Mythopoet
Auror
I have serious questions to anyone who argues that females are biologically different beings that deviate from normal people:
What exactly makes you think men are the default? What makes you deny your female characters the right to individual (true) characterization? Why male characters can be individuals, people shaped by the experiences, with their own aspirations, but women, these three-headed biologically different creatures are bound to dubious conclusions of what they're supposed to be? If they're not, their existence is justified as an anomaly.
For you're not even attempting to establish differences. You're establishing women as deviations from your idea of regular people. Oh, dear, you're focusing on the wrong side of this!
I tell you with all the honesty that this current of thought is revolting—if not downright insulting—and flawed, and I won't mention what I'd do (or not do) to books from authors who I knew thought this way, lest it becomes a huge flame war. The truth is that in the few posts there I tried to keep civil, for it's not my intention to offend anyone, thus I avoided mentioning certain things, yet at this point you should be made aware that this whole concept is offensive. It's worse than the lack of females, or token females. We're entering in the territory of stereotypical females, cardboard females, agency-less females (for if they're slaves to their "biology" they lack personal character). Those are the worse to put up with.
I think you need to be specific about who exactly you think is arguing for this. I have also not continued following the thread, but I find it highly dubious that anyone here would actually say what you are claiming people are saying. I'm inclined to believe that either you've grossly misunderstood someone or you're arguing against a strawman you've seen trotted out somewhere.