It depends. Are the upper bounds on strength that limit female PCs the only sex-based modifier?
You are heavily focused on implementation which is missing the forest for the trees. But let me make this very clear for you what I'm saying. Under the proposed chargen system, there would be upper bounds on virtually every martial related attribute, whether strength, speed, weapon skill, tactical acumen, martial leadership, etc. If it would be related to the conduct of combat, battle, or war, female characters created under the system would have lower bounds than male characters created under the system.
Clear?
And, frankly, if you're modeling real-world limits on one sex while not doing so with the other sex, yeah, that's sexist.
I suppose in the same system there would be limits to a man's knowledge of midwifery, fan language, female manners, flower arranging, and so forth compared to female characters, as the life paths that maximized those skills would simply not be available to a man. Although I should say, almost by definition, in the society we would be modeling fewer life paths would be available to a female than a man (though some might be surprising) so there would not be some sort of 'equal trade'. What we are modeling here is the real life (or fantasy life as the case maybe, as all games are fiction, I don't see a big distinction) limits imposed by having a society that very much does treat women as being different than men and so imposes very different limits on the opportunities that are available to them.
Literally. It's failing to treat people equally (via failing to apply reality-modeling penalties to both sexes) on the basis of their sex.
Well ok, if that is where you are going to take your stand, I find your argument juvenile.
It fails to treat people equally because in reality they seldom have been. Indeed, if by equal you mean 'equal in ability', and if you do mean that then you are really messed up, then in reality people are not equal in ability, and there are real differences between the sexes. If you are uncomfortable with that, then I'm not sure how you can be comfortable around real people. Does your comfort with people require extending this bubble of fantasy around them? Is your generosity, compassion and sense of fairness toward people dependent on perceiving them according to this literal fantasy that they are equal in ability? Do you value people only in so much that your bubble about the equality of ability doesn't get burst? Do you require life to be fair before you are able to process it?
I simply don't understand your definition of 'sexism'. It seems to require the person who holds it to be delusional. Moreover, even among people who agree that limitations on an RPG character on the basis of sex are inherently sexist, I think you'll find that there are many who don't agree that applying "reality-modeling penalties to both characters" (whatever those would be) would make it less sexist.
Treating people equally means treating people as being equal in dignity and worth. It does not mean treating them as equal in experience, form, or ability. To treat people who are different - and make no mistake we are all different - as if they are the same is to not acknowledge their personhood and their identity, and is not compassionate, considerate, or very practical. And besides which, you are conflating "how we model something" how we "behaving toward a person". It's not all true that acknowledging the reality of gender segregated society of 16th century Japan, and the limited roles available to women within it, is the same as treating a persons as having unequal worth and your conflation of the two is either very sloppy thinking or actual maliciousness.
)
