Gender-locking isn't sexist

[J-Reyno]

Yes, and ignore those who want the other race just because it's a taboo now to create one gender without another gender that also must be of equal body build. Instead of going with the two races and genders that statistically (based on what genders and races players are currently playing) would get more players to try them, they should just make it one race even if one gender won't be played with as much to avoid being labeled sexist (i.e. waste resources with less return in the process).

Based on what genders and races players are currently playing, male miqo'te are the second most played of all males. The most-played being midlanders. Two of the smaller races.

Which is funny, because in 1.0 we didn't have male miqo'te. Instead we had male-only highlanders and male-only roegadyn. But oh, would you look at that, after giving us male miqo'te they are actually more popular than the previously male-only races.

It's almost like the bigger, buffer male races are actually not what we most wanted to play after all.

Let's be clear. Male Viera would have been a much more popular choice among players than Hrothgar.

It does not have gender-locked races. But according to you, it would still be sexist since not all races have two genders of equal counterpart in terms of body build. The male humans for example are muscular and the females are of a feminine and more slender body type. Having the choice to play any race/class as both genders can still be considered sexist according to you if both genders do not have equal body builds. Makes you wonder why they make characters that way in games then....Could it be because they also see that in nature??

I don't play WoW. I don't know what they do. If their races, as you describe, have the same kind of ridiculous sexual dimorphism that Au Ra have in this game then... yeah, sounds pretty sexist.