That's just one of the counter-arguments that I don't like.

I am fine with a female lead because I am fine with it. I am not trying to be progressive by having no problem with an all female cast.

I don't think it's progressive to replace a male lead with a female lead, or a gay lead, or a transgender lead anyway. Nor I think it's a problem.

What I care about is the delivery of the script, the talent and the acting.

I am a huge Silent Hill fan and I had no problems with the lead being a female when they decided to turn the games into a movie. I wasn't trying to be progressive back then, I just didn't care. I absolutely loathed the movie though, for many reasons. Not having a male lead wasn't one of them.

And I also disgree about your idea of any reboot. When you reboot you are free to determine who is the audience you are targeting. Old fans, new fans, fangrils or fanboys. Financial success is a different matter. If I, as a consumer, ended up like the reboot better, good for me. I don't care if the reboot flopped or not, or if the fans of the original GB liked it or not.

I'm sure the producers are loving the support they are getting from SJWs who think they are changing the world. Those bunch really need to get laid.

I am a huge Silent Hill fan and I had no problems with the lead being a female when they decided to turn the games into a movie. I wasn't trying to be progressive back then, I just didn't care. I absolutely loathed the movie though, for many reasons. Not having a male lead wasn't one of them.

4. Silent Hill had reason: a mother figure looking for her child works better than a father figure. That's a legitimate reason to change the gender of a character.

Second, I don't think a mother figure works better. If the character is presented as protective, and caring, it really doesn't matter the genre of the character nor the audience can emphatize more with it. While the movie doesn't follow closely the plot of the game, it doesn't really mader because no gender was changed at all, just a female lead was picked.

1. Not liking a counter argument doesn't invalidate it. Typically, it does so even more because the source of the dislike is an inability to properly counter it. 

1. I don't like it because it simplifies everyone's reasoning for being ok with a female lead into a simple "they are being progressive", "afraid of SJW reactions" etc. 

2. A single female lead isn't progressive. A single gay lead is, if we're being honest, progressive. An entire cast of female leads? That's either progressive, or a chick flik.

2. Gender/sexual orientation swapping isn't progressive in my opinion. I don't mind it, but that's not how you push for progress.

 3. I never argued the script. As i decided not to watch the movie, i cant argue the script. I'm arguing the creative choice of turning what was essentially a "boy franchise" into an all girl movie. 

3. And I am not saying the script is good, I've not seen the movie. I am saying if the script/the delivery is good then I will like the movie regardless of who is playing the lead.

4. Silent Hill had reason: a mother figure looking for her child works better than a father figure. That's a legitimate reason to change the gender of a character.

4. What? No, it's not a good reason at all. It didnt' work better. I didn't know why the director decided to go with a female lead, because I didn't mind it, but if that was his/her reasoning then wow, no wonder he/she got everything else wrong. 

5. I never said any reboot, nor did i say they aren't free to pick their audience. I'm pointing out why many are asking for justification on why the gender swap happened aside from just being a gimmick. I'm pointing out why people are displeased with the creative choice that was taken; because many people who like the originals found someone to identify with in those movies, but had that taken away with the reboot. 

5. That's fine, but to call them displeased is an understatement.

They are spreading hate all over the webs, labeling people who like the movie with SJWs and other stuff , saying the movie couldn't have possibily received negative reviews because the SJWs would've attacked those reviewers, or because it would have been poltically wrong to give it a negative score, giving the movie low ratings without actually seeing it, acting if the original theme song is a Radiohead masterpiece that can't be replicated when in reality it's more like a backstreet song covered by 1D-tier band, etc

It seems you're of the mindset I'm attacking the movie. I'm not, because I don't really care. Am I disappointed? Yeah, it could have had a character I felt I could identify with, and I might've generated some interest in the movie. Instead it's just a chick flik. But I'm not attacking the movie because I haven't seen it. I'm explaining why people don't like the gender swap. Please read my posts carefully to decipher what I'm trying to relay, because it's clear that you're simply on defense for a movie you like. 

I don't like the movie. I haven't seen it. I am not on defense mode, I am find what's happening comical. That's all.

I disagree, I think it does work better with a mother.  It's more congruent with current gender roles as therefore require less suspension of disbelief.

Completely off-topic here, but I disagree with these two statements. First of all, there shouldn't have been any problem of a Silent Hill movie having a female protagonist because a) there had been already a mainline Silent Hill with a female protagonist, and b) the movie isn't the story of the first game. It's a mesh of several Silent Hill concepts which actually includes a parent looking for his children, like the plot of SH1.

Second, I don't think a mother figure works better. If the character is presented as protective, and caring, it really doesn't matter the genre of the character nor the audience can emphatize more with it. While the movie doesn't follow closely the plot of the game, it doesn't really mader because no gender was changed at all, just a female lead was picked.