@Thanatos2k: You claimed my statement was sexist. You don't get to try and weasel out by "Well YOU prove it then!" Back up your claim or admit my statement wasn't sexist. You have provided no proof after making a claim. Provide proof that my statement was false or admit it isn't sexist. You claimed it was sexist, so now you have to prove it false.

@Bjjallday: See, this is the reason people feel the need to bring it up: because people still consider gay characters who aren't gay for an explicit purpose to be abnormal enough that including one is automatically considered "force [feeding]". Moreover, people still make a big enough deal about it to generate a ton of comments, and, for the internet, the relevance of news is based directly on how much traffic it generates.

@tarheelsforever: Because it still gets pages of comments, and the Internet is all about generating traffic. This is how it will be until people actually stop caring.

@soulsolus: You clearly spent a lot of time on that, and I am sorry that it was all wasted. My reading comprehension is just fine. Let me try to simplify what I was saying for you, as it seems you have trouble understanding "deeper" levels of text.

You gave two good examples, one where a female made more sense, and one where a male made more sense. These two examples are not all games. There are other games in the world. What about in those other games?

Either:

1) Men and women are different enough that it only ever makes sense to have 1; there is no scenario where it could be either a male or a female.

2) There are scenarios where either a male or a female makes sense. By not stating any caveats for why a female doesn't make sense in a given scenario, he is implying that choosing a female where a male could also work is having a female "just to have one."

I believed him to be following scenario 2, and could hardly believe that that was considered "sane".

@soulsolus: Do you think that, in every situation, only either a male or a female fit? There are no situations that could go either way? Are men and women really that different?

@soulsolus: He said you should put a strong female character in if she suits the story. Does that not mean that, unless a female explicitly makes sense, everyone should be male? What do you think he said?

@Thanatos2k: And, as I said before, the case is essentially the same as what I'm advocating.

"However, the Agency's Plan did not authorize such blind hiring, but expressly directed that numerous factors be taken into account in making employment decisions, including specifically the number of female applicants qualified for particular jobs."

Another direct quote, which explicitly discusses "hiring" and "employment decisions". As I said, a "promotion" in this case was similar to a hiring, in both my eyes and the eyes of the Supreme Court. The Court's statement explicitly discusses this as a "hiring".

Here is a link so you can actually see what the Supreme Court said: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/480/616.html Go ahead and Ctrl+F for "hiring".

They decided that an Affirmative Action plan that "intended to achieve ;a statistically measurable yearly improvement in hiring, training and promotion of minorities and women throughout the Agency in all major job classifications where they are underrepresented.'" was legal.

"You seem to have a problem with listening."

Thank you, I always love these sorts of points from people here.

@Thanatos2k: "Uh, yes?"

Then prove my statement was false.

@davidsworld3: Truly feminism has worked, and sexism is dead.

@t1000_v2: So what, everyone should be male unless there's a good reason to be female? That is the completely sane way to do it?