Do only female PCs get penalties because of their sex? And males don't get penalties based on the limitations of their sex?
Again, I'm not concerned with the specifics of the mechanics here. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that my chargen system works like this. You take a lengthy multiple choice test concerning things like your gender, the family you were born to, the trade you were trained in, the time of life when your parents died, the sorts of traumas and opportunities you were exposed to, and so forth. And behind the scenes, I have a library of 100,000 very accurately modeled persons taken from the life histories of people living in 17th century London, accurately modelled to a level that would make the designer of Dwarf Fortress weep. All of these characters abilities accurately reflect the real life person's capabilities, skills, and talents - there was no system allocating points to it, no penalties, no bonuses, no disadvantages. We simply translated very accurately the real person's abilities into the simulation. And the life history you choose for yourself is that person's real life history, and that is how your character is assigned.
You would have me believe that this process is by definition sexist? Would you have me believe that this process is inherently uninteresting?
I don't know if you've noticed this, but real life isn't 'fair'. Someone like Stephen Hawkings doesn't have a hideous wasting physical impairment because he had to accept a disadvantage in order to have the points for his extraordinary mental abilities. Plenty of people have bodies that don't work well and no compensating superior mental gifts. Some people are learning disabled, born into poverty, physically handicapped and hardly able to take care of themselves. Other people are gifted, born into wealth and comfort. Life is not fair. I honestly don't know what you are talking about when you talk about "limitations of their sex" male or female. I don't think about being a few inches shorter on average as being a "limitation of the female sex", but if it is a limitation I don't know that there is any compensating limitation to be male other than being a few inches taller on average (and having the social expectation that you are, I suppose). Why don't you tell me what you think those limitations that I ought to impose are?
Do you know who Carli Lloyd is? If you don't, go google the absolutely amazing, from the halfway line chip of the keeper she made in the last world cup. It's incredible. I jumped up and down and hollered for like 5 minutes. She's an amazing soccer player, and to achieve that level of success she's had to invest almost her whole life into soccer. But if "soccer skills" are the test of a person's value, and if we are doing some sort of soccer simulation where success in soccer is what makes a character important and valued, then Carli Lloyd is a terrible Player Character. You see, as great as Carli Lloyd is, if we are measuring people by ability, then in fairness we have to note that the USWNT, for lack of quality opponent's, has historically trained against the Under 17 USMNT team. And against the U-17 Men, they always lose. In fact, they always get blown out. Not only that, but they often train against the U-15 US boy's team. And, yes, they usually lose to them as well. In fact, not only have they lost to the U-15 US boy's team, but they have not infrequently lost in exhibition play to local U-15 boy's club teams that are themselves not skilled enough to compete at higher U15 boys level of competition. This doesn't diminish Carli Lloyd as a person, but it does mean that as a matter of simple fact, Carli Lloyd has no compensating ability to make up for the fact that the thing she's devoted her life too she will never be much better than an above average 15 year old kid. What penalties do you think our soccer simulation should apply here for being male? I suspect however Carli Lloyd's a happy person, despite knowing that fact far more intimately than you know it. Because I suspect, that she knows what you seem to not know, which is that people aren't valued according to their ability. Maybe we are used to judging PC's on that basis, but it's not how life actually works.
Do you suppose it is inherently sexist that the female players in a soccer simulation like FIFA 17 are inherently slower and weaker and shorter than the male players in the simulation? Must we be protected from this "sexist" game which provides no corresponding penalties to playing male characters?
Worse, do you suppose these "penalties" as you call them, are the result of "institutionalized sexism", and that Carli Lloyd if she just stopped believing in the limits imposed on her "as a girl", and if she just tried harder, and if she just believed harder, and if she just had more confidence, would discover hidden reserves that would let her be Lionel Messi or Christian Ronaldo and girls could then "kick butt" just as hard as the boys? Because if that's what you believe, then I can hardly think of anything more insulting to women. I don't think there is a gap in volition or character between men and women.
You see I hope what the issue is with a soccer simulation. It involves pretty much solely caring about certain things that men usually care about and excel at. And that's probably not accidental. Similarly, we get to RPGs out of wargaming, which simulated war, and sport is war with rules, and as such pretty much that thing that men usually excel at. The games we are talking about set the rules, and the rules say that what is important is martial prowess.
But nothing requires that a game be about who can kick the most butt. Life, as far as I believe, isn't a contest about who can kick the most butt. I don't even believe it's a contest about who can pass on the most genes. But even if it is, I don't have to make my games about either of those things. Still, play by the rules you seek to impose on me and describe for me these "penalties based on the limitations of their sex" that you want me to impose to make everything all fair and just and even? Tell me what you want the game to be about that will make it fair, and tell me again how if it isn't a fantasy where it is all fair, how it is sexist.
I think your definition of 'sexist' is ridiculous. It seems to require that something contain features I don't observe in reality. Despite all you keep saying about how it is the literal definition, the one you are using bears only a passing resemblance to the one in the dictionary. It certainly bears no resemblance to my working definition of sexism, which is valuing a person less on the basis of their gender.
If so, then yes, requiring one sex to have penalties that model reality while you don't require the the other to have penalties that likewise model reality is definitionally sexist.
First of all, I don't even get how you reach the conclusion that I'm "requiring one sex to have penalties that model reality while you don't require the other to have penalties that likewise model reality" I'm modeling reality period for the purpose of this argument. I know in fact that I can't perfectly do so, but whatever realistic "penalties" you think I ought to apply, I will. Higher chance of suicide? Sure. Higher chance of a violent death? Sure. Shorter life expectancy. I'm happy to apply that. What I don't think you are ever going to get to however many "penalties" I apply is something that is objectively fair. Still, objectively fair or not, reality has to get a pass. If it doesn't, if you can't accept reality, and so everything has to be a protective fantasy where we change the rules from reality to make something you are more comfortable with, then again you are insulting women as a group far beyond my ability or inclination to do so (despite your implication that I'm being sexist here).
And second of all, my definition of sexism is one where sexism is always a bad thing. But strangely, you've adopted a definition of sexism so strained and twisted, that it's forcing you to write that sexism is sometimes appropriate, quote: "Does that mean the modifiers are inappropriate to that game? Provided your players are informed ahead of time and buy-into playing in that particular game, probably not." No, actual sexism is always inappropriate, and if you are dealing with something that may or may not be inappropriate, then you are not dealing with sexism. Literally, not dealing with sexism. By the definition of the word.
Finally...
Will you attract a large number of female players to that game? Again, probably not; especially if those female players prefer to play female PCs.
I don't presume to speak for what a person will like. I certainly don't presume to speak for what a large number of persons will like, and I generally prefer not to categorize people according to stereotypes about what they like. Apparently in your world, if women aren't just as capable of kicking butt as men in every way, then women aren't interested. I wonder then what the attraction of say "Pride & Prejudice" is, and whether we might make an interesting game of Regency Romances and Comedies of Manners. (Full disclosure, I adore Jane Austen, and have probably watched the BBC Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle a half dozen times.) Assuming such an interesting game could be made, we probably wouldn't bother to even record a character's physical strength score as irrelevant to the story, but should we do so for some reason, would it be sexist if the average strength for women was less than men?
