Children of both sexes are even more sympathetic by default than adult women, and their deaths are almost invariably treated as deeply tragic. However, girls are still considered more dependent, and therefore more sympathetic, than boys of the same age. Typically, a girl stands a better chance of surviving a horror movie than a boy does (if she's a virgin or the main character).
Women do get killed in pointless ways that serve only as a plot device, usually simply to provide a conveniently sympathetic motivation for a male character. Killing a man does not work as well precisely because the audience does not view the death of anonymous men as tragic or horrifying. Which leads into:
When the nameless masses die off, a character will often comment that the villain killed innocent women and children. Male deaths seem to be considered regrettable but not nearly as tragic, as though men are automatically considered to be combatants who died in battle - even if they were actually innocent bystanders who had absolutely no chance to defend themselves. Sometimes villains will defend themselves by saying that they only target men, as if actions that result in the death of men are morally neutral. (Note that being wounded, disabled or very elderly trumps being a man, as it takes one out of the "combatant" category.) Wouldn't Hit a Girl, Wouldn't Hurt a Child and Would Not Shoot a Civilian are closely related tropes.
A male character can elevate himself to the status of a female extra through sympathetic characterization—thus earning himself a noteworthy death—but female characters always start with audience sympathy. Conversely, a female character can lose audience sympathy through actively unsympathetic characterization. Even so, villainous female characters are often treated as less genuinely evil than male villains, scoring more Get Of Jail Free cards and convenient redemptions. Female characters also have to act far worse to lose this kind of sympathy, and are more often given an excuse for their bad behavior. Namely, a female character only crosses the line if she targets children for death, especially if she does the killing herself, or if she openly admits to have had an abortion and isn't constantly angsting about it - the last one as much because of other women's opinions as men's.
The more realistically brutal a work's portrayal of death is, the more the death toll will skew toward adult men. Part of the dramatic impact of these deaths is in watching a human body being dismembered, brutalized, hacked apart or otherwise treated like a piece of meat. However, mainstream audiences generally do not want to see this happen to sympathetic characters, which excludes women and children by default.
Media with gorn will still kill off female characters, except in far more sanitary ways. Men may be being hacked apart by the Big Bad, but women will simply scream and slump over. Or scream and the scene cuts away. Or if men are being brutally beaten to death, women will be strangled instead. Female characters will die, on screen, in a way that will not result in a closed casket funeral. If there is female Gorn death, expect it to be described or implied rather than shown.
A subset of this trope relates to the treatment of male vs. female bodies. It is more acceptable to show all aspects of male death, from brutal mutilation to the corpse itself. It's also more acceptable to manhandle or disrespect a male corpse. Lighthearted jokes from morticians, detectives and coroners are more common with male rather than female corpses.
On the other hand, and related to the above "Death As Emotional Torque" point; a woman's gorny death will usually be considered worse than if a man were killed in the exact same manner (even if it is only the audience that considers the scene more harrowing).
Females who target other females have to be unusually brutal in their violence to lose sympathy since the audience often considers female-on-female violence (and sometimes even rape) as sexy and enticing or as a cute Cat Fight, thus not worthy fretting over. On the other hand, a woman who is unable to defend herself unaided against another woman will often lose audience sympathy for being that weak. Only if she targets young children may a woman be considered irredeemable.
Protagonists and antagonists can thus be easily determined from any scene of violence, without any context, if the actors are of different genders - women fighting men are usually the good guys, men fighting women are usually the bad guys. After all, if he was really a good guy, he Wouldn't Hit a Girl. Also (occasionally) a cunning and cruel villain, especially a female one, can take advantage of this trope and mindset, threatening, hurting and even killing women and children to emotionally destroy males, thus losing their ability to fight. As a result, unless The Hero of the show is also female, female Big Bads are often Non Action Big Bads, since few people would be comfortable depicting a male protagonist punching a woman in the face, no matter how horrible she may be. Her lady-parts trump her actions and her moral agency. Therefore, only another woman is "allowed" to physically destroy a villainess.
Female characters are also expected to treat themselves as less expendable than male characters. Female characters do not lose sympathy for preserving their own lives or safety at the cost of adult male characters' lives and safety. (They are sometimes expected to do so to protect children, however, if there are no male characters available to take care of it.) Male characters lose considerable sympathy if they don't at least try to bend over backwards and help save female characters' lives, even if the cost is their own. (Imagine the climactic death scene in Titanic with the genders reversed.) If the woman is or might be pregnant - or if she even has older children - this can be brought forward as an excuse, softening the trope: she must save herself to protect the child. Fathers much more rarely bring up parenthood as a reason to avoid putting themselves in danger when they would otherwise be morally obligated to, although a childless male character might invoke it as a reason why the father should allow him to sacrifice himself instead.
This can also extend to male characters protecting female characters not just from actual physical danger, but also from unpleasant knowledge, as they would children. Note that this completely ignores the possibility that, as an adult with experience, the female character might have valuable insight into solving the problem if she only knew about it. This fact is rarely brought up, even if the female character later learns that the male character was hiding information to protect her and becomes angry about it.
However, the trope also has subtler Unfortunate Implications for women. Women get automatic audience sympathy for the same reason children do: they're viewed as fundamentally helpless, passive and innocent as well as ineffectual, incapable and utterly incompetent in any given situation, not as adults who can take care of themselves. Crimes against women are considered especially horrific because it's assumed that female victims could not possibly have been capable of defending themselves, considered on par with hurting little kids. Similarly, female villains are viewed as redeemable because they often aren't really taken seriously as villains in the first place a woman can't possibly pose a real threat, or be truly accountable for her actions. And since male characters must get the chance to earn audience sympathy by proving how capable they are, while female ones already have audience sympathy by default, female characters are rarely given the same narrative opportunities to be heroic. This is one reason why male protagonists are much more common in many genres: male characters are more likely to have agency, personal conflict and capacity for growth, whereas female characters are often two-dimensionally perfect, static and passive. Thus, the female characters are reduced to plot devices that inspire male characters to action they get killed off, giving men a reason to prove their manhood by avenging them; or they provide sage advice about being in touch with one's emotions; or they prop themselves up as trophies to reward male characters who've proven themselves worthy.
In Real Life, this trope can also be outright nasty - forcing men to take unnecessary risks and work themselves into poor health and an early grave, whilst limiting opportunities for women and forcing them into "feminine" jobs. This all ties in with the idea of the helpless, childlike woman who has little responsibility but the raising of children and the manly man who works himself to an early grave so she never has to. Women who defied this were oft met with scorn from both their less-proactive peers, who will judge her for failing to act upon her gender role as a woman and ridiculed by men for daring to imagine that a frail woman could hope to perform masculine tasks as well as a man. A woman may be praised for doing something masculine and no one may care if she wears male clothing. If a man dresses up like a woman and attempts to step into traditionally female roles, such as being a nurse, elementary teacher or stay-at-home parent then he can expect to be mocked for being a "girl/fag" or told that he needs to "man up".
- Always Save the Girl
- Damsel in Distress
- Disposable Woman
- Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male
- The Dulcinea Effect
- Her Heart Will Go On
- High-HeelFace Turn
- Men Are Generic, Women Are Special
- Missing White Woman Syndrome
- Sacrificial Lion
- Stay in the Kitchen
- Stuffed into the Fridge
- The Unfair Sex
- Women Are Wiser
- Wouldn't Hit a Girl
You can also see a somewhat similar dynamic playing out with portrayals of racial and other minorities, who, like women, are often portrayed as perfect politically correct saints and victims, and are therefore reduced to passive props in stories about more dynamic and flawed white/able-bodied/middle-class/heterosexual/etc. protagonists: compare Token Minority, Magical Negro, Magical Queer, Token Black Friend, Gay Best Friend, Going Native, Inspirationally Disadvantaged, Positive Discrimination, Disposable Woman and Mighty Whitey. However there is a subtle distinction with the portrayal of minority characters: if they are male they still aren't afforded the same physical protections as female characters. See Black Dude Dies First.
Apparent aversions of the trope often aren't. Remember, a real aversion requires not just showing lots of female deaths - that's actually fairly common - but treating those deaths as no more tragic than those of male characters. In older works (especially films and TV shows) that do avert it, it's often because the plot required meaningless deaths, but the director wanted to portray those deaths in sexualized ways to act as if they were appealing to Perverse Sexual Lust rather than defying Wouldn't Hit a Girl with a sympathetic character. See Monster Misogyny and Male Gaze.
However, there has been a gradual but genuine shift in attitudes. Audiences today are more likely to deride female characters who don't put themselves at risk for their allies as The Load or a Damsel Scrappy. Modern works are therefore slowly becoming more likely to depict female characters who go into dangerous situations alongside their male partners, or even who are physically protective of their male partners, without portraying this as making the male partner in question less manly and sympathetic. They are also becoming more likely to portray male characters who aren't traditionally manly as sympathetic characters.
- Is the dead female character an anonymous extra?
- If so, was her death considered no more noteworthy than the deaths of other anonymous male extras?
- Was the female character's death classifiable as gorn? Was it on screen?
- Was her killer a male protagonist and did he retain audience sympathy?
Answer 'yes' to all four, and, congrats, you've got a complete aversion.