No, I'm writing about this because it is important, not bizarre. My intent is to keep the two aspects entirely separate, because they are. In what you write here, instead, you make the error of doing exactly what "they" want: clump everything together. The point is: "immersion breaking" opposes the "virtual signaling". You cannot support these two arguments at the same time. One obligatorily excludes the other. 1- If the real issue is immersion, then the complaint is legitimate and there's zero politics involved. It's just about historical accuracy and nothing else. (and where you draw the line with immersion breaking is very subjective) 2- If instead the issue is virtue signaling or however you want to see it, then immersion IS NOT a problem. You can complain about virtue signaling even if Battlefield was set 3000 years in the future. If you want NO WOMEN in your war games then you don't want them regardless of historical accuracy. You just don't want them. Full stop. You don't really need the historical accuracy as some sort of cover up to further some other agenda. It seems illogical to me. So if I defend the argument of historical accuracy it means the opposite of what you said: I don't align with their politics, and I'm not batting for any message they bring forth.