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

[vampiresoap]

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

Yeah. When I started this, I thought that'd be kind of obvious and that the major focus of the thread would be to discuss whether to incorporate that into Rimworld. But apparently people still stuck debating whether men and women are different. I mean, seriously, have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately? Or walked on the street? I wonder how much liberal brainwashing it takes to make a person become completely detached from reality and go like,"yeah, there's no difference between men and women at all." I'm all for equal opportunities and shit, but men and women are not born equal. The assumption that they are born equal actually cheapens female struggles when you think about it. You are not acknowledging that it takes them a lot more to get certain physical tasks done. (Like it takes female bodybuilders a lot longer to buff up. Again, so much respect)

[brcruchairman]

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.

This is true, as evidenced by vampiresoap's claim of liberal brainwashing later in the thread. *nods* Alright, I may be coming around. :p

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.

Aah, I see. My bad, then; my apologies for jumping on you out of turn, then.

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

I take your point that unpleasant truths can also be painful, though I maintain that it's far more effective to let people come to the truth on their own, rather than attacking them, as the second tends to cause highly defensive reactions.

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.

Ah, I think I see why I was disagreeing here. I had misinterpreted what you're saying as "anyone who uses statistics will cherry pick the ones they use, and use only sources they agree with." My counterpoint was, "No, people can use statistics and sources well by doing open-ended research and revising their point of view if they find that's the way the evidence leans." So basically, it looks like I was misunderstanding your assertion and answering a point you never even made! :p That'll happen.

Regarding what I think you're actually saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it sounds like you're saying that the use of statistics and numbers alone don't make someone right, and furthermore most people form the opinion from anecdote (e.g., "Look out the window") and find statistics to back it up after the fact, relying on confirmation bias. This is true; it does happen. However, I feel like it wasn't (before the last three or four posts) happening here. Of course, now all bets are off, and whether a self-fulfilling prophecy or not, I get the feeling you may be right in how it ends up.

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.

I think I'd mentioned this above, but I guess for me you can't, as you say, control what other people do. All you can do is let them have every tool they can to come to their own conclusions. That's the thrust of what I try to do; I try to give sources and evidence and if someone wants to listen, great! If not, then it's no skin off my back. And, from a personal standpoint, when I do the research to get the sources, I typically use as open-ended questions as I can; it's happened many times where instead of finding a source for what I'm asserting, I find evidence against it. Then I promptly revise my opinions, and do my best to acknowledge the point I'd been debating. :p A great example of this happening is in the "Steel burns on Rimworld?" thread, in which Nonmomentus Brain did an excellent job of this.

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?

This seems to be another place where I was trying to debate a point you never made. :p To answer your direct question, depending on your personal philosophy, it could still make you racist. My opinion would have evidence backing it up, sure, but I wouldn't have formed that opinion because of the evidence. This seems to go back to that core misunderstanding I had; it sounds like you assume people start with opinions and then cherry pick facts they agree with, while my personal modus opperandi is the opposite. So whoops, my bad; sorry for the example which poorly interfaces with your point. I think I was too wrapped up in my own head to realize other people can do things differently. >.>

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".

Now here is where I'm getting confused again. I believe that basing one's opinions (specifically about trends, not specific cases) off of statistical data is being more in tune with the world, not less. It expands my reality from just what's within my senses (anecdote) to what's observed over truly vast areas.

I'm guessing you're more saying, "If you go off of statistics and apply them uniformly to things you encounter", in which case you're right. That would be ignoring individual cases, and basically saying, "X happens 51% of the time, so everything must be X." Which would be using statistics wrong. :p But I get the feeling that isn't what you're saying; would you be willing to clarify for me?

As a related note, I'd beg you to, if you can, keep ad hominems out of it, too. I know I personally bristled at the "ignorant and incoherent [sic] of the world around you" comment, and had to take a step back and a few breaths and remind myself that you weren't trying to insult me. :p It seems to be a human thing to focus on the eight words which could cause distress and ignore the other thousand. :p

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.

You may be right in that; the more deeply invested somebody is in a conversation, the more painful it can be when it turns south, and this could easily be a point of great importance to some. I suppose I disagree with you that it means we have to stop it, but ultimately that's all it is, a difference of opinion. It's an excellent difference between utilitarianism and categorical imperative; utilitarianism says, "Lock the thread, everyone will be happier" while categorical imperative would say, "Let the thread continue; people have to be allowed to make their own decisions about what to read." Both sides are right, just a matter of which one you ascribe to.

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.

This is another good point. As above, I personally would take the risk with the gain, but that's a personal decision, not an assertion of universal justice. Now that you've explained it to me, I suppose I could understand the locking of the thread, should it happen. Thank you! I appreciate you explaining the points I was unclear on.

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"

This also applies to the quote below, and I'd touched on it briefly above; you're entirely right that you can never force someone to change their opinion. It's also true, as you said, that you can give them the information. That's what I try to do, and what I respond to best when it's done to me; personally, if someone says to me, "You're wrong and a terrible person for thinking that" my response will be along the lines of, "Well screw you too, buddy." If they just say, "Here, these statistics are interesting, they seem to suggest that when you said X, you may have been misinformed" then I tend to respond, "Huh, really? Can I see the source?" And, when the source turns out to be valid, I change my opinion. It's the old saw: you don't use science to prove you're right, you use science to become right.

All that said, I'm aware I'm a bit of an oddball. Not everyone is like that. The thing is, if only some people are like that, then discussing in a forum like this can still spread a little more truth. And, so long as I keep an open and compassionate mind, the truth may spread to me rather than from on one of the many, many areas in which I'm not correct. So from a personal perspective, it's not just about possibly convincing someone else, but also possibly being convinced and bettering myself.

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.

You may be right. You're almost certainly right. But the thing is that this thought, that you can have large portions of the population wrong and willfully ignorant, is depressing to me. I can't change the universe, so all I can do is change my outlook. I can assume that people are irrational and live my life in a cynical stupor, or I can assume people are rational and go through life cheery. This right here is my biggest chunk of cognitive dissonance, which is frankly shameful, but it's what I've gotta do to survive. As such, I respect your opinion, and acknowledge it may be, likely is, true. However, unless there's a good reason why my outlook will do me a disservice in this arena (I maintain cynicism in meatspace; gotta do that to avoid all sorts of bad stuff) then I apologize, but I've gotta stick with it.

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

Yeah. When I started this, I thought that'd be kind of obvious and that the major focus of the thread would be to discuss whether to incorporate that into Rimworld. But apparently people still stuck debating whether men and women are different. I mean, seriously, have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately? Or walked on the street? I wonder how much liberal brainwashing it takes to make a person become completely detached from reality and go like,"yeah, there's no difference between men and women at all." I'm all for equal opportunities and shit, but men and women are not born equal. The assumption that they are born equal actually cheapens female struggles when you think about it. You are not acknowledging that it takes them a lot more to get certain physical tasks done. (Like it takes female bodybuilders a lot longer to buff up. Again, so much respect)

The core sentiment there, that men and women are different, is one I think we can all agree on. Even Angel mentioned how the male (in his hypothetical cateris paribus scenario) would have reach and speed, but the female would have power and durability. That there are differences is very true. I think what is being argued any judgements attached to those differences. For instance, a flat bonus for males in melee combat is saying, implicitly, that reach and speed are superior to power and durability. That, I believe, is where most have an objection, the abstraction from highly nuanced differences to a simplistic "X is better than Y" scenario.

Also, VampireSoap, I'd like to ask you, as well, to keep ad hominems out of it; The, "have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately?" comment isn't going to make anyone say, "My god! He's right! I'm totally disconnected from reality! I must fix this!" Speaking personally, it's more likely to make me think, "Ugh. Way to bring politics into it and make me think I'm being attacked." Which, I'm 98% sure, is NOT what you're going for. After all, I'm a stranger on the internet. I doubt you care about me enough to even try to attack me. :p All the same, some of us academic-types can be delicate flowers whose rumps can get hurt quite easily. :p

Also, one more thing I'll note: referencing how things are now puts undue weight on biology and too little on environment. My assertion is that, while the biology is unlikely to change in a few thousand years, the culture can become drastically different, and if it has a focus on physical strength irrespective of gender (as opposed to our current western culture) then you may see a very different status quo.

I also note that you assert that females do NOT build muscle as quickly as men. I provided a source which suggests that women and men put on muscle at similar rates; if you can find something that refutes it, I'd be very happy to see! Like I said above to Angel, I try not to use statistics and sources to prove I'm right, but rather to become right; if you've got something up your sleeve, that'd be really good for me to know and incorporate into my world view.

[pfhorrest]

No. Stupid idea.

When you reroll for skill levels, you are rerolling for skill levels. End of story. Rimworld characters are not generic, "baseline" male and female real life counterparts.

Average man vs. average woman, with a statistical sample of millions, will exhibit patterns along gender, race, height, etc. But there is huge variance between individuals.

Lumine LeBlanc is a female character with combat skill because of her background. Emmie Young is a female character incapable of violence because of her background. These are fully thought out characters who do not need further "rebalancing" because of what the statistical average (on real life 21st century Earth no less) may be.

[DaemonDeathAngel]

Now here is where I'm getting confused again. I believe that basing one's opinions (specifically about trends, not specific cases) off of statistical data is being more in tune with the world, not less. It expands my reality from just what's within my senses (anecdote) to what's observed over truly vast areas.

I'm guessing you're more saying, "If you go off of statistics and apply them uniformly to things you encounter", in which case you're right. That would be ignoring individual cases, and basically saying, "X happens 51% of the time, so everything must be X." Which would be using statistics wrong. :p But I get the feeling that isn't what you're saying; would you be willing to clarify for me?

As a related note, I'd beg you to, if you can, keep ad hominems out of it, too. I know I personally bristled at the "ignorant and incoherent [sic] of the world around you" comment, and had to take a step back and a few breaths and remind myself that you weren't trying to insult me. :p It seems to be a human thing to focus on the eight words which could cause distress and ignore the other thousand. :p

You understood what I was intending, I meant that some people use statistics as "51% is this way, that's majority, that means they all are that way"

I want to thank you for not directly getting upset with me, as some may have, and actually taking the time to fully read into what I was saying, rather than pulling pieces and getting upset or angry about it.

[mumblemumble]

we also hold a VERY VERY high standard for civility at ludeon (i like to think so anyway) , which is one of the reason I absolutely LOVE these forums. Any opinion can be expressed, and as long as you don't go around screaming at folks, you wont be banned.

I personally LOVE that, an this shouldn't be compromised on the "off chance" that someone gets heated.

-----

Zombra (and others) I'm not sayiing no woman can be kickass.

I'm simply suggesting a few small changes to the framework.

1 : addition of a strength modifier, which effects hauling, mining, and melee attacks ( melee would have larges bonus to fists,  blunts, and heavier weapons like swords and spears ) And have a bellcurve of men and womens strength distribution, something like 70-100 for women, and 85-115 for men...so you can CERTAINLY find women who are capable, but men are GENERALLY stronger most of the time. This said, 115, and 100 respectively would be the HUGE levels of strength which are super rare.. a bell curve, NOT a flat range (actual numbers can be adjusted)
2 : have men and women also have a health pool modifier for extremities, pain threshold, and bleed out rates. Men and women are different size, and thus trauma effect them differently. A stab wound which encompasses 5% of a female might be only 3% of a male, and will be less of a bother. Pretty much, men could take more of a beating, bleed more, and have bigger limbs, which can take more punishment.

Even in THAT framework, you could still get a "badass" woman, whos viable for melee combat, but chances are, you COULD find a man whom could kick her ass, even if its by no means an AVERAGE man.

Oh and btw, melee weapons besides knives would still be more effective used by men for a couple reasons. First, because a heavy blade / spear needs more force to accelerate / swing than a knife, meaning more strength = more speed, thus a man swings a sword which weighs 5 lbs total FASTER, and second, Even for edged / piercing weapons, the extra strength / reach plays a big factor. A knife might not quite pierce a leather jacket in the hands of a woman, but pierce with the "oomph" of a man, and a man wielding a heavy steel spear is more likely to strike faster than with a woman.

Granted, even a knife, with force and speed modifiers would be a bit more effective to a man, but this is a small point

One thing to keep in mind with "speed" is it is several factors involved.

First, is "top speed". How fast someone could run, in and of themselves...men generally win out on this, with longer legs, bigger torsos, ect

Second, is acceleration of limbs. How fast a limb can go, in a punch, kick, or stride...men also win here, as mentioned by the leverage argument. Men can punch, swing, and run faster

Third, is agility and dexterity, which UNLIKE the first 2, is based on higher control and benefits from size which is smaller. Theres a reason rats and mice are so agile, because they have so little mass to redirect. If a 250 lb male like myself wants to run, and do a 180 turn, I need to stop, and then redirect 250 lbs of mass, where as a mouse has to do it with a few ounces. The few ounces is much easier, and faster, which is why they are more agile despite lacking strength or topspeed.

Women CLEARLY win out on the third, which is why they are better seamstresses, welders, ect, because big male hands are too big, and too clumsy for some jobs where smaller, delicate female hands are more capable. And its not even a matter of "can my hand fit up there", its a matter of fine motor control.

See, if a hand is trying to say, thread a needle, you have maybe a 1/16 or 1/64 inch gap to push an equal size thread through...but this ALSO scales.

See, my hand is significantly bigger than a womans, so moving my hand .5% would be a much larger movement than a womans .5%. Thus a woman finds it MUCH easier to thread a needle than myself, assuming shes smaller. This also applies to men, if smaller, but most men are bigger.


-----

@ statistic thumping : You COMPLETELY miss the idea behind statistics.  Statistics DO NOT say "all women are weak" or "all head injuries result in death" or "all posts from mumblemumble get under peoples skin to some extent", they say MOST or MANY do. Its a theme, a pattern, not a law. Of course people can be outside the stereotype, nobody is saying strong women dont exist, they are saying stereotypes are more common than not. It also applies as stereotypes are much more believable than other claims if theres no evidence otherwise.

Quite simply, if a woman online were to tell me she could haul just as much as me, I would be less likely to believe her than a man, as she would be severely outside the stereotype / norm of women. Now, she MIGHT be right, but its still incredibly rare.

And thats the key point, statistics discuss rarity / common-ness of things, NOT if they do / do not exist. Please make note of this.

-----

On a final note, on equality in general...one must ask HOW do they think men and women are equal...are men and women equal in ability to bare children? To impregnate? To lift things?  To grow facial hair? To breast feed? No, they are VERY unequal with this....This said, is anyone petitioning to give men breasts, and women facial hair?

Point is, men and women AREN'T equal in EVERYTHING, which makes the question of "are men and women treated equal" irrelevant. Its more important to ask "are they treated fairly". Nature already made them unequal in many ways, and society should try to balance the differences to make it fair, because having everyone treated equal in society DESPITE differences is very far from fair...

I mean, honestly consider if 100% treating men and women the same would be a "happy" scenario. Where women are treated with just as much callousness and aggression as men, where women DO NOT get any preferential treatment, where rape is trivialized on scale with men being assaulted by women (seriously, nobody really cares about MEN (not boys) being assaulted sexually by women, because its very hard to do, and less damaging. Imagine this applying to woman, due to "equality") where women CANNOT ever play the gender card to benefit them and are expected to perform like other men no matter what, or be fired....

And before you say "well obviously you keep in mind body type", first keep in mind, body type was dismissed in this thread due to skill being "more important" (which was debunked), men and women statistically almost ALWAYS have different body types / emotional setups (which is the origin of the sexes being treated differently) , and while men / women with smaller / larger bodies exist, they are RARER than men / women who FIT the stereotypes.

Generally how judgement of people works is as follows

1 : stereotypes based of minimal information (gender, weight, race, place of origin, ect)
2 : meeting person, gaining a first impression based off new info (how they look, act, carry themselves, performance)
3 : continuing judgement reforming the first impression and stereotypes to see how the person is different from the stereotypes, and who the person is by their actions.

Pretty much everyone does this, whether they admit it or not, its mostly subconscious, but it happens. Its not wrong to jump to the stereotype FIRST, its only wrong to insist the stereotype is right if theres proof its wrong.

and its not saying this applies to ALL, but sayinng it applies to MOST, and trying to be MOSTLY correct.

As an example, 98% (more?) people in the USA speak English. I assume most people WILL speak english due to this, and 98% of the time im correct. If someone is the 2%, I adjust my views on THEM, because THEY are an exception, but the rule still applies to everyone else unless proven otherwise.

this comes down to something which everyone encounters : trying to make a judgement off minimal information. Sure, you can go around asking and clarifying all day, but this would honestly piss MORE people off.

[Zombra]

Well, again - there's just no need to try and make some scientific determination so different gendered game pieces can be STATISTICALLY ULTRA REALISTIC.  Maximizing realism is not the purpose of the game.  Women punch as hard as men in the game?  You know what ... that's fine.  We're not going to finally define men and women once and for all here on a video game forum.

When Zoe punches out that drunk in "The Train Job", we don't need to go, "Now wait a minute, she's a woman, is she really strong enough to do that, blah blah blah".  She just does it and it is fine.  In Rimworld, female raiders hit as hard as males and it is fine.  End of story.

If you REALLY can't sleep at night knowing a female pawn beat up your male pawn, make a mod.  Like other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.

[sadpickle]

In real life women are on average weaker than men. This has zero bearing on what makes the game interesting.

Since almost all pursuits in this game involve colonist labor, making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.

Like childbirth and excretory functions, let's let reality be reality and art be art.

[Bozobub]

I agree.  As I've said before, there's on ly so fine-grained the simulation needs to be .

[mumblemumble]

I'm going to break this down line by line.

Well, again - there's just no need to try and make some scientific determination so different gendered game pieces can be STATISTICALLY ULTRA REALISTIC.

So? should rimworld remove the health effects too? We didn't NEED those, strictly speaking.... And need for what, more importantly? nothing is EVER objectively needed, the need applies to fulfull a qualifier of a condition. Pawns need food to not starve, wounds need tending to not bleed out, ect...if these are acceptable, you dont "need" it.

Women punch as hard as men in the game?  You know what ... that's fine.  We're not going to finally define men and women once and for all here on a video game forum.

its unrealistic imo. It doesn't match reality. You are correct we will never emulate the sexes perfectly in a game, but why not try to emulate them better? Perfection might never be reached, but why not work towards it? You are literally saying "we wont ever get it 100% perfectly correct, so why bother even trying at all.".

When Zoe punches out that drunk in "The Train Job", we don't need to go, "Now wait a minute, she's a woman, is she really strong enough to do that, blah blah blah".  She just does it and it is fine.

not sure what movie(?) This is but first off, zoe is obviously above average in strength in the movie, and second, a drunk is easier to fight due to the delayed reaction time. Why can you not accept that stereotypes exist, and are true, but individuals can STILL fall outside the stereotype?

Stereotypes means it fits MOST or MANY of that group NOT ALL.

most...not all.
not all...most.

Zoe is not included, because its not all females...she is one of the strong few.

Do you not comprehend certain circumstances can BREAK patterns? That one senator survived pistol round to the brain...does this mean pistol rounds to the brain aren't generally lethal? no, it means she was an exception.. Do you understand this idea?

LAWS and STEREOTYPES are different...the laws of physics say that water, when not pressurized or diluted, freeze solid at 32 degrees. Stereotypes show patterns which are statistically true, when not accounting for the immense multitude of other information (which often cannot be looked at)

Again, its a matter of making the best decision possible off limited information, which is why they exist, because generally the stereotype is accurate more often than its INAUCURATE. If women were more likely to be stronger than men, the stereotype would be reversed

 

In Rimworld, female raiders hit as hard as males and it is fine.  End of story.

This...ALMOST sounds like you want to censor people. Why should it be end of story exactly???

If you REALLY can't sleep at night knowing a female pawn beat up your male pawn, make a mod.

This sound like projection of anger, and hostility. Nobody has said they cannot sleep at night, or made a big deal, they are simply bringing up points and arguments. You are the one escalating things by insinuating people cannot sleep at night, or implying this discussion shouldn't be happening, and making veiled insults like this.
 

Like other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.

Why exactly? And again, absolutely necessary for what? Why are boom rats necessary?

making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.

You are assuming men would be a straight upgrade, except they aren't. women have better fine motor control, eat less, can bare children, ect... men aren't better in all aspects.

[sadpickle]

making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.

You are assuming men would be a straight upgrade, except they aren't. women have better fine motor control, eat less, can bare children, ect... men aren't better in all aspects.

Women bearing children, and having fine motor control and eating less (highly subjective evaluations there) is also not modeled, and nothing is gained by doing so, except encouraging sexism in work priorities. I think modelling biological sex differences, in any form, is beyond the scope of the game. A mod perhaps.

[Zombra]

As for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background.  A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match.  A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc.  So there is no further need to mechanize these either.

[mumblemumble]

Women bearing children, and having fine motor control and eating less (highly subjective evaluations there) is also not modeled, and nothing is gained by doing so, except encouraging sexism in work priorities. I think modelling biological sex differences, in any form, is beyond the scope of the game. A mod perhaps.

Highly subjective, another layer of depth would be really interesting IMO, and either way, neither of use have PLAYED using these in game, so how can we even say if it would add nothing?

And can you please explain why "sexism in work priorities" would be such an awful, terrible, dreadful thing?

Keep in mind "sexism" means in this circumstance, treating men and women differently...but this exists everywhere in the world.

So why is this bad

As for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background.  A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match.  A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc.  So there is no further need to mechanize these either.

Body types are 100% aesthetic though, theres literally 0 difference in body types that isn't explained with "skill" for certain tasks.

For all intents and purposes, body types are currently non existent ingame. Every single colonist is the same body type, short of teenagers, everything else is 100% equal, short of injuries

[Zombra]

So? should rimworld remove the health effects too? We didn't NEED those, strictly speaking....

Are health effects controversial?

its unrealistic imo. It doesn't match reality. You are correct we will never emulate the sexes perfectly in a game, but why not try to emulate them better?

Because realism is not a top priority in this game and sexism is controversial.

Why can you not accept that stereotypes exist, and are true, but individuals can STILL fall outside the stereotype?

Whether stereotypes are true or not is immaterial, since realism is not the top priority for this game.

This...ALMOST sounds like you want to censor people. Why should it be end of story exactly???

Wow, I almost went for a whole post there without someone guessing about my EVIL INTENTIONS.  Next time respond to what I say and leave the psychoanalysis to my doctor.

It's "end of story" because my argument is concise and to the point, and (apparently) inarguable.

This sound like projection of anger, and hostility. Nobody has said they cannot sleep at night, or made a big deal, they are simply bringing up points and arguments. You are the one escalating things by insinuating people cannot sleep at night, or implying this discussion shouldn't be happening, and making veiled insults like this.

The OP said flat out that he is upset about too many women killing his male pawns.  Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

Like other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.

Why exactly?

Because there is no sense in inviting controversy without a good reason.  Tynan, I assume, doesn't want Rimworld to be "that sexist video game" or "that game about slavery" or ... you get the idea.

Since sexism is not necessary for Rimworld to be a good game, and because it would cause negative controversy, its inclusion would be dumb.

Why are boom rats necessary?

They're not - but they're not controversial either, so there is no good reason not to include them.

[Zombra]

As for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background.  A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match.  A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc.  So there is no further need to mechanize these either.

Body types are 100% aesthetic though, theres literally 0 difference in body types that isn't explained with "skill" for certain tasks.

For all intents and purposes, body types are currently non existent ingame. Every single colonist is the same body type, short of teenagers, everything else is 100% equal, short of injuries

Wrong.  I just explained this.  Body types indicate things.  That makes them meaningful.

[mumblemumble]

CONTROVERSY!!!!

Since this explains 50% of your post, I want to say controversy shouldn't be a factor. Its a game, one meant to evoke emotions and feelings. Controversy should not be a factor in redacting small elements. I mean, this isnt as controversial as say, child sacrifice to the gods, so It shouldn't be a big deal. Cannibalism, drugs, and other elements are also controversial, and less so than a woman being weaker on average. This is a moot point.

If controversy was the end all be all of what should be in game, according to you, you, by proxy, ALSO support the removal of drugs, cannibalism, incest, murder, ect... because those are also controversial.

But we both know this is incorrect, the reason isn't controversy alone, its something else. Its most likely discomfort over the idea, I'd wager.

Controversy, while i can cause discomfort, can also attract people. Its not a good enough argument, imo, to just label something with "controversy" and call it good. You need a much deeper argument behind it, like what you think the effects would be, and why.

realism is not a priority

It is to some, and many. Tynan himself added the health, relationships, and other elements for "realism" among other things... This is a non argument.

evil intentions

hey, when YOU say "end of story", that REALLY seems as if you want to snuff all other debate about it...its an aggressive term, and coupled with everything else, its not unreasonable to think you might think this.

Op said he didn't like it

He didnt say he lost sleep, didnt say it was a big deal, he said he NOTICED it. He didn't sound very upset at all, you sound significantly more upset and aggressive, and passive aggressive than him, or others so far.

boomrats aren't necessary and aren't controversial

I've already established the controversy argument is lame, and you kinda added to my point...nothing is "necessary". And controversy isn't a good enough argument.

At least point out the effects of something, not labels.

Wrong.  I just explained this.  Body types indicate things.  That makes them meaningful.

Name one, which is irremovable from skills, or the "background" which is really just flavor text, as it has 0 effect on mechanics, short of determining beginning stats