Well, you have to consider the source of that stereotype. Guys made up that myth because they don't want to admit that 'girls' might be interested in and play the same kinds of games as them, and face all the implications that come along with that (e.g., losing to a girl, which is the most horrible thing that can happen, in their minds). Some don't even want to admit girls and women play video games at all, or that if they do they're only doing it for attention. Gotta protect the boys' club treehouse, you know.

Hmm, I'm gonna go ahead and re-post what I posted a couple pages back, then deleted when I realized I was replying to the first page. Not that I want to derail the fun too much, but at the end it'll circle back to more relevancy to the thread. Not to mention the fact that this guy is an active participant in that insane "Gamergate" and other unseemly thread, both of which are incredibly sexist, one-sided, shameful, hostile, and divisive—and are arguably inappropriate for this forum, using it as a convention place. But I guess he doesn't consider GOG too classy for that stuff, for some reason (I wonder what it could be...perhaps something to do with his rabid MRA stance).

I also want to rebut this odd viewpoint:

You know what else it means? That in every other giveaway or contest, males will be disproportionately favored. This giveaway doesn't even begin to balance that out.

You don't change a light bulb by turning it once counter-clockwise for every turn clockwise because that would be "true equality."


So, I don't think that ddickinson has a thing to apologize for, nor do I believe that she should feel any obligation to make things "fair" by holding a "Boys only" giveaway to follow this one, for the above reason.

Get your math straight. There is not "male" advantage when everyone has the same % chance of winning and everyone competes for themselves, not for their gender, so if you're going to use twisting logic, make sure it at least sounds plausible.

Using arbitrary numbers: If 75% of GOG users are male and 25% are female, then in a giveaway/contest that isn't based on gender there will be a greater chance that a male will win it, even though individual odds will be equal.

Yes, the odds favor an individual better in this giveaway, but that's true for any giveaway/contest that has some limiting criteria for entrants. That's obvious. And from what I've seen, most giveaways/contests on this forum do have such limitations, but this one in particular bothers you for some reason.

Your mistake was considering it "unfair" in comparison to others because this one happens to be limited to females, when females collectively have lower odds of winning all other giveaways/contests combined than males do simply by virtue of population. In other words, to reiterate, the winner of any other giveaway/contest is most likely going to be male. This giveaway/contest just gives women a little extra shot, which still, when taking all giveaways/contests into account, doesn't even begin to balance those odds.

My math is straight; you're just conflating two different aspects of it. And what's with the attitude in your post? Geez.

In any case,

math ≠ reality

Why argue about it?

The fact you consider giveaways and contests as male vs female and even remotely consider the fact of labeling an individual who enters for himself such giveaway by his gender is extremely saddening, at least to me.

Let me put it this way: When someone enters a giveaway, they do not care about their gender or about the genders of the other entrants. They enter for themselves. Thus, as equality states it, everyone has equal chances of winning. If you're so frustrated over the fact a male can win a contest, please, just join an all female forum.

As stated before, I do not have any issue with this contest, however I can see why rationally an individual would have form a statistics point of view. When 2 giveaways separate a public by gender, unless the ratio is 1:1, the % chance ratio of winning between the 2 genders is won't be 1:1, thus some have a higher chance at a prize than others.

This may be trivial when it comes to giveaways, and I tend to not care, so yeah, no big deal about it, but use your logic of separation when it comes to political voting. You separate presidential candidates based on gender (as if that made anything equal) for the party to decide upon. Basically, you are looking at a female vs male election, not at a candidate with x platform vs candidate with y platform type of election. Because yeah, it has to be a mandatory 1:1 ratio of candidates when it comes to gender, instead of having an election driven by the political quality of the candidates. However, this is not my point. Take it this way: The party has 4 women running for presidency, while on the other side there are 10 men. The prize is to get elected by the party. Out of these 4 women, everyone has a 25% chance of winning, which means a the same amount of % chance to win as 2.5 individuals of the opposite gender. Sounds fair? Not to me. In such a case I would actually care because it is no longer an equal contest where quality of the platform is the top criteria of the end result decision.

Wait. You brought up the notion that it was "unfair" and "not necessarily sexist (but, wink wink, it's sexist)." Perhaps not when your gender is automatically favored in those giveaways. But when a minority group wants to do a little something for themselves, you cry foul. Everyone to whom this one is directed does have an equal chance, same as any other, as I already mentioned. Wow. Just wow. Wow again.

Nor necessarily doesn't mean it's not. But let me "wink, wink" too, since you're unable to comprehend this. The only reason I said it is not necessarily sexist is because ddickinson gave a good enough reason for the separation, at least for me.

No gender is favored in regular giveaways. Regular giveaways are for individuals. They do not state "enter for a chance for everyone of your gender to win a free game", so don't give me that sexist crap. All you do is attempt to destroy an individual's integrity and swing a gender's flag. The funny part is that you're acting as if every person from the "winning gender" of a giveaway would get a game.
Also, you just pointed out you're a sexist.

No, they don't. Women participants have a higher chance of winning due to a lower number of entries. Do yourself a favor and retake statistics or plain pre-calculus.

If your remarks and comebacks are limited to "Wow. Just wow.", I'm done talking. I've heard better comebacks from mere children.

I'm now wondering if you're actually reading what I'm writing. I pointed out that other giveaways have other limitations put on them that reduce the eligibility pool. I'm rather confident that you don't know what "sexism" actually means. And I also know that you're displaying a great deal of reactionary and highly disproportionate anger towards me and are personally attacking me for no goddamned reason.

Other "limitations" are meant to prevent scammers from participating, not men nor women, so your point is invalid.

Fascinating! Now I'm supposed to be angry. lel As for personal attacks, point out one. And for the record, if you don't want people to call you a sexist, how about you not discriminate the other gender? "Perhaps not when your gender is automatically favored in those giveaways."
Again, nobody is favored in regular giveaways, but if you don't like that, you're welcome to not participate.

But when the numbers aren't that different, as it's mostly being out as a gamer or not, having two separate giveaways make sense. More so as one stated objective is to know more about a specific demographic - having a contest is an incentive for this demographic to come out.

And it's not the same as running for presidency : here we have two prices. Are you in favor of unisex contests everywhere, including sporting events? There isn't any biological advantage, but men are still advantaged because it's seen by society as a masculine activity, and the effort is bigger for women to be out as practicing this activity.

But I would say it's binarist : people who are outside the man/woman dichotomy (like an intersex person not identifying as a man or a woman, or a female-to-x / male-to-x transgender person) may feel excluded.

It honours you, that you try to talk sense into this sexist (to the very core), but I don't think you can get anything into this skull.

TullyFernado obviously doesn't get the "each individual" aspect of your arguments and only thinks in terms of women against men, as if a woman would have anything from it when another person than her wins which appears to be female.

Had a (really) quick scan through and I can't find an answer to this so: Female in what way? Biologically or identifying as? If "identifying as", does it have a minimum to qualify (name change, legally regarded as, regards as by others, surgery)?

For the most important rule, this is rather vaguely defined..

Not a bash and actually a genuine question.. what allows an individual to qualify?

Not entering because I am neither biologically female, identifying as female or Iron Man.

I leave that to the person to decide. Who am I to set parameters on the word. If a person truly considered themselves female, then they can enter. I'm not about to list my own definition, it's different for everyone. If you (not you specifically) genuinely consider yourself a female, then you are welcome to enter, just as anyone who genuinely considers themselves a male can enter the men's giveaway.

Exactly the response I was hoping for :)

I already said the given reason for 2 giveaways is good enough for me.

It's hard to decide upon the level of equality in physical matters. It's not just sporting events that are concerned, so not just contests, but the overall spectrum of what distinguishes men from women and women from men. I think this is one of those categories where the differences in nature can be spotted, but I've seen great women soldiers too, so it's not like it is not possible.

Depends. You can look at it in 2 ways. They can feel excluded or they can still participate due to the gender that they naturally got as a person, in spite of not identifying with it. Alas, I see where you're coming from.
I don't get people who do that. It's probably pride, but I'd rather not get into that type of psychology.

Back on topic. Wait! What was the topic again?