Should body types and gender actually have an effect on melee and shit?

[mumblemumble]

Don't forget this isn't the present. This is way in the future. How do you know that females aren't on par with males in terms of strength, size, etc?

My guess would be the continuation of human biology, where men are the disposable "workers" and women are the ones to bring up, and care for children, generally speaking.

It comes to 1 thing irremovable from sex : a womb is more important than testicles, and this honestly shapes much of society, where women are protected, and men are expected to take risks...why is this?

If you want to genocide a group, and have the opportunity to kill of 70% of 1 gender...killing the females will cull population far more effectively than the males, as males can impregnate females FAR more than females can BE impregnated. This is why with animal population control having females is significantly more important than males, as 1 male can easily get busy with 3 females.

Societies INHERENTLY adjust to this, especially in trying times / areas (you know, like rimworlds) its also expected that society would continue to reinforce the stereotype, out of a need of survival. Women CAN do certain tasks, but it goes against their nature, their biology, and is less effective.  And if risky tasks like combat or mining were more likely to cause fatalities, why would women, who are essential to continued population be sent out, when they are better at caring for the colony? If we assume that men continued to be stronger unless there was a setup to enforce equality (IE, glitter-worlds) Then the lore of the rimworld universe also supports it, with midworlds, urbworlds, medieval, tribal worlds, ect... all having men as enforced to be masculine, and women to be feminine. And these segregation of genders in jobs causes continued enforcement of these gender norms with natural, and sexual selection

And this isn't even TOUCHING on sexuality in general which ALSO enforces stereotypes. Quite simply, most men tend to prefer feminine women, and women masculine men...So even in a glitter-world with no mechanical need for masculine men / feminine women (which is subjective anyway) Sexuality would still value masculinity and femininity in general, which would by ITSELF enforce gender norms, as people want a mate, and will conform to expectations to get them, or have less odds of a mate, and for those whom mate successfully, their parents will instill ideas in their children by proxy. One could even try to argue glitterworlds would genetically grow people in pods or whatever, but theres 2 issues with this.

1 : glitter-worlds are the minority in the universe, and in the rimworld scope. The rimworld is far away from glitter-worlds, and they are slightly irrelevant to those there. Somoene might be from a glitterworld, but the rimworld is a new world, new culture...and this change in culture would cause a change in the person, over time.
2 :  Children growing without parents statistically, in present time, do FAR WORSE, and so for a kid grown in a pod, with no parents, I would assume they would do worse off as well. I would then assume the standard family unit would still be prevalent for mentally / emotionally healthy offspring, but I admit, this is talking about a fictional future we know almost nothing about, so this is just conjecture in a way.

The social / culture shift would have to start, and get momentum somewhere, and on the rimworld, I just can't see it happening...maybe on a glitterworld, but I doubt this change would reach as far as midworlds, urbworlds, and all that, not when the cultures of such places ENFORCE gender stereotypes.

Also, I don't understand why people say it would be "overboard" if it was noticeable. you mean to say training a male in melee combat over a female, because a male would have +15% damage would be overboard, while females having more manipulation ability would also be too much? I don't get it.

Also as headshot said, pretty much that... Couple that with the fact most humans are used to rimworlds, urbworlds, midworlds, medieval worlds... And I see men / women who are "equal" physically and psychological in terms of genetic evolution to be an IMMENSE rarity in the galaxy, far rarer than gay people, because it would mean, by evolutionary standpoints, that one would need to of been genetically in a glitter-world for a few thousand years, and resolve all cultural, sexual, and physical needs for gender roles...which, while maybe possible, if you believe men and women could "evolve" out of their roles, would be EXTREMELY unlikely.

It would be so rare, it might as well not be rendered in game, just like people with blue skin from silver consumption.

[milon]

@Headshotkill:
Good counter point.

But my reading puts the emphasis on other planets. It also says humans have evolved tolerance for radiation, so human evolution hasn't stopped.

But I admit I haven't read the lore recently, and can't really do so from my phone, and I'm away from my computer right now. So I could be wrong.

[brcruchairman]

I believe something that is being largely ignored is the nurture side of things. Let us disregard, for a moment, the question of whether or not there is a biological predisposition for strength or social skills or what have you for males and females. Let us examine, then, the more relevant question of whether nurture, societal norms in particular, can impact physical bearing.

The obvious example to bring up is the Chambri People.¹ In their culture, the traditional roles (socially and occupationally) are reversed from what we're used to in the west, and indeed most of the world. This seems to be strong evidence for the notion that, regardless of any biological predisposition, nurture, or the societal norms, can overpower it. So biological predisposition is, by my reckoning, overshadowed by the dominant factor of societal function.

Assuming I'm not mistaken in the above, the next response is, "Okay, cool, but there's still a biological predisposition." I would argue that there is not. One of the studies most commonly cited is this one, which asserts half to two-thirds strength in women compared to men.² Although one could argue this study is invalidated by the tiny sample size (n=16) alone, let's disregard that for a moment and focus on the core fallacy; this does not describe a biological predisposition. This describes eight typical specimens of each gender in the current social climate. That means that women already have a strong tenancy to be weaker physically than men because that's how society tells them to be; just look up pictures of "beautiful woman" and "beautiful man". The first will tend to show waifish figures, possibly a full bust and healthy rump, but generally minimal visible musculature. Contrast this with the beautiful man, which tends to be corded and well-defined muscle. If anyone would like to argue this point, I'd be happy to find some studies that confirm this difference in beauty standards. In short, current society tells women that their ideal shape is willowy and lean, while men should aim for a bulky and sculpted look. Since many aim to bring their body in line with the physical ideal, the consequence of men developing through effort stronger musculature seems forgone.

Let's assume (however unlikely it may be) that you've agreed with me so far. The next logical argument is, "Well, then, men still put on muscle easier, so they tend to be stronger naturally." This is another oft-repeated argument, and one which holds little weight. Firstly, let us examine the muscle fibers themselves: there is no discernible difference between male and female muscle fibers.³ The chief difference is rather the quantity of muscle fibers, as one would expect. The argument has been made that males put on muscle faster. This is also false; it appears that, given identical exercise regiments, females put on muscle at a very similar rate to males over a 16 week span.⁴

In conclusion, I believe significant evidence for the equality of the genders, all else being equal (age, occupation, societal pressure, etc.) in melee combat or any other arena. Of course, one could argue that this culture or that culture will demand different things between men and women, but then it becomes a question of specific case and Rimworld lore, not real-world simulation.

Regarding stereotypes, regardless of whether it's "positive" or "negative", they can be quite damaging. For instance, the stereotype of "men are strong" can quickly turn into a liability for any who are not physically strong. Rather than it being a minor personal deficiency, it instead shifts to "they must be a failure as a man". Similar to the "statistically proven" assertion regarding women and social skills. (Incidentally, science and statistics can never prove anything. All it can do is provide evidence, and leave valid theories to explain them. One of the biggest tenants is that we don't truly "know" anything, we just have highly likely possibilities.)

Regarding body type, I can see a strong argument for its inclusion; the way a beanpole fights will be vastly different from the way someone built like a brick house would fight. The lean build would very conceivably have a bonus on cool down, possibly movement speed on account of the less momentum. However, against blunt force trauma (and, to a much lesser extent, slashing trauma) there would be increased vulnerability; an impact would be far more likely to hit something functional, e.g. directly impact muscle or transmit a shock through to an organ. The larger fighter in turn would have the opposite; the large frame and fat deposits would increase momentum making for a slower fighter (all else, including musculature and muscular cross-section) but conversely those fat deposits would distribute any blunt trauma over a wider area, mitigating its effect, and slashing weapons would have to cut deeper to achieve the same level of physiological disruption. (E.g., severed muscle fibers, lacerated blood vessels, cut organs, etc.)

I also agree that the bonus from body type should be small; there are plenty of accounts of people large but fast, and I'm pretty sure we all know someone skinny but slow; personal traits (e.g., lazy vs fast walker, brawler, etc.) should dominate, but the addition of a small bonus or penalty for colonist body type would not, in my opinion, be a bad thing. I'm not sure how much work it would be mechanically to differentiate between them, particularly since something like fat deposits is unlikely to change survival outcomes for a gunshot would, but the concept, at least, appears sound.

References:
¹: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people
²: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
³: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/musclephys.txt
⁴: https://books.google.com/books?id=rk3SX8G5Qp0C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=national+strength+and+conditioning+association+women+strength+gain&source=bl&ots=o6lCqfDgUP&sig=05WMzI3kuKJhRm671sNoLGPA9cE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit27yVl43RAhVMRiYKHYFCBfMQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=national%20strength%20and%20conditioning%20association%20women%20strength%20gain&f=false p.152

[milon]

"Urbworld Researcher" indeed.

+rep, if that were a thing here

[mumblemumble]

BR, skeletal frame is EVERYTHING...

Do you know about leverage? how 5 lbs of force can do more if applied to a longer lever? The same applies to males and females

Lets say a male and female have the exact same amount of muscle, but different skeletons. Males are larger, longer limbs, and thus, make the muscle MORE effective due to higher leverage. Its the same principle as why a long handle hammer hits harder than a short handle one, because the leverage applies the force more effectively.

Add onto this testosterone in the system, which in itself is a physical stimulant to promote muscle growth, aggression, ect, and yes, men are objectively stronger. Societally women can be made more masculine, and men more feminine, but this is a socially engineered change.

Also keep in mind, while you value you speed in your argument, you completely ignore the benefits of mass.. If what you say is true, why dont quick colonists kick the crap out of grizzly bears in unarmed?

Because mass....

Mass effects many things, total stamina, total hitting power, durability, ect. Higher mass doesn't mean one is more vulnerable, unlike in games, higher mass generally means also a higher amount of durability as well. As theres more there to damage and break, and more which can be damaged and still function.

Pain is generally scaled in size to our body. A 3 inch deep stab wound might ruin a day for a human, but hardly effect a bear, because the scaling is very different. A stab wound like that to a bear is like a papercut, where as for us, its nearly fatal.

While men aren't quite bears, this STILL applies. Men have more muscle, fat, bigger bones, so blows and cuts are less damaging in the scale of things. And this applies to offense as well as defense, which makes it doubly more an issue.

Take a man and women, unarmed, normal gender stature. The woman has smaller bones, less muscle, less testosterone typically. If a woman punches a man...first, her fist is smaller, weighs, less, and hits with less impact because of it. this is AMPLIFIED by the fact the man is larger, has more muscle and fat deposits, larger, stronger bones, better able to take stress.

Now if you invert....The man has LARGER arms, with more mass, more muscle, fueled by testosterone, larger bones to create a stronger, faster swing, with more weight behind it...and atop THAT, it is hitting a target which is smaller, squishier, less coated with fat, muscle, and smaller, more breakable bones....

So at least in combat, women are in a severely losing battle.

"but, thats blunt trauma!" you might say

"give them knives!" you might say

Ok, lets do that

each person gets a 3 inch blade, plenty sharp, and made of steel.

The male STILL has higher mass, and longer limbs on average, bigger bones and testosterone as a performance enhancement.

If the woman stabs the man in the gut, the larger layering of muscle and fat will protect the male better from hitting anything vital. Not by much, but slightly. The female also has less force to drive the blade into the flesh, and less reach to compete. The male also has more blood to bleed than the woman, so even if stabbed, he can walk it off slightly better than the woman.

The male stabs the female and well....longer arms, stronger blows, more mass.. ..hitting a smaller, weaker target. With less blood, less mass...the damage is more, in terms of how badly it effects them.

Dont get me wrong, women aren't completely incapable of combat, just as logs arent completely useless as a weapon...they just arent the best. And this is the thing, if you want results, you want to use the best you can...and if this means using a man as your brawler, so be it.

I will give you this though : If this were to be applied, it should effect unarmed, blunt weapons, and swords the most, while minimally effecting knives. Guns should be mostly even, short of BIG guns (miniguns, LMG, sniper)

But then again, we still aren't touching on men having better reaction times, which are key for combat.

[brcruchairman]

Mumble, you make some good points; thank you! This helps me both refine and change my argument to be more in line with truth. For instance, your point about height (and, correspondingly, limb length and leverage) is well-taken. Particularly for blunt weapons, such as fists and clubs, that makes a significant difference. Whether it's worth including in the game or not is another discussion, but at the very least yes, there is a difference there.

I was going to point out that you had assumed that the male had more muscle, but then I realized you meant they had proportionally identical muscle, i.e., the muscular cross section relative to skeletal cross-section is identical. In that case, you're correct that for (the unequal) average height male and female specimens, the male would necessarily have more muscle mass.

Regarding stabbing weapons, you're correct that the increased flesh thickness of the male would provide a small amount of protection, though I'd argue both that it's negligible, and further argue that the stabbing force is largely irrelevant; human skin has a tensile strength of 5-30 MPa¹ and though I was unable to find a typical knife cross-sectional area (to determine the amount of force required to pierce skin) that same article suggests that 18-36 N of force is sufficient to pierce skin.² That's under 4 kilos of weight under earth gravity, or less than 8 pounds of force on the uppermost limit. Any strength in excess of that is wasted as blunt force trauma as the hilt impacts the body, and has no bearing on the actual stab wound.

That said, strength would force the knife off any obstacles (e.g., ribs, bones, etc.) and into a deeper stab, but for any sort of stab wound I think we can safely say that strength is of minimal importance. Things such as speed, foresight, reaction time, etc. are likely to play much more into a knife fight scenario, excepting of course when unarmed (e.g., grappling, counter blows, etc.) comes into play.

More interesting to me would be the effect of force on cut depth. Unfortunately, I've got a few things to do today, so I can't find any data on that at this time.

It sounds like we do agree on a few things, though; namely, if gender or frame differences are included, it should only be for melee combat. (I think we disagree on whether it should apply to piercing weapons like shivs and spears, but that's a minor point we can continue to debate. ) It sounds like we also agree that significant variation among individuals (e.g., height, conditioning, skill) should dominate the combat, with any frame or gender differences being minor at best.

I think my core argument is this: Any differences, if any, are small enough and based on high-variance things (e.g., frame, height, weight) to be not worth modeling. For instance, adding the gender-based buffs/debuffs would be universal, but without adding the frame buffs/debuffs, individual variance of height, weight, and BMI as well as the mechanical effects of those, and so on, what we get is less a more accurate simulation and more an oversimplification. I compare it to what it'd be like to have a shooting skill, but have wounds have no effect; having a highly skilled shooter is nice, but if they have only one, heavily scarred eye, it feels a bit off to have them be a crack shot.

Regardless, Mumble, thank you for the good points; it forced to me reexamine some of my assumptions and better develop a viewpoint around them. I appreciate your civil and intelligent engagement; it's things like this that let us both get smarter!

Also, Awwww, Milon, you're making me blush. *hugs!*

References:
¹: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3955.pdf p. 3
²: ibid, p. 10

[DaemonDeathAngel]

I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.

That being said. The male and female body are both capable of the exact same thing when it comes to strength and force. A woman and man, both equal height and equal weight, can gain the same muscle tone and strength as the other. The same knowledge of whatever the situation is, whether that be combat or not.

No two females or males are exactly the same, which means a male could have health issues that make them weaker than the female.

Let's take this example of a male and female that are the same height and weight. The male has fragile bones which could cause them to break easier than a womans, the woman is slightly slower in aspect of movement. Let's say they have the same exact knowledge of combat, mainly being to use your opponents weakness against them.

The man could out maneuver the woman, landing jabs and such here and there, however, he would be limited on the force in which he could put behind a full on attack because of his bone issues. The woman, albeit slower, could put more force behind an attack, potentially using the males weakness against him, causing fractured/broken bones.

That is all hypothetical, simply put, after being in the United States Marine Corps, I have learned that women are perfectly capable of anything a man is. I have watched men twice a womans size get their ass kicked in a no hold back fight.  There are always advantages to size differences, weight differences, and knowledge differences. There will always be something you have the upper hand in, and the ways of combat is to learn to use that and exploit the ones you are fighting against.


So now, let's stop all the sexism, feminism bullshit, and degradation of one another, and go back to enjoying the damn game.

[MikeLemmer]

I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.

That's my guess as well. More hidden/misc Melee modifiers isn't a good thing. Just handwave it as being part of the Melee skill rating and move on. Frankly, covering all melee fighting (unarmed, knife-fighting, sword-fighting, spear-fighting, etc) under a single skill is more unrealistic than treating all genders/bodytypes the same.

[Bozobub]

Excuse me?  Having just read this thread, I fail to see the "fights" that were started.  Both sides of the discussion trotted out their arguments and discussed them, that simple.

So we can't talk at all about gender differences in the game, even when the discussion is civil?  Nice.  I think you need to reevaluate your priorities here, especially since you continue to add to the discussion.

[DaemonDeathAngel]

Whether civil or not, it is still a verbal argument, some of you are still forming sexist sides of the argument. Some of the people in the discussion more than likely have no real life experience as to what the male and female body are actually capable of.

I commend those that are putting forth effort of using citation through the internet, but that doesn't prove anyones point. And test/experiment made is on a closed and controlled group, which can not adequately represent an entire population.

The only real way one can post their opinion is entirely personal experience based. One persons experiences and opinion could, and will, be completely different than anothers. However, the fact that some of the posts here state that women are not capable of the same things as men, doesn't show anything but sexism and ignorance.'

Edit: I am going to request a moderator or administrator close this thread, before someone does actually take offense to something someone says here. This is a topic that went off course, and has delved into discussion that could seriously upset someone.

[brcruchairman]

Excuse me?  Having just read this thread, I fail to see the "fights" that were started.  Both sides of the discussion trotted out their arguments and discussed them, that simple.

I've gotta add a +1 here; I know I, personally, have tried to be as friendly and civil as I can in presenting arguments, sources, and acknowledging the good points others make. There were a few jibes towards the beginning, I think, (e.g., "you may need to learn what 'all else being equal' means") but even that was quite mild. I know my personal experience here with Mumble has been of enlightened discussion; even when (s?)he and I disagree, (I dunno why, Mumble, but I want to characterize you as male. Are my instincts totally lying to me?) (s)he has been both civil (tone was polite) and topic-based (all arguments were about what we're discussing, no ad-hominems that I was able to detect).

Further, I think those in this thread have done a great job of avoiding the blanket characterization you seem to be refuting, Angel; I don't think anyone here argued "all men can beat all women", but rather were arguing the more reasonable stance of, "Men tend to have more muscle mass than women" which, while I agree is necessarily the case, I can also see is a reasonable attitude  given the difference in average heights. This could (regardless of veracity) be modeled as a small bonus in-game; individual traits like brawler and melee skill and whatnot would create the variation you yourself were talking about, where a highly skilled and strong fighter (who happens to be female) thoroughly trounced a heavier fighter (who happened to be male.)

tl;dr: I agree with your stance, though I feel like your comment mischaracterizes the thread itself a bit. Is there something I'm missing?

EDIT: Just saw your response. Responding to it now.

Whether civil or not, it is still a verbal argument, some of you are still forming sexist sides of the argument. Some of the people in the discussion more than likely have no real life experience as to what the male and female body are actually capable of.

This is an ad hominem argument, and the first I've seen; truth is truth regardless of who says it. It also tends to be counterproductive, as it can ruffle feathers more than cause someone to see the light.

I commend those that are putting forth effort of using citation through the internet, but that doesn't prove anyones point. And test/experiment made is on a closed and controlled group, which can not adequately represent an entire population.

The only real way one can post their opinion is entirely personal experience based. One persons experiences and opinion could, and will, be completely different than anothers. However, the fact that some of the posts here state that women are not capable of the same things as men, doesn't show anything but sexism and ignorance.'

The above is patently untrue. Point of fact, studies and statistics are the primary way by which people can form inferences about the general population. If we rely, as you suggest, solely on anecdote, then we see tremendous errors appear. Anecdote is the gateway to all sorts of biases; if I have only ever been the victim of a crime by the hands of a black man, by anecdote I would conclude that black men are more criminal than other ones. This would be an extremely racist conclusion. If, instead, I look at crime figures, I might find something quite different. The same goes for religion, sex, gender, orientation, et cetera, et cetera.

The scientific method not only discards anecdote, but actually demands citations and experiments. So unless you're suggesting we avoid the scientific method, which I don't think you are, I'm confused about what you're trying to say.

Regarding locking the thread, I suppose nobody can stop you from making the request, but I would hope that the administrator or moderator will leave it open; I've seen some interesting points here, and even if I don't agree with them, closing down a conversation because it might upset someone, particularly when the conversation in question has been carried out in a very civilized manner, strikes me as anathema to the point of a forum.

Anyone can be upset by anything; if something is deliberately or excessively incendiary, I can understand locking it. However, if a conversation is going on which allows not only the calm discussion of controversial topics, but further allows people to reform the opinions on the same, it strikes me as a difficult but ultimately good process, by which people better themselves. Again, this is only my opinion; I've been wrong plenty of times before. But that's my two cents about it.

[Zombra]

Eh, remember the inspiration is Firefly.  Plenty of ass-kicking women in that show, as well as weak ones that men could push around in the "traditional" way.  No reason that Rimworld shouldn't have ass-kickers and wimps of both genders.  It's fine how it is, and it's not necessary or desirable to trot out science to prove that women are weak or whatever.

If you really can't handle the idea of your male colonist being whipped by a female pirate, make a mod so only males appear on raids.  It isn't appropriate to include sexism (even on a "realistic" basis) in the main game.

[DaemonDeathAngel]

Further, I think those in this thread have done a great job of avoiding the blanket characterization you seem to be refuting, Angel; I don't think anyone here argued "all men can beat all women", but rather were arguing the more reasonable stance of, "Men tend to have more muscle mass than women" which, while I agree is necessarily the case, I can also see is a reasonable attitude  given the difference in average heights. This could (regardless of veracity) be modeled as a small bonus in-game; individual traits like brawler and melee skill and whatnot would create the variation you yourself were talking about, where a highly skilled and strong fighter (who happens to be female) thoroughly trounced a heavier fighter (who happened to be male.)

The discussion/argument/fight has been relatively well mannered thus far, but from personal experience on this specific topic, it can go from perfectly civil, to absolutely catastrophic in less than 5 minutes. That is mainly due to the specific topic, and how touchy many people are nowadays when it comes to the entire "equality" standpoint.

tl;dr: I agree with your stance, though I feel like your comment mischaracterizes the thread itself a bit. Is there something I'm missing?

I am sure I managed to miss something in my comment, that tends to happen after I read, and attempt to reply to 15-20 different comments within one single comment. Perhaps I should have chosen to specifically pinpoint aspects of comments that I found to be a bit unclear or that peaked my interest.

This is an ad hominem argument, and the first I've seen; truth is truth regardless of who says it. It also tends to be counterproductive, as it can ruffle feathers more than cause someone to see the light.

Age old saying of "The Truth Hurts". I guess that would be a good enough point in this case.

The above is patently untrue. Point of fact, studies and statistics are the primary way by which people can form inferences about the general population.

The main issue is still the same as I stated prior. Many people tend to "Statistic-Thump" you much like "Bible-Thumping" Science and religion are not much different in that aspect. Statistical standpoints are fine, but the largest issue is, many of your "Statistic-Thumpers" don't care if you are different than what the statistic says possible. Thus, causing the person "thumping" to effectively, and quite correctly, become sexist.

If we rely, as you suggest, solely on anecdote, then we see tremendous errors appear. Anecdote is the gateway to all sorts of biases;

While this may be correct, it is also the sole position one originally bases their opinion off of, before ever taking into account statistics, or others opinions.

if I have only ever been the victim of a crime by the hands of a black man, by anecdote I would conclude that black men are more criminal than other ones. This would be an extremely racist conclusion. If, instead, I look at crime figures, I might find something quite different. The same goes for religion, sex, gender, orientation, et cetera, et cetera.

That would make you racist to assume that, however, what if you come to that conclusion based off "anecdote" and it turns out that the highest crime rate within your specific area is in fact caused by that specific race? Does that then make you a racist, or does it make your opinion justifiable?

The scientific method not only discards anecdote, but actually demands citations and experiments. So unless you're suggesting we avoid the scientific method, which I don't think you are, I'm confused about what you're trying to say.

I am not saying to avoid it by any means, I am simply saying that to base the entirety of ones opinion off of nothing aside from statistical data, makes you both ignorant, and completely incoherent to the world around you. Mainly due to the reasoning I have stated prior, a.k.a "Statistical Data is Controlled".

Regarding locking the thread, I suppose nobody can stop you from making the request, but I would hope that the administrator or moderator will leave it open; I've seen some interesting points here, and even if I don't agree with them, closing down a conversation because it might upset someone, particularly when the conversation in question has been carried out in a very civilized manner, strikes me as anathema to the point of a forum.

I can't disagree with you concerning the "interesting points" but I feel as if someone is going to step over the line, and when they do so, it could be terrible.

Anyone can be upset by anything; if something is deliberately or excessively incendiary, I can understand locking it.

I tend to live by my mindset of "Bite the problem in the ass before it ever happens"That tends to keep drastically less issues. Some people search for absolutely any reason to be offended, and a thread such as this is basically giving ample fuel for someone to throw a fit.

However, if a conversation is going on which allows not only the calm discussion of controversial topics, but further allows people to reform the opinions on the same,

I am unsure how you would "Reform" someones opinion, to my knowledge, you cannot change someone elses opinion. You can give ample amounts of information to someone, but they will not take it to heart unless they absolutely want to, which most never do. Basically "You  can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink"

it strikes me as a difficult but ultimately good process, by which people better themselves. Again, this is only my opinion; I've been wrong plenty of times before. But that's my two cents about it.

It's impossible for someone to make you reform your opinion, or for you to reform someone elses. Only you, yourself, can do so. Someone elses opinion could be a contributing factor in the process, but is would never be the sole, underlying reasaon behind someones opinion changing.

Humans are creatures of habit, and will forever remain so, with that, people will more than likely never stray from their habits or opinions, unless they absolutely desire to do so.

[vampiresoap]

I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.

Why is this always the "default" assumption whenever people engage in intense discussions? Granted, some posts in the thread are pretty out there, but people are still mostly civil, all things considered.

That being said. The male and female body are both capable of the exact same thing when it comes to strength and force. A woman and man, both equal height and equal weight, can gain the same muscle tone and strength as the other. The same knowledge of whatever the situation is, whether that be combat or not.

Ever been into bodybuilding? One of the first few things you learn about is that it takes WAY more and WAY longer for women to gain the same amount of muscles that men gain by doing the exact same sets of exercises and having the same diets. (SO respect for those super muscular bodybuilding women you see on the posters.) You will also quickly learn that some men have what they usually refer to as the "superman genes", which means it doesn't take much for this type of men to be all buffed up. This occurs very rarely in women.

[Thyme]

I just skipped the majority of page 2 here. Reason: Men and Women are different. There's no need to discuss that.

I think the question is, simply put, should RimWorld incorporate that (Genders, body types and stuff)? I personally would say no, there's no need to be hyperrealistic. But if it's going to happen one day, it should cover all/most of the aspects. Fighting is by far not the only thing that's affected by gender differences, body types, ...;