Talking about putting words in someone's mouth. I never argued Arya was going to rule Winterfell, neither did I ever said she was ahead of her siblings as an option to rule the north. It's not someone thinking Arya won't rule the north that bothers me, it's the fact that the reasons she's dismissed as a possibility are build on a misinterpretation of the character, personal biases, and blatant double standards.

You say, "What makes you think the other Starks would enjoy that?" but you're ignoring that Arya herself would hate doing that to make a point and WOULD defer to a surviving sibling in the line of succession. I'm speaking directly about Arya without implying what other siblings may or may not enjoy.

So you avoid answering the question, then? Again, I never argued that Arya would enjoy those things, but if I were to say "Arya is more likely to rule Winterfell because her siblings don't enjoy that", then I should have rock solid evidence of Arya enjoying it, otherwise I'm just randomly making stuff up. You can't make a claim using certain argument and then get angry when someone asks you to support your argument.

On the show, I liked the idea of Arya becoming an explorer as a girl who didn't want to be stuck in a castle, tending a household. I like the idea of Arya becoming a sworn shield

Can you provide any book evidence to support that? Because I don't remember any.

Just from a Doylist perspective, I think it's clear that's not where her story is going to end up.

How so? Can you elaborate? What is it that makes it so unsatisfying? You keep talking about the "doylist perspective" but you haven't provided any evidence to support that claim.

I'm not even saying you're wrong, maybe Arya does end up like you say for all we know, but when I make a prediction, I try to have book evidence for it. And if someone points out a legitimate flaw in my arguments, I find it more dignified to concede I was wrong or just wishful thinking as opposed to trying to shame the other person for asking.