There was a tweet where a jerk GM wouldn't let a woman play a male PC because of "immersion" and when she politely decided to not play in that game because it was not a good fit, he revealed himself to be a sexist jerk.

Everyone is taking away from this exchange, not that this GM was a creepy misogynist, but the absolute that if you do not allow cross gender play you are either limited and not enlightened at best or most likely a sexist/misogynist/transphobe. Ah! Twitter Absolutes!

So, I'm going to open myself up, yet again, to be seen as all the bad things people like to throw out in their absolutes, because I reject the absolute.
There are non-sexist/non-misogynistic/non-transphobic reasons to feel uncomfortable with cross-gender play in some instances.

There is an old theatrical maxim that people can play up in the social power hierarchy easier than they can play down. Why? This is talked about in cultural theory a lot. Mostly that the oppressed must understand the oppressor...how they act, what they want, how they think.

They must develop this knowledge because their safety is at stake if they don't understand the people who have power over them. In contrast, the oppressor doesn't have to understand the people they have power over...and indeed it is often easier if they Other those people.

It is easier to live with yourself having power over other people if you don't see them completely as people.

Some manifestations of this phenomenon? The regularly said phrases, "Women are so mysterious"--"Who knows what women want"--women aren't mysterious if you speak to them.

But this also manifests in people believing black people don't feel pain as much as non-black people...that they have thicker skin. Or the stereotype of the inscrutable Asian...and on and on. The Other is made mysterious and unknowable.

One of the consequence of this?

Media with a straight, white, male protagonist is presented as a universal story. Media with a woman as a protagonist is presented as a woman's story. Media with black leads is presented as a black story. Media with queer leads is presented as a queer story. Not universal.

Media featuring non-straight, white, men don't sell as well as media that features straight, white men. Why? Generally speaking people who are not straight, white, men, have been taught to empathize and understand straight, white men...but the opposite is not true.

Let's add on to this. Marginalized people have often spent their lives consuming media made by and about straight, white men telling their stories and sharing their perspectives. And there is nothing wrong with straight, white guys telling their stories. But the problem is...

Straight, white guys generally do not spend their lives consuming media made by and about people who aren't straight, white guys. So they often do not have familiarity with the perspectives of people who are unlike them...they instead, often, have stereotypes.

As a note. In the 13 years I went to school before University, I, growing up in progressive California, read no books by people of color in school. None. And the only things I read by a woman was a few poems by Emily Dickinson. All other perspectives I learned on my own.

Further, statistics show that while POC have a good percentage of white friends, white people don't tend to do well, generally speaking, with having POC friends. So, what is the summation of all this?

Many of the people in the privileged space have not consumed media by marginalized people, don't know marginalized people in person in a way other than superficially, and most of their understandings are based in stereotypes meant to dehumanize the marginalized.

This is where the old theater saying that it is easier to play up than it is to play down comes from.

So what does this mean for the cross gender play at the RPG table? Well, this means that I do not co-sign the absolute that if you don't allow cross-gender play you are bad.

I have been at tables with a number of men who decided to play women and because they didn't actually have any familiarity with women, because they saw them as mysterious, unknowable sex objects, their portrayals of women were sexist, offensive and misogynistic.

Their potrayals of women as Other contributed to the harassment of actual women at the table. I have also seen this with white people playing POC at tables, or straight people playing queer people.
Is this always the case? No. I tend to avoid absolutes, remember?

I have certainly played and GMd for people who could play other human beings that were from a race/gender/sexuality/religion/etc that were different than them and it was no problem. But I have seen people play characters that were different and it was all gross punching down.

So, actually, there are people I will not allow to cross-gender play at my table. Because I will not have someone performing misogyny at my table. My refusal to allow some people to cross-gender play is rooted in anti-sexism, anti-misogyny, and anti-transphobia.

The absolute that one must allow cross-gender or cross-racial play (or whatever) or else you are a misogynist is a position that opens up space for misogynist dudes to play their sex-pot gross stereotype of women at the table and claim if you don't like it you are a transphobe.

They get to co-opt the "woke" absolute mean to resist sexism in order to perpetuate sexism and also harass people at the table under the cloak of wokeness you gave them. Sloppy rhetoric and righteous absolutes are not great for social justice even if they feel good.

And as for the idea that if you can play an elf you can play any gender. Well...no. Elves aren't real. They don't suffer from systemic oppression and stereotypes that harm them in real life. Marginalized people do.

But more distressingly, the dudes I can think of who have played women in the most offensive and misogynistic ways tend to treat the elves they play with much more respect and see them as more human than they see women.
So, no. I don't co-sign yet another generalized absolute.

That said? That GM's disallowal of cross-gender play was clearly to me rooted in sexism and transphobia no doubt. And also? That GM is a person that I would not want at my table, and if he were at my table, I certainly would not allow him to play any non-male character.