Is this offensive?

[apoptosis]

I'm in a similar position. I'm a linguist, specialising in the evolution of the cognitive capacities that underly language production, and also a practising language teacher. But I have found again and again in discussions like this (particularly over the Internet) that arguing against absolute cultural reletavist positions accomplishes nothing and ends up hurting some people's feelings pretty badly (often in addition to causing a flame war). IMHO, it's best just to agree to disagree in order to avoid getting into nasty arguments and possibly poisoning relationships with other posters that you might get along with swimmingly in just about any thread.

Oh...and for the record--I agree that there's no especially good reason to include gender stat modifiers in D&D. Rather, I made the OP because I noitced that on ENWorld (as opposed to RPG.net, where I usually hang out), nobody ever gets upset about race in fantasy RPGs. I wanted to know if the same held true of gender, and if not, why. I've got a pretty clear idea of the answer to that now.

+2 Wis for you.

I am so used to discussing scientific ideas that I sometimes forget that people who do not engage in them regularly can get pretty upset during discussions. The nice thing (i guess) about being a scientist is that our hypotheses are wrong quite often, so I don't really discuss to be right as much as to find the correct information.

On the other hand If I see a scientific inaccuracy, i tend to be compelled to comment (-2 Wis for me) but on the other hand I am never emotionally invested such discussions. If someone cites a valid piece of scientific literature that rebuts my points, I have no problem readjusting my world view. I am far more interested in accuracy of knowledge than winning an argument.

Far more interesting to me is your field. I have been in neurochemistry/molecular psychiatry the past several years and find cognitive evolution pretty fascinating. Your area of study sounds incredibly interesting.

 

[roguerouge]

So we have two experts disagreeing:

This trait is something that is culturally stressed, not truly biological. While most cultures have a bias towards male dominance in some ways, not all cultures assume males will be stronger. In some north african cultures, women are stronger, because they are responsible for grinding millet (which builds upper body strength), while the men are more dextrous from the hunting that they traditionally perform.

vs.

I am a biologist and from a biology standpoint men are significantly stronger than women by a fair margin. This is not a cultural issue (though cultural issues can definitely impact strength) but a biological one. Muscle development is different genetically and biochemically. This is not in any way in doubt scientifically through every type of study.... Unless they genetically engineer women, men will always be stronger. While equal training has definitely decreased the gap, it is pretty close to the point of being genetic differences.

How to resolve...

Well, in extreme cases, environment and culture ARE a form of genetic engineering, of course. So if an isolated culture selects women to perform tasks that increase musculature and requires men to have good hair and aesthetic sense, then, over time, the influence of culture and environment can overcome biological determinism in extreme cases.

Of course, I'm still wondering why it is that gnomes and dwarves and elves and halflings have to mirror human biology as it applies to sex traits in this way. Why WotC can't have the slightest amount of imagination on this issue boggles the mind.

 

[mmu1]

I'd recommend that anyone who thinks the strength difference between men and women isn't especially large - or has to do with cultural bias - look up the world weight-lifting records sometime, and compare the men's and women's scores. These are all professional athletes who strength train for a living, and the strongest (highest weight class - 75+ kg) female lifters perform about as well as the weakest (lowest weight class - 56kg) male ones.

Not that I think there's any point in trying to reflect the difference in D&D rules. It's not necessary, not fun, and creates more porblems and disagreements than it could possibly solve.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Sooooo, what exactly are you saying here? That because women have gotten the historical shaft that it's realistic to see them as less "charismatic" and/or less "wise"?? I soooo hope I'm misreading what you are trying to say . . . . 'cause if that is what you are trying to say, all I can say in response is a sad, "Wow".

I'm saying that a +1 Cha for "social intelligence" doesn't pass muster to me. Certainly not when others mention a -1 for mens" charisma. Where's the evidence beyond...uh babes are cute.

 

[Drowbane]

Realistically? Sure, there should be gender stat mods.

D&D, however, is not a reality engine. You wanna play the female conan who can lift more than real world male power-lifters? Go for it. We're already talking about characters who (at high level) can go toe to toe with flying lizards that are as big as a bus (or bigger).

I don't think its worth the hassle of trying to figure out just what bonuses the sexes of each race should get (or even a flat set for each race). D&D already does this... but only with one Race. The Drow. Females get a small edge (or was that only in 3.0?).

I'd recommend that anyone who thinks the strength difference between men and women isn't especially large - or has to do with cultural bias - look up the world weight-lifting records sometime, and compare the men's and women's scores. These are all professional athletes who strength train for a living, and the strongest (highest weight class - 75+ kg) female lifters perform about as well as the weakest (lowest weight class - 56kg) male ones.

Not that I think there's any point in trying to reflect the difference in D&D rules. It's not necessary, not fun, and creates more porblems and disagreements than it could possibly solve.

QFT

 

[apoptosis]

So we have two experts disagreeing:



vs.



How to resolve...

Well, in extreme cases, environment and culture ARE a form of genetic engineering, of course. So if an isolated culture selects women to perform tasks that increase musculature and requires men to have good hair and aesthetic sense, then, over time, the influence of culture and environment can overcome biological determinism in extreme cases.

Of course, I'm still wondering why it is that gnomes and dwarves and elves and halflings have to mirror human biology as it applies to sex traits in this way. Why WotC can't have the slightest amount of imagination on this issue boggles the mind.

To an extent I imagine enough cultural engineering could substantially change the sexual dimorphism that humans have. Though how fast and how much is the question. We might have a lot of evolution to contend with. I know that some apes (eg baboons and orangutans if i am not mistaken) tend to have significant sexual dimorphsim but not sure how widespread that is so not sure how imbedded this is into our genome. Sexual dimporphism for larger males is usually is the result of male cometition among the species.

An edit...a better way to engineer would not be social practices like you listed but instead if males kept choosing females that were bigger and stronger while females choose mates that were smaller and weaker. Over many generations this should probably impact and begin to reverse the present dimorphism. I may have misinterpreted but your example was a little too lamarckian for my tastes.

Since sexual dimorphism is an evolutionary aspect and i cant really say what the evolution of the other races are, it is pretty much a free for all.

 

[Felix]

Of course, I'm still wondering why it is that gnomes and dwarves and elves and halflings have to mirror human biology as it applies to sex traits in this way. Why WotC can't have the slightest amount of imagination on this issue boggles the mind.

It's not that WotC lacks the imagination, it's that they're aware enough not to touch the gender issue with your 10-foot pole. Else they'd get proverbially lynched.

I'd recommend that anyone who thinks the strength difference between men and women isn't especially large - or has to do with cultural bias - look up the world weight-lifting records sometime, and compare the men's and women's scores. These are all professional athletes who strength train for a living, and the strongest (highest weight class - 75+ kg) female lifters perform about as well as the weakest (lowest weight class - 56kg) male ones.

As a rowing coach I can weigh in on this with stuff from my sport. World champion women rowers possess builds that would squish most men, even most athletic men. They are consistently tall, broad shouldered, hugely muscled, and very lean. But they cannot bring as much leverage to the erghandle as even college male rowers can. A woman's center of gravity is closer her hips than a man's because of her bone structure and the biologic necessity of childbirth; this means that a woman will not be able to suspend as much weight on the handle as an equally heavy higher-center-of-gravity male rower.

You may argue that this only proves that males have an advantage in rowing because of their build, and not because they are inherently stronger; but this clearly illustrates that the differences in the body structure between males and females result in significantly different power outputs in rowing. As rowing uses every single muscle group, does this not suggest that males have an inherent physical advantage when it comes to strength?

For illustration: Georgina Evers-Swindell is a Kiwi who formerly held the 2000m indoor-rowing machine world record at 6 minutes 28.5 seconds. She is a glory to behold rowing in her double scull with her (ever so slightly weaker) twin sister Caroline. But 5 of the guys on my university college crew pulled faster 2ks than that; and we weren't that fast, relatively speaking. For her male counterpart, Rob Waddell is the heavyweight men's world record holder with a time of 5:36.6.

 

[Tewligan]

STOP KEEP TRYING TO GET INTO MY PANTS!

It's okay, everybody does it. Good luck fighting them off with your -2 strength penalty.

 

[Tewligan]

Unless they genetically engineer women,

Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until REAL furries start tainting the real world in addition to the internet.

 

[darthkilmor]

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but I recall there being differences between male and female characters in 2nd edition as far as max strength, or maybe that was only the gold box games, can't remember. something like, human male max str was 18(00) but human female max str was 18(75) or something.

Anyway, I voted No, that doesn't offend me. Men and women are different in many ways, and thats OK.
Would I bother numerically making that difference in my game? Probably not. Simplify, simplify!