I believe it is a component of identity that helps better define characters and, if properly used, differentiate them from one another. The theme and feeling may change entirely for a character design because of it, but is it always a deciding factor? No. Is gender most often a write-off and unimportant factor to a character's sheet? Yes, it is in many cases, but not all. It might be intentional or even subconscious, but the differences still are there and change what one feels for them or the lack thereof.

I have characters of male and female sorts, but my female characters are better written. Why? They are distorted reflections of real people I knew and know, who I borrow inspiration from. They are nothing alike them, they would never "recognize" one another per say, but it stems from the people I have had around me. Does their real gender, which they share, greatly affect that? In most cases, yes.

But what if we stripped one of my methods away, what am I left with? The reality for me is that, in many cases, even doing my best to avoid clichés and pitfalls, most my male archetypes come too close to comfort with them. To provide an example, one of my characters is a monster by truest definition, but not by choice and struggles constantly with trying to be human and retain humanity; the ride of adrenaline to the crash after, as savage as it can be. Classical concept, nothing new. A female character with the same story? A bit more unusual - her circumstances feel different because the expectation is different, right or wrong. She feels more organic as a concept, because I can toy with what is thought or even desired by a reader.

In my experience with writing with others either gender means nothing or is everything. The former over the latter by and far is what I have witnessed, yet it isn't my point. What it means to me is that most creative writers either set out to make it a point or it changes nothing. To me that is weaker, to make it have no purpose. The character is often lacking in being fleshed out and presented without a total concept in mind; gender at that point means nothing. The other extreme can work for or against a story, in that too often I see "hyper masculine, ultra men who are all badass" or "she is a delicate flower who really has a heart".

It is more novel to see the two changed by gender alone - your results and interaction is almost always different; an emotional, sensitive, thoughtful and caring male is seen as "weak" or "useless" too often, just as a tough, aggressive, no nonsense woman is a "bitch" or "manly" because she isn't the delicate flower. They are still tropes, but they can evolve beyond cliché and expectation much better to be their own identity. It still is about how the writer writes for them, but from the get they are already breaking the mold. Some however, most, are just as content to use those archetypes as their only defining feature which is less about gender again and about a bad or inexperienced author.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me the he, she or otherwise. How good are you at "inventing" other people and their story? Do they feel real, in their context, or are they stock cardboard cutouts you saw and adopted for yourself?