The first point is that the issue of asking what the motivation is for the GM imposing certain limitations to begin with. I feel that's a useless question to ask, because you can't ever know what someone else's motivation is. If you think that the GM is imposing certain limits because it's a reflection of a politically incorrect ideology that they hold, how do you ascertain that? Do you ask them point blank if they're imposing (to use the example raised in this thread) limits on Strength scores for female PCs because they hate women? If so, how do you know that their answer (which we can presume is a negative) is honest, and not an attempt to avoid admitting to something they know you won't find acceptable?
The irony of "politically correct ideology" as a phrase is that it is, itself a politically-correct euphemism, and ultimately a self-serving one, meant to turn that frown upside down and turn what we might, less-euphemistically, characterize as anything ranging from unconscious short-sightedness to outright bigotry as a kind of brave, individualistic rebellion against rigid and punitive groupthink. Can we avoid this, please? We're grownups and don't need euphemisms.
Your argument is an odd one, as it presupposes that because we cannot actually read minds, communication is useless; further, that the only possible way to engage in a dialogue about contradictory rules is confrontational and accusatory. Instead of "Hey, Steph, why do you hate women?" one could just as easily ask "Why have a strength cap for females because of 'real world' human limitations when we don't apply those 'real world' limitations to, say, falling damage or fireballs?" or even just "Why is there a strength cap?"
Since we're talking about communication between people who get along well enough to game together, again, this is a dialogue, not a trial. Perhaps Stephanie will realize that, in the context of her game, it
doesn't make sense to insist on strict real-world limitations on upper-body strength while handwaving similar limitations on how human skin reacts to fire. Perhaps instead she'll explain that there is a good in-game reason that would be spoilers to explain right now (such as the curse of an evil god on all womankind, and the players will eventually defeat this evil god).
I mean, let's take this out of the issue of gender for a moment, and assume that Stephanie the GM's boyfriend joins the game as a regular player. STGMB regularly gets treasure, positive NPC interactions and cutscenes that the rest of the group doesn't and hasn't gotten. Can I read Stephanie's mind? Of course not. Might there be good reasons for her actions? Of course. But I doubt anybody would advise me to STFU and hope that someday the reasons would become clear; I rather suspect that most, if not all, of the advice I would get here (other than "leave the game") would be to
talk to her, to express my concerns in a constructive manner (because "Stephanie, stop letting your bedwarmer hog all the game time" is going to get us
nowhere) and listen to what she says. It may be that Stephanie had no idea she was actually giving Bob special treatment! Or perhaps Bob has been doing particularly smart things with his character that I didn't notice, and Stephanie will point this out to me. Or perhaps there is a good in-game reason for all this that she can either explain, or tell me I will discover in the next few games, and asks me to trust her on this. (Or perhaps the response is angry denial and personal attacks, or weird evasiveness.
That kind of response, in and of itself, is an answer.)
In other words, I'm saying that making presumptions about a person's attitudes and beliefs based on what they do or do not allow in their campaign is a foolish thing to do.
Yes, that would be the point of engaging in dialogue - so one does not make presumptions. "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time", btw, which you advocate as an appropriate position to take when a GM or a rules system appears to be in contradiction, it itself a presumption about a person's attitudes and beliefs.
The second point is the issue of the GM imposing limits, and then breaking them. This is different because it's not a question of the GM's attitudes and beliefs, but of the internal logic and consistency in the game world. If no dwarves can be wizards, for example, and then the GM introduces a dwarven wizard NPC, that's a question of finding out why - in the context of the game world - that's possible. In that case, I'm saying that there is (or should be) enough trust in the GM to showcase how this can be reconciled with the limitations on the game world while still maintaining internal logic and consistency (which tends to be some sort of exception-based design).
If there is trust in the GM, shouldn't there be enough trust to be confident that one can ask "Wait, I thought the rule was X but this thing seems to violate rule X?" This is especially so when problem is less an exception to a particular rule (dwarves can't be wizards, women have a strength cap, but *this* NPC is unusual for specific reasons), but is an inconsistency in the underlying logic of the game. If a GM says that the milieu is going to adhere strictly to the social mores of Tokugawa-era Japan, then the players ought to be surprised if samurai are cheerfully running around shooting handguns without anyone batting an eye about it. That would be different from a game in which a particular samurai pulls a handgun on the players. ("Wait, I thought this was forbidden? Oh wait, Evil Lord Hoshio probably doesn't give a rip about the code of honor. Okay then.")
To summarize, you can't ever truly know someone's motivations, but you can know if their actions remain consistent within the boundaries they set. Does that ease your confusion?
Again, you're confusing the two issues. You can ask someone how things work, and you can ask them why did they do this - the difference is that the former question can be answered objectively, whereas the latter cannot be.
Certainly the latter can be answered objectively; one may disagree with the reasoning, but I don't see why it is impossible to answer objectively.
