I don't understand the comment about a character being nominally a woman but not acting like a woman has to act in order to be a "true" woman. I can understand the assertion that certain sweeping generalizations about the genders are true, but in this case, which ones did the character defy that you wish she hadn't?

It wasn't that she defied any generalizations in particular, it's just that you could have made her character male by replacing the names and the pronouns and there's not a single thing that would have felt out of place. The main differences between her and the male characters seemed to be that a) she had faced a great deal of opposition to her taking a leadership role, and that b) she did not take up weapons even though they were in the middle of a war. Especially noticeable was that she had no sexual characteristics, behaviors, or relationships, and no relationships with any other women (none in her office that she worked with, even) and that the only other women who had lines in the book were a priestess who was little more than a mouthpiece for her god (and lost without it), and two women who were both love/sex interests and who were, really, fine characters, but who had very small roles to play - and the only relationship one of them had with another woman was her sister.

I guess part of my assertion is that I feel like real women tend to associate with other women, at least, you know, *some* of the time.