since when and why the hell are almost if not all references to a character suddenly female?
for example:"Trodes allow a user to access VR without the invasiveness of cyberware, allowing an adept to keep HER Magic rating intact."
i'd say this is done in about 90% of all cases like this one . .

Because somewhere in the 90's the population at large apparently forgot about the existence of gender neutral pronouns. Couple that with the idiotic excesses of PCness and you get dumb crap like the AFMBE books (which I otherwise generally like) where they switch between he/she each chapter in order to appear "balanced".

The example you stated above can quite easily be written "Trodes allow a user to access VR without the invasiveness of cyberware, allowing an adept to keep their Magic rating intact."

I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but I've been corrected on this before myself. "They" and its ilk are plural pronouns, and aren't AFAIK universally accepted as correct grammar when referring to a single person. The simple fact is that English has no singluar, third-person gender-neutral pronouns. (if there are those who know more of grammar than I do, please correct me).

I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but I've been corrected on this before myself. "They" and its ilk are plural pronouns, and aren't AFAIK universally accepted as correct grammar when referring to a single person. The simple fact is that English has no singluar, third-person gender-neutral pronouns. (if there are those who know more of grammar than I do, please correct me).

There's hir but I'm unsure if its in wide enough use for a published book.

Still, it's better than 'Ze,' which some people will put forward.

They're just as bad as 'Ze,' though. Seriously. It's an assault on language!

They, them, their, theirs, are often used in referring back to singular pronominals (as each, one, anybody, everybody), or to singular nouns or phrases (as a parent, neither Jack nor Jill), of which the doubtful or double gender causes awkwardness. It is a real deficiency in English that we have no pronoun, like the French soi, son, to stand for him-or-her, his-or-her (for he-or-she French is no better off than English). Our view, though we admit it to be disputable, is clear—that they, their, &c., should never be resorted to, as in the examples presently to be given they are. With a view to avoiding them, it should be observed that (a) the possessive of one (indefinite pronoun) is one's, and that of one (numeral pronoun) is either his, or her, or its (One does not forget one's own name: I saw one of them drop his cigar, her muff, or its leaves); (b) he, his, him, may generally be allowed to stand for the common gender; the particular aversion shown to them by Miss Ferrier in the examples may be referred to her sex; and, ungallant as it may seem, we shall probably persist in refusing women their due here as stubbornly as Englishmen continue to offend the Scots by saying England instead of Britain. © Sentences may however easily be constructed (Neither John nor Mary knew his own mind) in which his is undeniably awkward. The solution is then what we so often recommend, to do a little exercise in paraphrase (John and Mary were alike irresolute, for instance). (d) Where legal precision is really necessary, he or she may be written in full. Corrections according to these rules will be appended in brackets to the examples.

Anybody else who have only themselves in view.—Richardson. (has ... himself)

Ce n'est que le premier pas qui coûte, in novel-writing as in carrying one's head in their hand.—S. Ferrier. (one's ... one's)

The feelings of the parent upon committing the cherished object of their cares and affections to the stormy sea of life.—S. Ferrier. (his)

But he never allowed one to feel their own deficiencies, for he never appeared to be aware of them himself—S. Ferrier. (one's)

A difference of opinion which leaves each free to act according to their own feelings.—S. Ferrier. (his)

Suppose each of us try our hands at it.—S. Ferrier. (tries his hand; or, if all of us are women, tries her hand)

Everybody is discontented with their lot in life.—Beaconsfield. (his)

The example you stated above can quite easily be written "Trodes allow a user to access VR without the invasiveness of cyberware, allowing an adept to keep their Magic rating intact."

In roleplaying games the issue of gender non-neutrality of the third person pronoun was addressed in D&D third edition where he and she were used in each paragraph separately. It became such an editorial problem of switching between the two that in later books the pronouns were used interchangeably causing some confusion as to the subject's gender as it would often change between sentences, leading to the natural assumption of a possible subject change as well.

The new version of D&D, fourth edition, sidesteps this entire debate by using the second person accusative form you.

Another alternative is the politically-intrusive “in-your-face� generic “she,� which I would probably use if I were an angry, politically-intrusive, in-your-face woman, but I am not any of those things.

I think it's a little harsh to label the substitution of "she" for "he" as a generic as "angry, politically-intrusive [or] in-your-face." If "he" is grammatically acceptable, why *not* "she?" Just because we've never done it that way. Oh yes, of course. How terrible for a language to evolve to reflect social norms.

I mean, yes, if someone's insisting that you use "she" exclusively, then that's a little grammar-fascist. But so is insisting on "he," really...they're both equally non-neutral.

Yes, but the point isn't to give teh w1n to the majority, it's to be as grammatically gender-neutral as possible.

Of course, anyone who thinks this is the front line in the battle for gender equality has a distorted sense of proportion. I think it's just that some people would really like a gender-neutral pronoun appropriate for use on humans. (and no animal testing.... )

I think it's a little harsh to label the substitution of "she" for "he" as a generic as "angry, politically-intrusive [or] in-your-face." If "he" is grammatically acceptable, why *not* "she?" Just because we've never done it that way. Oh yes, of course. How terrible for a language to evolve to reflect social norms.

I mean, yes, if someone's insisting that you use "she" exclusively, then that's a little grammar-fascist. But so is insisting on "he," really...they're both equally non-neutral.

This may not fall under "Writing Under the Gun," but it definitely falls under writing styles: in WW products, where does the "she" come from as the primary (not sure if it's the only) pronoun for the player? It's not something I notice much anymore, but a few friends who are newer to roleplaying do a "Compared to everything else I've read, this weird" whenever they're reading through Exalted and Scion.

It's not the primary, it alternates. At least in WoD works, we tend to use them about equally; for example, in powers sections, I would try to use "she" as the player pronoun in one Gift list, and "he" in the next. It jumps out a bit more if you're not used to it.

There's a two-fold reason we've kept doing it. One is that alternating generic he and she in reference to the player is more gender-inclusive. You will see this frequently disputed, of course; there are many (mostly male) gamers I've noted who complain about the use. On the other hand, there are also many (often female) gamers who like and appreciate the use, so we carry on. It's not just us, by the way; you see it more and more these days. Even in D&D they use the default signature characters (sorry, their "iconics") to determine gender, so you will mostly see the generic wizard or rogue as "she," while cleric and fighter are "he."

The other reason is that it really helps keep things straight when you're using examples of contested rolls, or two characters interacting. Compare "When he uses this power on him, he must roll X" to "When she uses this power on him, she must roll X" or "When he uses this power on her, she must roll X". Going with a generic "he" actually makes things read less smoothly in such cases, so I'll admit I've never seriously considered going back to the more exclusive generic "he."

The thinly veiled misogyny of this thread is starting to grate. What kind of person cares if a rulebook uses the word "he" or "she" to describe the actions of a sample character?

In cases where generic pronouns make things confusing, it is most correct to use proper nouns.