Male player + female character: a new twist

[Abraxas]

And these two things are related how?

Character name is a player choice, just as gender is in some games.
Some DMs find silly names break their suspension of disbelief, are disruptive, etc.
If you are a DM that doesn't allow silly names because they break your suspension of disbelief, are disruptive, etc. is it really difficult to believe that other DMs could feel the same about cross gendered PCs?

 

[Tinner]

1) I assume you have no problem with people playing dwarves and elves, even though it is unlikely a human can play anything other than a "short gruff human" or a "pointy eared human". Secondly, we're talking about adventurers, people who are already segregated from society. 20 strength half orc barbarian women wouldn't act like a "normal" woman most likely. Whether the 24 Wis cleric is male or female, or played by a male or female is secondary to the fact that you're asking a normal 10 to 12 Wis human player to play a 24 wis character! Gender should be a cinch next to that!

2) A player whose characters have disruptive traits will usually be disruptive regardless of the character's gender I've found. The disruptions are just different and new, so they are more noticable.

3) Would you have a problem if a male player played a jaded veteran soldier, pious cleric, or slimy bard? No? Then why is it bad if someone plays equally stereotypical female characters? Most people tend to overlook the fact that most same-gendered characters are stereotypes as well. This is hardly a reasonable argument.

4) Like # 2 and # 3, this has more to do with the players than the characters. In our group we have had one player who refused to "fade to black" early enough for my liking, and this was with male characters. We've had another character (admitedly in an evil campaign) who decided he was into sexual sadism. Does the gender of the character being male or female make a difference?

If the character is nothing but a short gruff human, or a pointy eared guy then yes, I would have a problem with it Any character that has a single quirk or lynchpin is crappy IMO. Give me a real, fleshed out character. Unless we're playing nothing but a "smash-mouth, beer & pretzels, kick in the door" style game, I insist that there be a little more to any character than just a single quirk/stereotype.

You're right about point 2. Disruptive players always find some way to be disruptive. And in my games, they get kicked to the curb as soon as they sow their true colors.

If a player's character is nothing but a jaded veteran soldier, pious cleric, or slimy bard then yes, I would have a problem with that as well. Again, I want to see something more fleshed out in most cases.
That said, characters like that aren't as big a problem for me, because they don't completely hinge on a single feature. That jaded soldier could be a fighter, paladin, ranger, etc. It could be any race or class. If there's more to the PC than the jaded soldier, then it's cool.
In my experience, On the other hand, I have found that CGC's usually are played as nothing more than a bad representation of gender, and that's all. Change the gender, and the character disappears. That's the main difference IMO.

As for you point four, it makes no difference the gender of the character in that situation. If a player is more interested in deviant sexuality, etc. than playing the game, then they either change their behavior or leave the game, for all the reasons I mentioned before. (I'm not a therapist, no pricks allowed, etc.)

 

[Quickbeam]

There's a pretty amazing discourse underway here...especially considering that just about everyone who's bothered to respond to JD has indicated they're fine with his character concept.

For my part, I will simply add two things:
1) It's a pretty fair bet that players who are intent on being disruptive will find a way to be thus, regardless of their character's gender...as others have noted herein. But DM's like T-Bill and Tinner have every right to ban males playing female characters in their games based on consistently poor prior experiences. Attempting to portray their behavior as unreasonable or poorly rationalized is what's really silly. At its core, their objection to this particular issue has little to do with how "accurately" or "correctly" the males in question have roleplayed their female characters. Rather, it focuses on how disproportionately disruptive these players have been to their games. Period. I'd wager that they also ban players from roleplaying gnomes if every one of their players managed to completely disrupt the game with characters of that sort. I appreciate why some folks object to a categorical ban on players doing 'X' with their PC's. But if you aren't in the gaming group affected by the aforementioned ban, perhaps your perspective lacks the tangible emotion being involved in the situation creates.
2) I'm glad the two groups I play in do not have this, or other frequently debated problems .