And I'm sure that they're putting their best effort in to these exhibition matches against teenagers
Wait... what? You claim to not be offended by reality, but yet this is your response? In addition to the club teams, they regularly hold practice games against the US Boys U-15 squad and the US Boys U-17 squads. They did this for the longest time because there were few to no women's teams that could really push them, so this was a convenient solution that helped both teams. Yet, as would hardly be surprising, their record against the best U-15 and U-17 squads the country can assemble is more dismal than it is against random U15 club teams. They almost never beat the boys, and they to my knowledge never beat the U-17 men. Generally they lose by 6 or more goals, and while it is a friendly match, given the size and strength disparities and the social taboo of hurting a woman I doubt it is the U-17 men that are holding the least back if either side is in fact holding back. But the point is that you conjecture (or mine for that matter) is irrelevant. The point is that as fantastic as it is to watch the USWNT play, and as far superior in their play than I ever was as a player, they are not at all capable of competing in competition in the sport with biological males.
I assume since you are disputing me in this matter, you watched all the U-17 games in the recent U-17 CONCACAF tournament? You are a deeply devoted soccer fan right? You are in fact arguing from a position of knowledge and expertise in the subject, or are you arguing from a position of ignorance in the matter? Where does your confidence that my claims don't match reality come from?
I only suggest that when many people claim to be advancing "reality" they are editorializing more than they would care to admit.
Sure. I've seen the soccer argument advanced to claim male superiority, but I think it's very clear that I'm not doing so. The ability to play soccer is not the judge of the worth of a person, and if it was then I'd be worth less than Alex Morgan. Nor am I arguing for intangible superiority. I'm just saying that in reality men and women are very different, and defining the equality based on capability (as if a person with less IQ than me is worth less than me, for example) is wrongheaded.
I was referring obliquely to the way our current major athletic structures are failing gender non-conforming and trans athletes. I should have been more clear on that point.
Ok, I'd prefer to not add a bunch of other controversial topics to what is already a sufficiently controversial thread. I will just say that we both agree that sex and gender are not the same thing (though I think we probably do disagree on what they are), and further I think we both agree that the division between men and women in athletics was intended to be a division based on biological sex and not gender, precisely to foster competition and athleticism in biological females that would otherwise lack a proper competitive showcase for their abilities. If you don't agree, ok, but that discussion probably better belongs in a different forum.
So what are we arguing about, then?
The topic introduced by the OP. So specifically, "Does there exist an RPG where mechanical differences between men and women would be justified?" Or, as I rephrased it to be what I think is clearer, "Assume that there exists some game where sex is an early choice in the chargen process and it ultimately impacts in some fashion the character so that you get different results on average or in the extremes depending on which biological sex you took. Is this game justified or inherently immoral/unethical/wrong?" To that question I have appended a follow up question, "If you claim that there is no such game where the differences would be justified, is the basis of your claim that such a game would not be realistic?"
