Fair enough, but the problem with "fighting off orc hordes" or "digging around tombs" is that that's presuming a context to the pictures that is impossible to ascertain, either against or in favor of. The artists don't have the ability to make the characters look like they're adventuring for your tastes, so the best they can do is make them to their own.
To put it another way, illustrations virtually never have any sort of unambiguous context to the scenes they depict (short us being told, or otherwise having it clearly indicated, that they're meant to represent a specific scene from a specific narrative). Given that, why not presume that, if the characters depicted are part of a larger world, how they're equipped is sufficient for a scenario that they're either heading for or returning from?
For a more universal game like FATE or some others, I might agree. I think D&D brings with it a much smaller (or at least more specific) set of conceits, though. If you're illustrating various adventuring classes for the "pick a class" section, I'm fair confident they could look the part. If you're just peppering the books illustrations of cool-looking fantasy dudes (or dudettes) without context, well I think you're wasting an illustration opportunity. And the illustrations do come with context, usually (hopefully) the rules they are surrounded by. However, that's a bigger art argument that goes beyond the scope of "equality".
IME, games which are about us imagining ourselves sitting around, doing nothing, and looking much cooler than we are IRL, are fairly boring. (....and yes, I have actually accidentally been involved in such a thing....) YMMV, I guess.
Which is sort of the point to this discussion; notwithstanding any issues of ideology or marketability, what sort of rules in that regard would be accurate?
Accurate has no meaning here. By which I mean, if the "real world" doesn't agree on the answer, there can't be any "accurate" simulation of the answer, only self-fulfilling representations of the author's beliefs/impressions/desires. (Even when the "real world" has agreement, they can all be wrong, which is why experiments were invented.)
It's worth noting that this does seem to be shaping up as an anti-simulationist argument.
I can't see how. The point is simply that Simulationists must and do
choose what it is they are including in their games.
Which is not to say that simulations do so. Indeed, when attempting to build a good model for an actual simulation, "Its not realistic" is a perfectly valid objection. RPG games, even many Simulation
ist games, are not generally very good simulations. Nor do I think they are really trying to be. (There are some wargames that make fairly exhaustive attempts at it, though.) "Simulationist/-ism" and "simulation" are not the same thing.
It's worth noting that when Edwards said that he was referring to making the dream as realistic as possible. He wasn't talking about the ideological quality (or morality) of what that dream was.
First, lets be careful about the word "realistic". "Faithful" might be a better word. Which is to say, if I'm writing a Simulationist Star Wars game, it should play in such a way to be faithful to the movies and the types of events we see there. The movies, in turn, are not "realistic" for a variety of reasons, and any good simulation of that work will consequently not be any more "realistic". Being faithful to the "dream" is the whole point of Simulationism, because it allows exploration of the setting.
Secondly, you're right. Edwards wasn't talking about the ideological quality (or morality) of what that dream was. Which is why I'm saying that my position about gender-biased rules is
not about Simulationism.
All kidding aside though, I understand your point, but it's essentially saying that you want to focus on the ideology of sex-based mechanics. That's fine - and for what it's worth I would like to point out (again) that I find them distasteful, to say nothing of how nobody is advocating that they actually be added to the game - but that's not the discussion I'm having.
There is nothing else too focus on. There is no "real" answer to the question of gender-biased strength, and hence cannot be one for D&D.