Recently, ESL announced the #GGForAll initiative, which “will launch a range of new initiatives designed to tackle discrimination, promote mental wellbeing and progress environmental sustainability in esports.” Intel is the first among the many brand partners to support the initiative, with a new Global Women's Circuit in CSGO being the first event out of the initiative. With more brand partners to come soon, the move is seen as a positive force in the CSGO scene. However, not everyone is ecstatic about this initiative, and #GGForAll was met with a backlash that has sadly become expected from any gender-related initiative of the sort.

The Global Women's Circuit for CSGO will have a $500,000 prize pool, consisting of both online and offline events throughout the year. Its first major event will be held online between the months of March and May, followed by two LAN events in Dallas, Texas, and Valencia, Spain. This will be followed by another two-month online league, before concluding with a League Finals in Sweden in November.

Gender-inclusive initiatives such as #GGForAll and Riot's Valorant Game Changers may be seen as paradoxes by some. After all, they are meant to be inclusive initiatives, yet are exclusively available to genders that are not CIS male. However, these initiatives are meant to give female players (and other less-represented genders) a platform to pave a road towards professional play. There are a lot of social factors at play that prevents women from playing in the most competitive events. Events such as these are meant to encourage women to compete. These show them that women can compete and win money in esports. These will inspire and encourage a younger breed of women to try their hand in esports. Within these insulated environments, they have to deal with vitriol towards their gender less, because they will be playing against people who are more than assured will not use their gender to insult them.

Semmler's comments make sense but encourage bigots to stick to their guns

Then, Semmler tweeted.

“When will the men-only tournament be scheduled?”

With a tweet as daft and lacking of nuance as that, it's no wonder that it has attracted a lot of detractors. Many people engaged him in discussions, which eventually led to Semmler clarifying his stance. In a follow-up tweet, he says:

“If the goal is to get more women to compete with men, isn't having a league with free money only for women actively working against the goal? Why compete with the men at all if you get a guaranteed payday in a far less competitive environment?”

His argument does make sense, and it is a discussion point led the right way. In the replies, there are many who have given their own points, pointing out that a bridging initiative like this can help promote gaming for women, widening the pool of women and eventually developing talent “good enough” for “pro-level” tournaments. His argument that this could lead to women relying solely on women-only tournaments for their entire pro careers still sits on the assumption that women would never be competitive enough to wish to play in the “pro-level” tournaments. We might not see it in our lifetime, but it could still affect the culture we have right now that discourages women from playing. We could continue promoting female-only leagues until we arrive at a point that gamer women can compete against gamer men.

RECOMMENDED (Article Continues Below)

Semmler would also react later on saying that his main gripe is on #GGForAll's messaging. Still, he asks why tournaments from before are not considered #GGForAll, not realizing how the existence of toxic men in these spheres make them less inclusive towards women. If anything, tweets by the likes Leveret and Reinessa should give everyone a clear picture of what playing at a competitive level as a woman is like, and you'd realize why other tournaments are not #GGForAll.

The problem with Semmler's take is that he started off with a very un-nuanced joke that really set off a lot of people. It attracted commenters who gave good points, giving both the merits and disadvantages of female-only leagues. However, it also attracted a lot of callous and vitriolic comments coming from men who must have felt empowered by his comments. With his popularity and influence, many would take his word, constrict them to fit their own ideas, and feel justified that their misogyny is okay because a popular person's opinions “line up” with theirs. That is why people should “walk on eggs” when they're in a position of power, and learn how to have fun in their line of work without making anyone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome.