First some clarification. Using the words "sex" and "gender" interchangeably is an increasingly common error. Properly understood, the former is a function of biology while the latter is a function of grammar. Living beings are male or female. Words (especially in Romance languages) can be masculine or feminine. Applied to characters, sex is intrinsic; gender is extrinsic (male and female people can have masculine and/or feminine qualities).
Besides the difference between "sex" and "gender", another key premise is the observation that men and women differ substantially in certain respects. Once considered a controversial stance, behavioral science now leaves little doubt that some psychological differences between the sexes are biologically derived.
What do these differences imply for writers? It depends on the literary field. Writing a female protagonist who exhibits traditionally masculine traits (or vice-versa) for the explicit purpose of challenging traditional gender roles works best in contemporary mainstream or revisionist historical fiction.
Unless one holds advanced degrees in women's studies, cultural anthropology, and/or medieval history, creating protagonists who defiantly transgress established gender roles is inadvisable in genre fiction. Only expert skill will prevent such stories from feeling heavy-handed and jarring.
Genre fiction (especially fantasy) largely relies on received understandings. Because fantastic tales draw much of their power from readers' vicarious experience of the story, it is helpful to make the main characters broadly relatable. Thus fantasy (and even science fiction) tends to invoke archetypes. Note that "archetypal" is not synonymous with "one-dimensional". The former concerns a character's cultural resonance, while complexity depends on the layering of internal conflict.
One may object that genre fiction deals in stereotypes. I respond, "Yeah. So what?" Stereotypes are simply preconceptions. They are morally neutral in and of themselves. It is only when they become prejudicial that stereotypes acquire negative moral value.
Some stereotypes are helpful. When I see someone in a blue uniform driving behind me in a car with sirens and flashing lights, I respond by pulling over. This is a stereotypical assumption since I don't know the vehicle's driver but rely on visual and audio cues that identify police officers. Stereotypes can likewise aid genre characterization by giving the reader subtle guides to character engagement.
That isn't to say that all male characters must be blood and lust-crazed brutes; or that all female characters must be shrinking violets. As always, strong characters should be people first and foremost. Avoid the twin excesses of treating men and women as identical or as wholly separate species. Sex shouldn't define a character, but it should have an obvious behavioral impact.
Readers should easily be able to tell a novel's characters apart. Sex is an important aspect of character differentiation. Whether or not one agrees that men and women bear certain fundamental differences, the fact is that a character's sex does affect the reader's reaction to him or her. The timeless themes and conflicts associated with motherhood and fatherhood cannot be overemphasized.
Now that we've seen the impact of sex on characterization, the question of how to put this theory into practice remains. I'll go into more detail later, but for now I advise against the following approach:
Posts
