pretend their cause is. Instead the clown walks around and acts all high and mighty while still having shown 0 contribution to the issue himself, made no case for his own criticism (he basically just piggy backed on the sensible ideas that others have suggested as his intentions)... shall I continue? He doesn't contribute to the issue he claims to be of importance, he doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, all he does is at best provide nothing, and at worst hurt things even more. Did my behaviour reflect badly on myself here? Probably yeah, when it comes to showing self control. I shouldn't have engaged with him in the first place. But I'll just point towards the fact that all my anger comes from the fact that I have made an effort, however flawed it may have been, but the intention was definitely there and call it overall balanced out at that point. I take the hit on self control in exchange for "fought the enemy of the cause". Not to mention that I did not find the reactions much defensive at all. It was less "how dare you attack my honour" and more just utter confusion at what the hell he is even on about. I gave a rough idea of how a defensive action from me would have looked like. If all your criticism boils down to "overall good, but not perfect" you deserve to be driven out of town with thorny sticks. Especially when presenting it in the way he did, which again, at best does nothing and at worst drives people away from the cause. At best he is an incompetent enemy, at worst just an enemy. Have you tried not being a cis dude and a piece of shit sexist? Well in all fairness, being a women has never been more accessible in my lifetime, so maybe this really is on me. I could just become one, join the tl female/womens team, and sort this all out by just demanding whatever I feel like is the best solution. Unfortunately I am too washed for competition these days... man it really does always come down to "not good enough"... I absolutely get this and am similarly uncomfortable answering the question "what should we do for/about womens' spaces" when most of us here aren't women. I'm glad we had a number of people responding with "I don't know, so I asked -woman- and here's what they said.". It isn't a problem we should solve, it's a problem we should help the impacted solve.
The cause of the personal offense (on my part and others) wasn't about 'female leagues', though, it was the blanket statement before that indicating we all had no idea what a toxic environment we create for everyone non-white-male. Obviously I think that statement itself was problematic for the strength and absoluteness of the wording, but it's impossible for me to say it was wrong to say unless I know what GH's goals were in saying it. It could have been a chess move prompting an action and revealing 'our mistake' after our reaction (I don't think this happened and isn't true in hindsight?) It could have been GH just frustrated as fuck and communicating poorly It could have been GH just being a troll and communicating with malice It could have been some reason I can't imagine. I can't speak to GH's goals or motivations, all I can offer is that it was nearly impossible for me to not react defensively and take it personally. The 'female league' stuff is fair enough criticism, but I think the core of the issue is what GH is saying now, that we've passively chased multiple trans people off of this site, and maybe that's a bad thing we could look at. Even if I think GH didn't and doesn't have a right to imply I'm not an ally and have only ever been an ally to white power, I still don't have to think his criticism comes from nowhere and is just vindictive. (This whole post is preachier than I'd like. You're obviously on top of your life and a better ally than I've been to marginalised groups. Not trying to tell you how to live, you already know that. Just offering my perspective and why I'm trying to shift it.) I think that’s rather an important discussion to be had, both in this specific instance, but also more generally. But have a discussion, not whatever this became. I’m pretty acutely aware that I’m a cis white dude in a scene pretty dominated by dudes, which I’m working on, and have worked out. Equally I’ve got to kind of intuit what barriers I may inadvertently be putting up, because I simply don’t get feedback from various other groups, be it positive or negative. Feedback I’d absolutely welcome GH decided to just shit on everyone’s efforts and provide nothing useful in terms of actionable feedback or suggestions. It’s his incompetence in communication that’s pissed people off, well, I can only speak for me. I think folks would actually be open to critique or better ways of doing things if like, it was actually a sensible discussion instead of this nonsense. Not your post here, which I think is great, just the general direction I said I’d nope out of this thread tangent and got drawn back in, but I’ll try to stick with it this time. Yeah it seemed like an absurd angle of attack to me, but I don't have all the info so that's hard to say as a truth rather than an opinion. At the end of it all I'll take the nugget reminder of us all having participated in Plasmid's departure, and us allegedly having pushed at least one other trans person away, as a wakeup call that we're not doing 'enough'.
I don't know what 'enough' is but I can accept that we're not getting there, and if we're not getting there maybe more inclusive language on what seems trivial to me is a good place to start pushing for 'enough'
I've forgotten why Plasmid left. Do you (or anyone else) happen to remember?
|
On July 01 2023 10:29 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 01 2023 01:11 Kyadytim wrote:For me, the most upsetting part of the Creative LLC case is that the request that triggered the lawsuit seems to be fake. The person who allegedly sent it claims to not have sent it, and also has been happily married in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years. It was also sent the day after the case was filed. This case existed entirely so that conservative litigation teams could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule in favor of legal discrimination. www.theguardian.com That might be upsetting in terms of how you view the court, but it could also be encouraging in terms of what impact it'll have. If they had to make up a case it prolly won't be difficult to find a web designer, even for gay couples. I'm guessing today, this is a case where being publicly known for refusing to provide services for gay weddings will cost you more than you gain. Not saying it's not problematic but I'm pretty confident gay acceptance isn't contingent on legislation. I can also accept the argument that a website is more related to free speech than other services are (even if this is disingenuous from the people making that claim), and thus I dunno if this creates a precedent for other services. Maybe it does but I dunno. This post is super emblematic of why I don't post on this site anymore. You and many others have no fucking clue how bad this ruling is for queer people and how bad things are for us or y'all simply don't care and I've come to realize that there is no amount of evidence or experience I can show that will make y'all or other people change their minds. People are jumping at the opportunity to attack queer people throughout the US. Nazis are actively assaulting queer people and being celebrated for it by the conservative base. The Civil Rights Act is dead and the Democrats and Biden will not do anything to fix the SC, they'll just send out links to ActBlue. The US is a decaying police state with no revolutionary potential and will not get better, and I've given up hope in general for most everywhere else, so fuck it, I'll just post this and leave for good: [img]https://images2.imgbox.com/54/51/uegyih58_o.jpg[/im]
Account nuked, but... this?
|
Thank you. And that's very depressing.
|
Yup.
Sidebar - GH, you mentioned being genderqueer - what are your preferred pronouns these days?
Also, I have to consult the Trans Council (joking, just some friends who are some combination of either women and/or trans) for a sanity check, and then I'll be good to dive into some liquipedia editing.
|
On July 06 2026 09:48 Fleetfeet wrote:
Yup.
Sidebar - GH, you mentioned being genderqueer - what are your preferred pronouns these days?
Also, I have to consult the Trans Council (joking, just some friends who are some combination of either women and/or trans) for a sanity check, and then I'll be good to dive into some liquipedia editing.
It really is and the ensuing discussion there wasn't very uplifting.
They're just "pronouns" not "preferred pronouns" nowadays (you can't read my tone but it's pleasant, not demeaning). I like people using GreenHorizons/GH. "they" would be a welcome alternative as well.
Gotta say I don't feel particularly safe making a point of this but it felt like a bit of an obligation and I really appreciate you doing something to makes me feel at least a little bit safer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
