While women’s participation in the game appears to be slowly growing, there is still work to do. Part of that work is creating spaces where women and other non-male players can compete, learn, and build confidence without the intimidation, scrutiny, or interference that can come with being a minority in the room.
Enter “Ladies’” events.
Enter “Women’s” events.
At first glance, the difference may seem semantic. These events generally share the same mission: to make poker more accessible, welcoming, and fun for players historically underrepresented in the game.
But language is part of the invitation.
Some players hear “Ladies’” and think of tradition, elegance, and decades of women carving out space in poker. Others hear it as patronizing, outdated, or tied to expectations about how women are supposed to behave. Some prefer “Women’s” because it feels more direct and modern. Others feel “Women’s” has become politically charged in ways that can make gender-diverse players feel vulnerable or scrutinized.
So, the better question may not be which term is “correct.”
The better question is: who are these events trying to reach, and what language helps those players feel like they belong?
The Polls That Reignited the Conversation
This debate is not new. As poker’s player pool changes, it resurfaces again and again.
On April 24, Matt Savage posted a poll on Twitter/X asking people to vote for “the correct term for a tournament that includes females only” for potential discussion at the TDA Summit this year.
The responses were mixed. Some commenters dismissed the issue,; some offered colorful reactions, and others argued there were more important topics to debate. Yet the poll generated engagement because, whether poker wants to admit it or not, terminology does matter to some players.
Savage later quipped that this was “one of poker’s most critical issues.” Tournament titles are obviously not the most urgent challenge facing women and non-male players in poker. But that does not mean the conversation is meaningless.
On April 25, I asked a similar question in the Women’s Poker Association Facebook group: What should our tournaments be called?
My goal was not to declare one answer correct. It was to listen to the players most affected by the wording.
The Case for “Women’s” Events
For many players, “Women’s” feels clearer, more direct, and less loaded.
Lauralee Westfall shared a strong preference for “Women’s” over “Ladies’,” saying that “lady implies we conform to expected behaviors.” For Westfall and others, that distinction is meaningful enough that they have avoided tournaments with “Ladies’” in the title.
That sentiment came up repeatedly.
Susan Kaufmann said “Ladies’” feels patronizing because it suggests comportment. Marguerite DeLisa Spagnuolo put it more bluntly: “We are all women who play…but we’re not ALL ladies.” Thea Temple echoed the same idea, saying, “‘Lady’ is an attitude, not a gender.”
The objection is not merely grammatical. It is cultural.
For some players, “lady” carries expectations of politeness, refinement, delicacy, or compliance. It evokes the old demand that women be “ladylike,” which often meant quiet, agreeable, restrained, and socially acceptable.
For this group, choosing “Women’s” is not about rejecting history. It is about naming the participants without attaching expectations about how they should act.
The Case for “Ladies’” Events
The case for “Ladies’” is also rooted in something real: history, community, and respect.
The Ladies International Poker Series, better known as the LIPS Tour, is one of the strongest examples. Founded in 2004, LIPS describes itself as the first, longest-running, and most popular poker tour for women. Its mission has been to grow the game by giving women opportunities to learn, practice, compete, and build friendships through poker.
That history matters.
Jan Ellinger Phillips argued that poker should not overcomplicate the issue, noting that “Ladies Events” has been the norm for decades. She has been playing since 1974, before such events existed, and said changing the name will not stop men who want to enter.
For some players, “Ladies’” is familiar, respected, and connected to the people who built women-centered poker spaces before those spaces had the visibility they have now.
Others hear “ladies” as formal or polished. Lane Medina noted that “women’s” is a neutral general term, while “ladies” is often more polite or formal and can imply elegance or refinement. Medina said she votes for “Ladies.”
But that same implication is exactly what others reject.
Dee Kleeman said she prefers “Women’s” because “Ladies is too old-fashioned.” Doc Shar was even more direct: “I find it trivializing when we are reduced to genteel terms when the men are not.”
That tension is the center of the debate. “Ladies’” carries warmth and tradition for some players. For others, it carries restriction and condescension.
These diverse and varied reactions are real.
Inclusion Is Bigger Than Branding
If inclusivity and accessibility are the goal, poker still has work to do beyond naming conventions.
For some players, the title of an event can affect whether they feel invited, scrutinized, or quietly excluded before they ever sit down.
Ariel Heart, a trans poker player I asked to weigh in, said she personally prefers “Ladies’” events in part because the word “women” has become politically loaded in a culture that too often asks, “What is a woman?” not to understand women better, but to police who counts as one.
That policing has consequences.
Heart described considering a WSOP Circuit women’s event in Pompano Beach and reaching out ahead of time because she did not want to arrive, register, and then be told she could not play. She explained that she is a trans woman, presents as female, and has lived that way for years.
According to Heart, she was initially told that as long as the gender marker on her ID was female, she could play. But that answer raises an obvious problem: not every trans woman lives in a state or circumstance where changing a gender marker is simple, fast, safe, affordable, or even possible.
A player may present as a woman, live as a woman, and be known in the community as a woman while still carrying an ID that does not reflect that reality.
That is where inclusion becomes harder than a slogan.
It is easy to make jokes about chromosomes, hormones, or body parts. It is harder to recognize, as Sarah Wasch pointed out to me after I laughed too quickly at a related comment online, that the subtext of those jokes is often that trans women, intersex people, and others whose lives do not fit neatly into someone else’s preferred definition are not welcome.
When this issue was raised several years ago on Twitter/X, Jordan Handrich advocated for tournament titles that promote inclusivity. “I absolutely do not think this should be a TDA rule. I want to have an event that caters to women, ladies, non-binary, and trans players and call it a ‘Birds,’ ‘Gals,’ ‘Sparkle,’ ‘Gems,’ or ‘Queens’ event. I should not have to look at a TDA rule for this issue,” Handrich shared.
Poker cannot claim these events are designed to grow the game while making some of the people who might benefit from them feel like they need to plead their case at the door.
Protected Spaces Still Matter
At the same time, Heart was clear that protected spaces still matter.
Many women do not want to play an event where men are leering at them, talking down to them, or using aggression to bully them off the table because of sex or gender. Those concerns are not imaginary. They are part of why women-focused poker events continue to matter.
Heart also noted that trans women can experience poker rooms in complicated ways. They may be underestimated because they are perceived as women. They may be targeted because they are trans. Sometimes, they are forced to manage both dynamics at once. In the worst cases, they may face violent hate speech or threats designed to make them fear for their safety.
That is precisely why these events are still needed.
The goal should not be to turn “Ladies’” or “Women’s” events into another battleground over identity. The goal should be to make sure the players these events are meant to serve can enter the room, take their seats, and compete without humiliation.
Reasonable eligibility policies can exist. Tournament operators can protect the integrity of an event without turning registration into an invasive interrogation. But the default posture should be welcoming, not filled with suspicions.
If the point is to bring more people into the game, making players prove they belong defeats the purpose.
Making Room for More Than One Word
Tina Stafford, East Coast Tour Director for LIPS, does not see the “Women’s” versus “Ladies’” question as a hill poker needs to die on.
Her view is rooted in decades of work building spaces where women can play, learn, compete, and feel like they belong. The LIPS Tour has been doing that work for a long time. There is also a Women’s Poker Hall of Fame and the Women’s Poker Association. There are women’s festivals, ladies’ tours, social media groups, local meetups, and independent organizations using both words.
To Stafford, that variety is not a problem. It is evidence of growth.
“I 100% support properties and organizations to call it whatever they want,” Stafford said. “This is the beauty of growing our market.”
That point may be the most practical one in the entire debate.
Poker’s player base is not one demographic, one generation, one political lens, or one linguistic preference. Some players grew up with “Ladies’ Event” as the familiar and respected term. Others feel more seen by “Women’s Event.”
Some people care deeply. Some do not. Some may choose an event based on the name. Many will care more about where their friends are playing, the structure, the buy-in, the location, and whether the room feels welcoming.
Stafford’s strongest point is that inclusion should not become another forced choice.
“For some reason we are conditioned to choose instead of include or make room for both,” she said.
That is worth sitting with.
If the goal is to grow participation, the industry should be careful about treating one term as enlightened and the other as obsolete. “Women’s” may be the broader modern trend, and Stafford supports that trend. But abandoning “Ladies’” entirely could unintentionally alienate older players and others who have long identified with that language.
These spaces were not built overnight. Women, ladies, advocates, volunteers, tour directors, room staff, and players spent years creating affinity events in a game that has not always made them feel welcome.
The purpose should not be to fracture that community further. The purpose should be to give more players a place to start, return, compete, and thrive.
Language should serve the mission, not swallow it.
Beyond the Name
Kimmie Tee offered a grounded response:
“As long as we keep having them I do not care what they are called! I would rather them spend that time discussing topics that affect us more such as rebuys, late entries, etc. … There’s bigger things going on.”
She is right.
Tournament naming matters, but it is not the only issue. Structures matter. Buy-ins matter. Rebuys and late registration matter. Marketing matters. Room culture matters. Enforcement matters. The 90% gambling loss deduction legal change matters. Whether players feel safe, respected, and wanted matters.
A perfect tournament title will not fix a bad structure, an unwelcoming room, or a policy that leaves players vulnerable to humiliation.
But the name is still part of the invitation.
It signals who the event is for, what kind of culture the organizers are building, and whether the room has thought carefully about the people it hopes to attract.
The Real Question
The better question may not be, “Which word wins?”
The better question is, “Who are we trying to reach, and are they showing up?”
Poker needs more women at the table. It needs younger players, older players, new players, returning players, recreational players, serious competitors, and players who have never before felt like a poker room was built with them in mind.
If using both “Women’s” and “Ladies’” helps reach that broader demographic, then perhaps the inclusive answer is not either/or.
Perhaps it is both.
There are also players who question the need for gender-specific events altogether.
Laura Taylor Adams said she would never play one and argued that if men-only tournaments existed, many women would object to being excluded. “I’m for equal rights,” she said. “Not for better rights.”
That perspective is not uncommon, and it deserves to be part of the broader discussion. But it exists alongside another reality: poker has not historically been an equal environment for women, trans women, nonbinary players, or anyone perceived as not belonging in a male-dominated cardroom.
Affinity events are not about superiority. At their best, they are about access. They give players a softer landing in a game that can be intimidating, isolating, and unnecessarily hostile.
Conclusion
The future of women-focused poker events may not depend on whether the sign says “Women’s” or “Ladies’.”
It may depend on whether the players walking through the door feel respected once they arrive.
Some will prefer “Women’s.” Some will prefer “Ladies’.” Some will not care as long as the event runs, the structure is fair, and the game is good.
The goal should not be to shame one generation, erase history, or pretend words have no impact. The goal should be to build more welcoming rooms, better tournaments, clearer policies, and stronger communities.
Whatever we call these events, they should do what they were created to do: Bring more people into the game and make them feel like they belong.
Want to submit a Community Contribution to Railbird Creations?
We welcome essays, reported pieces, opinion columns, and personal stories from the poker and wider gambling community.
Send submissions to: submissions@railbirdcreations.org
