Hysterical how bent out of shape people get about “historical accuracy”. That’s not the issue and you know it. You don’t want women in the game. It really is as simple as that. Nobody actually believes the Battlefield series is some educational military sim. Nobody plays it for historical accuracy. They play it to blow **** up and have fun. Women being in the game is not going to hamper your enjoyment of the game unless you really, truly dislike women. In that case, I’m glad they’re upset. **** ‘em.
There may be no point, because you've clearly made up your mind, but your assertions deserve correction.
No, "women in the game" is not the issue. First, if you deliberately made that vague enough to imply an issue with women
playing the game, you're wrong, as no one has suggested that women not play this game or, to my knowledge, any other WWII game.
Second, if people simply have issue with female avatars because they "really, truly dislike women," where's the criticism of female avatars in
so many other games? No one complains about female characters in Overwatch, Fortnite and the like. Why is that? I'm sorry, but it
is about historical accuracy.
Third, not everyone who has taken issue has argued that there should be no female avatars at all. Some of us have taken more issue with the representation (build, attire, hair style, makeup, etc.) being anachronistic than just the fact that she's female. Generalizing all complaints the way that you did is wrong.
Fourth, something that bothers some is that it's forced on gamers for questionable reasons and, if you object, even on reasonable grounds (like historical accuracy), you're called out as sexist. Some find that behavior, which you're owning, yourself, to be very distasteful and something to take a stand against.
Finally, but most relevantly, a lot of people do play games like this for the historical flavor. If they just want to "blow **** up and have fun," as you claim, they could go play so many generic games like Overwatch, Fortnite, PUBG, Titanfall, Destiny and others. Many are drawn to historical shooters, instead, because of the opportunity to participate in history, in conflicts that they've read about, watched and imagined what it'd be like. It's fantasy fulfillment, and it tends to be less fulfilling the more things that are clearly ahistorical and out of place.
All of these arguments have been made rather clearly already, yet you've seemingly decided to dismiss them outright and assume a much more sinister explanation. This is an example of why our culture is so toxic, IMO. Too many people would rather assume the worst in others and believe that their arguments are extreme, unreasonable and even offensive than give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand why reasonable people might have them. It's possible to understand and respect where a person is coming from, yet still disagree with his beliefs and arguments, even strongly, but that concept doesn't seem nearly as popular as the alternative.