For fun, I thought of actually listing all the main Bionicle females in each year and see if they meet the claimed "only two types" thing that DV brought up. Although it seems like it's really "Only four traits", since he listed passive, nurturing, insane, and violent. I'll test both "passive and nurturing" / "insane and violent" and for any of those traits individually.2001:Gali -- Nurturing, sure. Definitely not passive (martial arts, spoke up against the will of the others to urge them to work together, etc.). I don't know how much of a stretch "violent" is meant to be (the martial arts thing), but I wouldn't count that as it's as much for protection and stopping harm as anything.Nokama -- Nurturing again, sure. All six Turaga are somewhat passive, due to being "elders", but she isn't passive compared to the others (Nuju anyone?) and in fact takes the top leadership role for Takua, even over Vakama, at one point by appointing him Chronicler. As for why she's nurturing I'll get back to that for 2004.Macku -- No.Kotu -- Not as far as I know, but she wasn't really featured, was she?Nixie -- No.Other Ga-Matoran as shown -- No, just normal villagers.2002:Bahrag -- No! They were put in a position where after who knows how many times cleaning the robot's face, Toa are shockingly opposing them. They may have less than full humanlike intelligence to grasp why, but I think it's understandable without that. Stubborn, yes, but not insane. And they certainly defended themselves "violently" but so would any gender in that position so that wouldn't be fair to allege.2002 does suffer from a lack of new female characters, though (and 2001 from a lack of equal balance, though I think we all understand why).Bohrok animation guard Ga-Matoran -- let's bring them up because it debunks a possible misconception raised earlier.2003:Hahli -- Maybe a little passive in her old job, but only in the sense that she was not apparently involved much in the defense of the village (somebody's gotta do the chores in any village). Otherwise no. And she went on to become a Kolhii Champion which is the exact opposite of passive. I'll come back to her for 2006.Other MNOG2 Ga-Matoran -- I don't think so, but I didn't spend a lot of time talking to every single one when I played the game. I think it's just more normal villager type personalities, with normal variety.Graalok -- Do we count the Rahi? I guess I will because Krahka below enters that territory anyways. Graalok was violent at first but due to being a bear.While we're at Rahi, I guess we should list Pewku (both 2001 and 2003). I dunno how you judge that. Friendly. But being a steed, not really a position to be "nurturing", and definitely not passive, ironically. I would say no.2004:Nokama as Matoran and Toa -- Very much the nurturing thing, but now we see an explanation; she's a teacher, and one of the top ones. It's a common teacher trait (though I'm sure all college students can think of that one professor who wasn't at all nurturing lol). Of course, we also learn this is a common job for Ga-Matoran at the time. But here I think we can see the explanation for both Nokama and Gali as water-focused. Gali is named after her element and Nokama is best at the job associated with her element. Water is nurturing to life (though it has its dangers). Contrasted to other elements which are more of "there", mildly nurturing with ice, or "absolutely essential" with Air.So, this is a Water thing, not a female thing. Other female elements, as rare as they are (and female Av-Matoran or female Shadow beings) will likely not follow this trait. Worth noting that BS01 mentions she is known for dislike of compromise, so apparently was not always that nurturing.Lariska -- Definitely violent. Not any of the other things, though a bit quirky that might seem insane to a degree. Of course, villains are almost always violent! But ironically we're about to see an exception starting off 2005.Krahka -- No. She did lack a full sapient-style intelligence at first, being a puddle of goo. As a Rahi we can't expect what we would think of as humanlike sanity. And she's violent at times, sure. But she grows up to what to me seemed almost normal for a human, Matoran, etc.Tuyet (I think she was 2005 or later technically but I'll group her with Metru Nui's intro when we saw Lhikan) -- Big yes to the insane and violent and quite possibly insanely violent. Not passive, and I don't recall if she acted nurturing while pretending to be good or not, but certainly not genuinely so.Naho -- I don't think we know enough about her. But she was the one who snuck past DH lines in that war, so not passive. Nor violent, as she didn't FIGHT past them. Her alternate Toa Empire self was apparently violent, but IMO alternates shouldn't count (she would likely have just been trying to fit in there... I dunno).Vhisola -- No.2005:Roodaka -- Not really. She's a schemer, not any of those things really. She would use violence (sometimes killing a Visorak out of anger for example) but prefers others to do her work, so less so than your usual sapient villain. She's no more insane than any villain (due to not being good which is the only fully sane thing to be ), but possibly more sane than the vast majority. Definitely not nurturing, and despite possibly -seeming- passive, that is just a cover for a very active, order-giving, plus personally acting (with the Visorak killing thing) schemer.However, I do think "Insanely violent" can work for the moments when she just kills a Visorak to instill fear in the others. But this is a common Bionicle trait for leader villains, not inherent to females. Pridak especially comes to mind, as well as nearly all the Piraka, probably other Barraki (though we really only saw Pridak in his old role), many of the Makuta, and TSO to some extent. I think it's just a trope used to show that the villain leader is really, really evil.Gaaki -- I honestly don't remember much about most of the Rahaga other than Norik and Kualus (who I focused on in my retelling), but I don't think she fits. BS01 says she's "feisty" and a hard worker, so not passive. As for nurturing I have no idea. Probably to some extent, but again, this should likely be associated with Water element, not female gender.2006:Hahli -- No, about normal. The Muaka hologram incident has been alleged, but that was a situation literally forcing you to be either passive (freeze up and possibly die) or violent (violate the Code and kill the Muaka). Had she acted as others did and killed it, you could then claim that she fits the pattern due to being "violent". So this really is irrelevant.And her reaction makes sense for someone who came to the mantle of Toa from being an assistant flax maker and sports champion rather than a guard, warrior, etc. as other Ga-Matoran have been. As pointed out earlier, had Macku become the Ga-Toa Inika she might not have acted that way. As for nurturing, this team really didn't need much of that, to be honest, unlike the Mata/Nuva and Metru. They already understood they needed to work together, so I would say they all were, even the Ko-Matoran.Dalu -- No.Nokama deserves a mention here, too, since she was the one who actively disobeyed Dume in allowing the to-be-Inika and Takanuva to leave.2007:Idris, Kyrehx -- I really don't recall much about them at moment. BS01's description of Idris sounds like a maybe to nurturing, but Kyrehx doesn't seem to fit. And these traits seem like general Matoran traits to me.Apparently 2007 did not have a ton of new female characters. Ironic for being the water year...2008:Gorast -- Heck yeah. Insanely violent, and violent, anyways. Insane itself, not really. Hopelessly misguided, yes, though.She does lend the most credence to the claim, I think, because she seems the most extreme of the Makuta. Of course, why must that not happen to be a female? Surely among other groups there are male examples of the most extreme. Hakann with the Piraka (and Vezon being obviously the most insane), several contenders among the DH, probably Pridak of the Barraki, etc. On the other hand, Lariska is one of those DH contenders, and Roodaka has at least the insanely violent trait among Vortixx and/or Visorak-related people. So there does seem to be a trend with that side of the scale.Personally, though, I think this is actually done out of anti-sexism. LEGO wants to show strong females. This is the one common thread I see. The female good guys... er gals... tend to often be strong in good ways, the bad ones strong in bad ways. It's empowerment, right? You can make a case that they oversell it, though, and in so doing lose a statistical normalcy that might be even more effective at countering sexism. But the downside of that would be the females would tend to be more boring, which also might be counterproductive. So I think at best this is highly debatable. It definitely cannot show sexism on LEGO's part, so although it might possibly enable misunderstandings, that could go both ways.It also may simply be trying to balance out the statistical lack of females -- making sure you don't forget about the few that are there.And let's bring up Icarax while we're on it, who is quite possibly legitimately insane, mildly, for trying to rebel against Teridax, and also going up against the Ignika. And is also among the most violent. And many of the Makuta are very violent.Gavla -- No! She's a major example of a female (note: of another element) who was not nurturing. She actually tended not to get along well with others. But she wasn't passive either. While a Shadow Matoran, she seems to have been general evil-type stuff, albeit with a grudge still (due to not being nurturing before!).2009-end:Kiina -- No.Sisters of the Skrall -- Again, no.Annona -- Also no.Chiara -- No.So, in conclusion, myth busted. Both the literal claim that "only" those two types are there and the looser sense that they're even the majority.
Also, I agree with HDD. Greg's writing had some definite limitations as far as characterization went, and that naturally affected the female characters as much as the males. There were some clear tropes and "shock value" things, and it is what it is. But it isn't sexism nor is it fair to justify people confusing it for that. It's just a kid's story, really.
Fishers -- I'm not sure how you figure about "would you want" females having those types of jobs. In real life, females will tend to have less upper body strength, so if you have two options, a typical female and typical male, to hire for a job for lifting heavy things, perhaps you wouldn't, but I highly doubt it works that way with Matoran. That has to do with reproductive considerations and how bodies grow biologically. Neither apply to Matoran. So... I dunno about that. That might actually apply with the percentage of Glatorian seen in-story though. Assuming the biology of Agori/Glat-species even works that way. I don't see it as working to explain why we didn't get to see female Agori, though.
We should keep in mind here that the GBs really did not think they were making genuinely sapient beings. So all of this might be simply overthinking this stuff. They may have simply seen the males as just robots that they would call "he", but (as I mentioned earlier) thought of having there be females (though I originally had the timing off on this guess), and not really cared about numerical equality since they thought of it as just nanotech with some programming similarities to gender, albeit with organic components and likely brains.
I would guess the GBs are half/half, but we don't really know. They DO have gender, at least in how they are referred to by the pronouns. My guess is that both with Agori and GBs, the only LEGO explanation would be "coincidence" in-story, relying on the out-of-story explanation of the target audience majority.