I see this point come up a lot in these discussions, and I strongly disagree with it. I'm not talking about Overwatch here (I don't play it), but about sexual objectification across all media.
In a way, objectification is sort of a problem of "balance", with the scales being heavily tipped toward objectifying women. But it's almost a useless thing to bring up, because no amount of games putting in a few shirtless men is going to make that scale balance out. There are literal centuries of objectifying women behind us. Societally, women are literally seen as having more sexualized bodies than men. You can see it earlier in the thread when a lot of male posters didn't understand what a sexy man would look like. It's even in your post here, to a degree:
Is it really different because of anatomical differences or because we've decided more body parts on women are sexualized than on men? What if we had centuries of objectifying men's knees instead of women's breasts, for example? Then maybe no male game characters would be wearing shorts.
There's nothing inherent to our biology that's made us sexualize women in a different way. It's culture. (A whole lot of different cultures, and they don't all objectify in the same ways.)
Having a shirtless male game character or even one who's sexed up similarly to a female character, straight up does not have the same context. The latter even comes across as absurd or funny to many people, because it really isn't how we normally see men. There is no "equality" or "balance" achievable here. Maybe many, many, many years in the future if we start objectifying men en masse in media, but I'd prefer we didn't. It's dehumanizing and yes, an issue all on its own.
I have to disagree with your argument that it's only culture and that anatomical importance has nothing to do with it. I'm going to give a few example for why I think this is:
Female Butts vs Male Butts
from an anatomical and evolutionary standpoint a good pelvic size supposedly gave women a better chance of surviving childbirth and/or cause less trauma to the baby, this has been true until very recently when caesarean sections have become safe to perform, so for a very long time a certain hip/butt size became associated with better survival and as a consequence it became a major element of sexual attractions.
male butts on the other end have no direct association with better survival, a more toned butt(but muscular fitness in general) might have showcased more physical prowess that in ancient times could have led to a better survival of the family but throughout the centuries male physical presence has lost a lot of the indispensable value that it once had since it was no longer necessary for a good outcome and so it lost a lot of relevance in its role of sexual attraction.
Female Chest vs Male Chest
again from an anatomical and evolutionary standpoint when women breastfeed their breast grow in size so bigger breasts have been associated with more milk and a better survival of the newborns, and because milk productions from the breast have such a crucial role in the babies' health the role of breasts in sexual attraction gained significant importance, an importance that it's still relevant today as not even baby formula can be a 100% comparable substitute for the mother's breast milk.
Males chest size on the other hand have no direct or crucial impact on the health and wellbeing of the baby, this has been true of male physical fitness for a long long time now and it contributed to males having less defined sexual features than females. That's not to say that males don't have sexual features of course, but they are different and overall more generic and more susceptible to subjectivity, for example there is no strong widespread equivalent in the female world to expressions like "ass man" or a "boob man" because evolutionarily speaking no singular male physical feature has been deemed as important as females butts and boobs, as they could(and still can) have an impact on birth and survival of new generations.
So in conclusion I do believe that society and culture did have an impact but physical and biological differences and their role in procreation and evolution also had a prime role in all of this.
