In the U.S. there have been many accusations over the course of the current eras, of people rising to power based on class, gender, age, race, and various other pigeon-holes, rather than their policies and merit. This is true of employment, politics, education, entertainment, you name it. It has sparked much debate in our history as a result as to whether certain individuals even deserve the positions that they have. For some, the mere suggestion that a leadership role should be picked based on a pigeon-holed label is even insulting, while for others, it is innovative and daring. That has been why some roles, like the President of the United States, are not taken lightly when it comes to discussing such a topic. We are a young country and have not experienced the natural course of development that many of the longer-lived countries have had where they've had the opportunity to experience these things. That is not to say we don't provide opportunity, it is one of our cornerstone principles. Some things just have to come naturally, if they are to be taken seriously, and not have the appearance of being "forced" to fit a label. We've had some areas of our country where we "forced" change, in one form or another, for better or worse, and it usually came with "a lot of resistance", if you get my drift.
Chances are, each of the civilizations that are represented in the game has had their share of controversy when it came time to picking leaders, abilities, traits, etc. So, we are just a drop in the bucket in that list of a careful game balance.
I wouldn't even know who to suggest for "realistic" choices for a female leader of the U.S. that wouldn't offend at least 50% of the U.S. In this day and age, we are divided about almost every topic there is under the sun. We'd be hard pressed to agree on pizza toppings, let alone POTUS.
