So, if I understand Celebrim's stance on this: Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and physical strength should never, ever be used as a measure of a woman's worth (because that's sexist), wanting a fantasy woman in a fantasy game to be as strong as a fantasy man is also sexist?
Very close, but not quite. Simplified, it would look more like this:
"Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and because physical strength should never be used as the measure of a person's worth (because it isn't), then demanding that all RPGs provide for fantasy women who are as strong as men, because if they do not, then you say that they are sexist because in the game women would be inferior to men, is itself sexist, because by that standard, real women really are inferior to men."
I'm not saying that it is wrong to create a fantasy RPG where female characters can be as strong as men. I run such a game right now, which should have been the first clue that your statement of my position was wrong!
I am saying that if you claim a universal standard that any portrayal of women as on average physically weaker than men is sexist, then there is something very strange about how you are viewing real women that does not add up to what I'd consider a healthy and affirming view.
Because you are devaluing real women by having fantasy women who can compete with fantasy men on equal terms in areas that rely on physical strength in your fantasy game?
No, because you would then be literally saying that if women can't compete with men on equal terms in physical strength, then that women are of less value.
And I confess, owing to the reoccurrence of them, that I'm having a certain difficulty believing that these strawmen you are throwing up to describe my position are actually based off of sincere misunderstandings, and not being offered out of ill will.