I would not consider such a game to be immoral purely on those grounds but it would be unfair from a gamist standpoint.
I could quibble with your use of the word fair, but generously attempting to understand you, I'll simply say that this game I've imagined is clearly not gamist. So, it would be 'unfair' to judge it from a gamist perspective. I've already declared that the motivation of the designer was purist for simulation. Whether the village is an office building and the name of the game is 'Paychecks and Papers' or a medieval village and the name of the game is 'Drudgery and Toil', I think it is pretty clearly the intention of the designer to immerse the players into the setting by making them play ordinary members of the society in question. This is RPG as pure exploration of setting experience.
As far as treating the players with respect, surely you agree my rules I've just presented treat all players alike regardless of gender? The players gender has no bearing on the gender of the character they end up with. Men may play female characters and women males. If the rules are 'unfair' because one person ends up with a child with dysentery and another the manorial lord, it didn't happen on the basis of the player's gender. Those are just the breaks, like having differing stats when you roll up stats randomly. Moreover, a game that is about the interaction of a peasant child with dysentery and a manorial lord might be a pretty interesting 'Indie' sort of game IMO. It wouldn't be D&D, but it would be role playing. And maybe most importantly, for the purposes of the story it is not a given that the child with dysentery is less important than the manorial lord. Maybe the game doesn't judge and evaluate and set the worth of people solely on their upper body strength and their ability to kick butt.
So having said that, I will now go one step further in this logic. If the demographics generator isn't sexist, and it isn't sexist to construct and play a game using the rules I just presented, we can't say that it is sexist to construct, publish, and play a game in which a character burner/builder generates different results for men and women. Why, because clearly we could now introduce a third optional means of character generation - run the character burner for a single individual and play that - and it would be exactly equivalent to either of the prior options. And we could introduce a fourth option for character generation, run the character burner for a single individual but now you are allowed to make a certain number of choices in the generation non-randomly, assigning the results of the tables as you like rather than according to the results of the dice. And again, this is exactly equivalent in the results to the prior character generation options (if you don't believe me, the logical proof is use option #2 for character generation, and set the size of the village to be the infinity).
In other words, if the demographics generator isn't itself sexist, its an inescapable conclusion of logic that we cannot on the basis of whether or not a games character burner produces different results for men and women judge the game as sexist. We must have additional criteria. The asserted standard doesn't work.
And there is a very good reason we should be happy that the asserted standard doesn't work. We live in a world where the average strength of men and women and the maximum strength of men and women differs. If the demographic generator for our imaginary game is sexist, then our own world is inherently sexist and men really are superior to women. If we cannot be comfortable with the proposed demographics generator, we cannot be comfortable with who we are as people and we continually assassinate our own rationality to insist that yes men and women have the same strength and anyone who reminds us otherwise is sexist. If encoding into a game different results of body strength is enough to damn the game, how much more must we damn our own genes and damn the world for men and women being different.
Of course, out in the real world, the basis for our belief in the value of a person isn't their ability to lift weights or kick butt. So what's so wrong with a game judging the value of the person on something other than their ability to lift weights or kick butt, to say nothing of the fact that in a fantasy game lifting weights might well not be the only or most effective way to kick butt or that in a modern setting pretty much anyone who is a crack shot with a firearm is the peer in martial virtue to anyone else. What is really so terrible about a game encoding those beliefs?
And lastly, as the final step in my logic, anyone who insists that a game encode mechanical gender equality in its rules is a sexist and worthy of condemnation. It is of course acceptable to fantasize about or imagine a world were this holds true, or to dodge the issue entirely by noting that the realistic strength cap for both genders is well above what is allowed for a starting character of either gender and so such a rule serves no purpose. In point of fact, all the games I've created and rules sets I've created are pretty much games of this sort.* But to accept that all views of reality must assert the anti-rational, anti-historical, and ultimately sexist view that men and women have always been equals in war, as if the real value of a person was their upper body strength and martial virtue, and what was really empowering was to portray women in the comfortable role of men with breasts, is wholly and entirely sexist. It is a threat to the emotional and mental well-being of my female loved ones, friends and family, to assert that the real standard on whether you respect women is whether you show them as being equal butt kickers to men, to say little of what I think that says about our attitude to violence. I will not tolerate it and I will call it out.
Fundamentally, my standard of what is and isn't sexist has to be based on objective truth. It is sexist to say, "You can't be a real gamer, because you are a girl.", because that is objectively false. It is sexist to say that the only value of women is in the kitchen or making babies, because that is objectively false. It is sexist to say "A woman can't be a warrior.", because that is objectively false. But it can't be sexist to assert the objective truth that women on average are less strong than men, or that the maximum strength of men is greater than that of women. If that assertion makes you uncomfortable, your problem isn't with me but with reality. I would suggest the problem is that you are still stuck in the chauvinist mindset that what makes a person valuable is their martial virtue, an attitude which unfortunately D&D encodes indirectly because of its legacy as a war game, and you have inadvertently taken up the assumptions of the thing you deplore.
The reason I've been asking the whole time for standards, is I think ultimately this trivial standards like 'does the character burner generate the same options regardless of the gender of the character' are useless. I can imagine sexist games which allow fully muscled women and non-sexist games which don't. We shouldn't be using such standards as criteria.
However, if any gamer persists in their sexist belief that all such games are damnable, I'll endeavor to be at least as forgiving of them as they are of mine.
*My D&D house rules assumes strength caps are irrelevant, since they would be for either gender much higher not only than 18 but at least 23 - the highest strength you could normally obtain - and that in any event high level characters represent not normal people, but superheroes. Likewise, my SIPS rules set assumes that all characters are prepubescent 9-11 year olds, an age when strength differences between boys and girls are trivially lower than the granularity of the rules set. Nonetheless, if I did become fascinated with a high simulationist game or wanted to add nods to simulationist rules set that encoded some gender differences, I'd not expect to receive censure for it and am generally uncomfortable with blanket damnation of any other designer that has so done so without consideration of their motivations.
