Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

[Calthropstu]

How does D&D measure up to these standards?

Seeing as how I literally just referred to that already existing, I fail to see your point. The op very much wanted a much more in depth statement. It is that which I am referring to.

I can't think of many people who would have an issue with that. I can't think of many who would have an issue with a couple such characters. I can think of MANYwho would have problems with the original thesis of having in depth sexual content of any kind in their core rulebooks. It is to that I refer.

So "you can play any gender in any way you want" is fine. "The females of Goridorth 7 have a complex social structure and wear different garb for different occasions. The ceremonial robe depicted here is worn to different major social functions. When meeting a member of the nobility, the female ceremonial garb is red. The sash is decorated with the emblem of the visited lord, unless the visiter is of equal or higher rank in which case her own emblem will adorn the sash. Other major events include..." is best left for a setting supplement because we really don't need it.

[Zombimode]

To Satinavian: Funny story, no the D&D settings don't use the D&D magic system.

Hm, are D&D novels really meant to be setting source material?

I see the relationship more along the lines of novelizations of video games or fanfiction: works inspired by the sources, but not sources themselves.

Dragonlance was a novel series before it was a game setting.

For Eberron I remember a quote from Keith Baker, the creator of Eberron, that his novels should not be considered canon. Edit: here's the article in question: /eberron-continued-what-is-canon/

As for the Forgotten Realms: well, yeah. The failure of accurately representing the settings magic is just that: a failure.


My usual recommendation for a Forgotten Realms novel that actually feels true to the source material is Murder in Cormyr. It's a neat fantasy crime story so it's worth checking out anyway

[KaussH]

Most of the rpgs I mentioned take place on earth so inherit the customs of the earth. It doesn't need mrntioning of gender foles because we know the gender roles... it's earth.

If you want to write an alternate version of future earth with amazon style wonen taking over the wotld government with men relegated to labor only roles and abandoned technology to save the world from climate change ghen by all means. I woildn't play that, but go for it.

Most rulebooks don't need to spell out gender roles. Setting books sometimes needs to. But I'll be honest... this won't go over very well anywhere.

Um.. earth in fact does have some complex gender roles depending on time and place, and thats before adding elves, dwarves, trolls, ect ( the list goes on)

So why exactly wont it go over well anywhere?

[Satinavian]

But consider this: even on a "this is the wotld" game with only 1 world, that wotld has multiple continents, multiple countries and setting details vary from continent and country no? Most of the rpgs I mentioned take place on earth so inherit the customs of the earth. It doesn't need mrntioning of gender foles because we know the gender roles... it's earth.

OK, in Germany, aside from D&D, the somewhat larger fantasy systems are TDE and Splittermond. Both written for one world each with rules and setting intertwined. Both have several continents and many nations, one has even subsettings for other time period or some closed of miniplanes.
Do all those different people, cultures and countries get described gender roles ? Yes, they do. Do i find a portion of that in the rulebooks instead of dedicated setting supplements ? Sure, i do. Because the core rulebooks are never meant to be for a universal RPG.

For example, if your setting has amazons and you provide an amazon class and amazon abilities, you would usually have a small blurb about what an amazon is directly in your character creation rules. Because, why not ? That is stuff that the player contemplating to play an amazon needs. And if your system has lizard people that switch from female to male with age and are playable you would likely include that in the character creation blurb about them as well.

And it is not particularly uncommon for core rule books of systems with a fixed setting to have a setting overview part so new players have a rough idea what they are getting into and can properly roleplay their characters accordingly. And you likely will find gender stuff there as well. Usually some default most common thing and then all the important variations for all the larger regions. It won't go into detail, but if the biggest neighbor of the most common starter area is a matriarchy, it will likely get mentioned in the core rulebook.

[Cluedrew]

Those lines already exist. It goes something along the lines of this: You can make be either male or female and can act in any manner you so choose.

Yeah that's kind of the point, you missed non-binary. (Although apparently its not in the one you were quoting so maybe they missed it?)

I also feel you haven't quite understood they type of information I'm looking for. To switch to the dress example "Fancy clothing exists" is not enough information. The exact stylings and stitching patterns of fancy clothing is excessive. But I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of some people in fancy clothing so I roughly know what it is and maybe how much fancy clothing costs.

I see the relationship more along the lines of novelizations of video games or fanfiction: works inspired by the sources, but not sources themselves.

Sure, but in the adaptation process they changed the magic system. I'm not even getting to the why here (or whether that was a good idea or not) just simply pointing out that they did. So not all D&D settings use the same magic system. If you want to go deeper than that maybe we should break off into a different thread.

[Calthropstu]

OK, in Germany, aside from D&D, the somewhat larger fantasy systems are TDE and Splittermond. Both written for one world each with rules and setting intertwined. Both have several continents and many nations, one has even subsettings for other time period or some closed of miniplanes.
Do all those different people, cultures and countries get described gender roles ? Yes, they do. Do i find a portion of that in the rulebooks instead of dedicated setting supplements ? Sure, i do. Because the core rulebooks are never meant to be for a universal RPG.

For example, if your setting has amazons and you provide an amazon class and amazon abilities, you would usually have a small blurb about what an amazon is directly in your character creation rules. Because, why not ? That is stuff that the player contemplating to play an amazon needs. And if your system has lizard people that switch from female to male with age and are playable you would likely include that in the character creation blurb about them as well.

And it is not particularly uncommon for core rule books of systems with a fixed setting to have a setting overview part so new players have a rough idea what they are getting into and can properly roleplay their characters accordingly. And you likely will find gender stuff there as well. Usually some default most common thing and then all the important variations for all the larger regions. It won't go into detail, but if the biggest neighbor of the most common starter area is a matriarchy, it will likely get mentioned in the core rulebook.

It's entirely possible you and I are envisioning very different things. The op seemed to imply he wanted far larger amounts than what you are stating. Small blurbs denoting what a class or race is and why it may be restricted to a particular gender is one thing. But that's not the impression I get from others as to what they are looking for.

It seems to me they want serious, in depth gender discussion and layout inside the core rules, at least that is how it appears. And, particularly on this topic especially on an international scale is something game producers will avoid at all costs.

Yeah that's kind of the point, you missed non-binary. (Although apparently its not in the one you were quoting so maybe they missed it?)

I also feel you haven't quite understood they type of information I'm looking for. To switch to the dress example "Fancy clothing exists" is not enough information. The exact stylings and stitching patterns of fancy clothing is excessive. But I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of some people in fancy clothing so I roughly know what it is and maybe how much fancy clothing costs.

Sure, but in the adaptation process they changed the magic system. I'm not even getting to the why here (or whether that was a good idea or not) just simply pointing out that they did. So not all D&D settings use the same magic system. If you want to go deeper than that maybe we should break off into a different thread.

Define "non-binary" because I mentioned earlier a tentacle monster who reproduces using discarded shark teeth. D&D has plant creatures you can play as which are both male and female and reproduce with themselves. They have slime monsters which reproduce by splitting. They have warforged which don't reproduce at all. Pathfinder has a race which states no one literaly knows how they come into being.

So how much more non-binary do you need?

[JNAProductions]

So how much more non-binary do you need?

An ordinary humanoid that's not on the gender binary.

Some people want to play tentacle monsters or plant people or weird stuff.
Other people want to play someone like themselves.

[Calthropstu]

An ordinary humanoid that's not on the gender binary.

Some people want to play tentacle monsters or plant people or weird stuff.
Other people want to play someone like themselves.

Which is covered in "you can play male or female however you want." This covers "gender confused teenager," it covers "tran," it covers gay. It covers anything you want.

If you were after that, this thread wouldn't exist, because it literally already exists. And that is why I am sure I am correct in you wanting far more than the industry is willing, or can possibly, give.

If you want full, in depth review of every world setting with special attention given to the lgbtq community in each world, that is what you are going to have to do yourself. It is counter-productive for any major publisher to take on as it alienates nearly 75% of the world's population.

[JNAProductions]

Which is covered in "you can play male or female however you want." This covers "gender confused teenager," it covers "tran," it covers gay. It covers anything you want.

If you were after that, this thread wouldn't exist, because it literally already exists. And that is why I am sure I am correct in you wanting far more than the industry is willing, or can possibly, give.

If you want full, in depth review of every world setting with special attention given to the lgbtq community in each world, that is what you are going to have to do yourself. It is counter-productive for any major publisher to take on as it alienates nearly 75% of the world's population.

Why would giving notice to LGBTQ+ communities alienate 75% of the world? Speaking as a straight, cisgender individual myself, I'm glad to see queerness in RPGs, because more representation and diversity is a good thing.

And no, male or female however you want is NOT non-binary. Non-binary is non-binary, and yes, there's nothing stopping you from playing a non-binary individual, it'd be nice to have them mentioned in the books.

What's wrong with adding more representation? What's wrong with diversity? What's wrong with accepting people?

[Cluedrew]

The op seemed to imply he wanted far larger amounts than what you are stating. Small blurbs denoting what a class or race is and why it may be restricted to a particular gender is one thing. But that's not the impression I get from others as to what they are looking for.

Different people want different things and that's OK. For that matter I want different things from different systems, the world is a wonderful varied place and so is gaming. So why limit myself.

Define "non-binary"

A member of a species whose members can usually* be described as being of one of two genders but does not fit into one of those two. So no-one from a non-binary species (one whose members cannot be described as usually being one of two genders) is non-binary themselves. They might be non-trinary or something.

Intersex is sort of the same thing for the sexes, but there is the added wrinkle you can just have different chromosomal patterns and I don't know that fits into the model. If I ever meet someone like that I'll ask them.

* I'm not entirely sure what the rate on "usually" is but real-life humans definitely fall within it. In fact they kind of define it.

[Calthropstu]

Why would giving notice to LGBTQ+ communities alienate 75% of the world? Speaking as a straight, cisgender individual myself, I'm glad to see queerness in RPGs, because more representation and diversity is a good thing.

And no, male or female however you want is NOT non-binary. Non-binary is non-binary, and yes, there's nothing stopping you from playing a non-binary individual, it'd be nice to have them mentioned in the books.

What's wrong with adding more representation? What's wrong with diversity? What's wrong with accepting people?

Not the 75% I am talking about. I am not allowed to talk further on that 75% on this forum. Read into that what you will. This line cannot be further discussed without breaking forum rules, and I feel it will butt up against numerous forum regulations. I will suggest to the mods this thread be closed since it has reached that point.

[JNAProductions]

Not the 75% I am talking about. I am not allowed to talk further on that 75% on this forum. Read into that what you will. This line cannot be further discussed without breaking forum rules, and I feel it will butt up against numerous forum regulations. I will suggest to the mods this thread be closed since it has reached that point.

What's political about people being people, and seeing people like themselves in an RPG?

[Calthropstu]

What's political about people being people, and seeing people like themselves in an RPG?

Not political. Religion.

Edit: And it doesn't seem to be individuals that are the problem. We see plenty of lgbtq in modern media. Well written ones too. I loved Sera in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

But individual characters can be viewed as an exception rather than a rule. This seems to be the line in the sand. So, like I said, if it's what you want you have to do it yourself.

[JNAProductions]

Not political. Religion.

Edit: And it doesn't seem to be individuals that are the problem. We see plenty of lgbtq in modern media. Well written ones too. I loved Sera in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

But individual characters can be viewed as an exception rather than a rule. This seems to be the line in the sand. So, like I said, if it's what you want you have to do it yourself.

Why should a queer individual be an exception? They're just as much people as anyone else. Even if you believe that to be the line for most people, it's a bad line. Don't support it, don't perpetuate it.

[Calthropstu]

Why should a queer individual be an exception? They're just as much people as anyone else. Even if you believe that to be the line for most people, it's a bad line. Don't support it, don't perpetuate it.

At no point in this discussion have I mentioned my own beliefs in this thread, excepting that I think this is a bad idea.

As I stated in my previous post, we have butted up against the wall that is the forum rules. That particular argument must go unstated.

I have no authority on the matter. What you believe to be good or bad is irrelevant unless you intend to do something about it. I doubt it will be well recieved, but I could be wrong. Whatever the case, unless you have the ear of someone important in a major rpg publisher or intend to make one, this discussion is fairly irrelevant.

If you do intend to do something, good luck.

[KaussH]

At no point in this discussion have I mentioned my own beliefs in this thread, excepting that I think this is a bad idea.

As I stated in my previous post, we have butted up against the wall that is the forum rules. That particular argument must go unstated.

I have no authority on the matter. What you believe to be good or bad is irrelevant unless you intend to do something about it. I doubt it will be well recieved, but I could be wrong. Whatever the case, unless you have the ear of someone important in a major rpg publisher or intend to make one, this discussion is fairly irrelevant.

If you do intend to do something, good luck.

While the ear of a major rpgs publisher might be nice, players and gms and rpg makers all accepting this level of diversity is the norm is a good start. The idea that it might not go well so dont do it, just seems like a poor move.

[Peelee]

I will suggest to the mods this thread be closed

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Request politely declined.

[JNAProductions]

While the ear of a major rpgs publisher might be nice, players and gms and rpg makers all accepting this level of diversity is the norm is a good start. The idea that it might not go well so dont do it, just seems like a poor move.

Agreed 100%.

[Razade]

At no point in this discussion have I mentioned my own beliefs in this thread, excepting that I think this is a bad idea.

As I stated in my previous post, we have butted up against the wall that is the forum rules. That particular argument must go unstated.

I have no authority on the matter. What you believe to be good or bad is irrelevant unless you intend to do something about it. I doubt it will be well recieved, but I could be wrong. Whatever the case, unless you have the ear of someone important in a major rpg publisher or intend to make one, this discussion is fairly irrelevant.

If you do intend to do something, good luck.

Major publishers are already doing this. Most Powered by the Apocalypse games allow people to fill in the broad spectrum of gender presentation and sexuality as a matter of course, with no discussion on how it might upset people because the people who would be upset by things like that probably ought to be upset. It's already happening. The culture has shifted, you are wrong.

And there's tons of other games out there that cater to this sort of thing even more broadly. People can look at Dream Askew/Dream Apart or any number of the Belonging Outside Belonging games or Thirsty Sword Lesbians or Kissing Capes. Buried without Ceremony has a game all about burgeoning lesbian relationships whose name I can post here. The market is dang well saturated with games dealing with an exclusively being about gender and sexuality.

[Anymage]

To tie this back to the question that kicked off the thread, though. Lots of marginalized identities in our world are defined, at least in part, by the friction they encounter from the rest of society. Mulan having to pass herself as a boy in order to enter the military makes no sense in a fully egalitarian society, and trans people in a setting with easy fleshcrafting and no transphobia will have a lot more in common with real world cis people than real world trans people. Publishers should absolutely leave space for players to play things with only token amounts of friction. But some of that friction will be expected by players to help define their characters, and going too open and utopian with settings can undermine that.

Also, certain concepts can simply not exist and that's okay. A computer hacker makes no sense in a setting where computers don't regularly appear. Similarly, if dwarves in my setting reproduce by carving new dwarves out of stone and then praying to Moradin for a soul, gender and sexuality as we know them probably don't apply to them. Pair bonding makes little sense when you don't need exactly one man and one woman to produce a baby, and gender as we know it is radically different when you don't need to build reproductive anatomy into the dwarven body plan. Telling someone that gay dwarves or trans dwarves don't make any sense isn't about trying to remove options from players, so much as it's about following through on the logic of the world.

[BisectedBrioche]

To tie this back to the question that kicked off the thread, though. Lots of marginalized identities in our world are defined, at least in part, by the friction they encounter from the rest of society. Mulan having to pass herself as a boy in order to enter the military makes no sense in a fully egalitarian society, and trans people in a setting with easy fleshcrafting and no transphobia will have a lot more in common with real world cis people than real world trans people. Publishers should absolutely leave space for players to play things with only token amounts of friction. But some of that friction will be expected by players to help define their characters, and going too open and utopian with settings can undermine that.

Also, certain concepts can simply not exist and that's okay. A computer hacker makes no sense in a setting where computers don't regularly appear. Similarly, if dwarves in my setting reproduce by carving new dwarves out of stone and then praying to Moradin for a soul, gender and sexuality as we know them probably don't apply to them. Pair bonding makes little sense when you don't need exactly one man and one woman to produce a baby, and gender as we know it is radically different when you don't need to build reproductive anatomy into the dwarven body plan. Telling someone that gay dwarves or trans dwarves don't make any sense isn't about trying to remove options from players, so much as it's about following through on the logic of the world.

I had some points on the first point at the beginning of the thread.

To cut a long story short, there's a lot of issues that affect trans people, even in a setting where the medical side of transition is easy and not stigmatised.

We have stories of people coming to terms with all sorts of things that aren't stigmatised after all (growing up, learning a trade, painting a really nice picture, etc).

[Cluedrew]

So, like I said, if it's what you want you have to do it yourself.

Just one final note, that is how that thread got started. Someone was looking for advice on how to do it themselves. So they know and they are doing that. Which doesn't excuse everyone else from being exclusionary either but things will start moving without everyone coming on board.

Telling someone that gay dwarves or trans dwarves don't make any sense isn't about trying to remove options from players, so much as it's about following through on the logic of the world.

I did actually see that, not with dwarves made from stone but a different genderless race where one of the members was significantly more gendered than their fellows. Which then leads to the question of "is that transgendered?". It feels like it is some variety of queer but it might not have an exact title beyond that because most of the terms were meant to apply to humans.

[Max_Killjoy]

If someone made a setting where several different species had LGBTQ+ individuals and most of their cultures dealt with it in a positive manner, but a few didn't, because just like reality, sometimes there are issues with people tolerating or accepting each other... would that be considered a good or bad setting (because of the few cultures that didn't deal with it in a positive manner)?

If someone made a setting where one species out of many just did not have LGBTQ+ members by nature, and the rest of them did... would that be considered a good or bad setting? Would that single species being the exception be considered "erasure" or just another aspect of one species?

(This is less to demand an answer than it is to provoke thought.)

[Yora]

Would a setting where some people commit murder be a bad setting?

Settings are supposed to be a stage to tell interesting stories. If they are perfect happy utopias where everyone is completely happy, then there's no story.

[Marcelinari]

If someone made a setting where several different species had LGBTQ+ individuals and most of their cultures dealt with it in a positive manner, but a few didn't, because just like reality, sometimes there are issues with people tolerating or accepting each other... would that be considered a good or bad setting (because of the few cultures that didn't deal with it in a positive manner)?

If someone made a setting where one species out of many just did not have LGBTQ+ members by nature, and the rest of them did... would that be considered a good or bad setting? Would that single species being the exception be considered "erasure" or just another aspect of one species?

(This is less to demand an answer than it is to provoke thought.)

To take a stab at answering, I think that the first example would be a good setting - some cultures aren’t welcoming to LGBTQ+ peoples, which can be a good point of conflict for the players to explore. However, it’s important for this not to be universal, because if that message is repeated enough to players the message may transform from ‘your character is not accepted in this culture’ to ‘you, the player, are not accepted at this table’. It’s important that it not look like a thesis delivered by the GM.

The second example I would take as a bad piece of the setting - a culture can be stridently against LGBTQ+ people and expression, but unless there is absolutely no individuality amongst people within that culture, you’re going for get people who don’t fall into the ‘straight and cis’ category. Saying ‘there are no queer people in this culture by nature’ doesn’t scan for me, because humans (and humanoids) aren’t a monolithic hivemind - there’s no way to stop LGBTQ+ people from existing, only ways to suppress the expression of their identities.

The connecting thread between the two points is, I believe, ‘only a Sith deals in absolutes’ - to say that some cultures are not accepting of LGBTQ+ people is fine, because it also says that some cultures are. Variation is good. But to say that in one culture, there are no (and have never been) LGBTQ+ people, that it simply doesn’t happen, is not fine, because it denies the existence of those people. Lack of variation is bad.

[Mutazoia]

I am trying to make my game / campaign setting more inclusive for various gender and sexual identities, but I don't really know how to go about it.

You would think this would be easier than it sounds. Just playing your setting as if all gender and sexual identities are the norms. Don't specifically call them out or shine a spotlight on them to say "See! This transvestite from Transexual, Transylvania is totally commonplace!" should be easy. If one of your players wants to play a Homosexual FTM, say "that's fine" and then play the game. If all gender and sexual identities are accepted by society in your campaign, then there would be no instances where these details would be specifically called out and/or even noticed except in a romantic setting.

[Talakeal]

Seeing as how I literally just referred to that already existing, I fail to see your point. The op very much wanted a much more in depth statement. It is that which I am referring to.

I can't think of many people who would have an issue with that. I can't think of many who would have an issue with a couple such characters. I can think of MANYwho would have problems with the original thesis of having in depth sexual content of any kind in their core rulebooks. It is to that I refer.

So "you can play any gender in any way you want" is fine. "The females of Goridorth 7 have a complex social structure and wear different garb for different occasions. The ceremonial robe depicted here is worn to different major social functions. When meeting a member of the nobility, the female ceremonial garb is red. The sash is decorated with the emblem of the visited lord, unless the visiter is of equal or higher rank in which case her own emblem will adorn the sash. Other major events include..." is best left for a setting supplement because we really don't need it.

Cal, I am the OP.

I am specifically referring to your comments about how a game which talks about gender queer issues is destined to be a joke game for immature people that inevitably loses money, and wondering how you can square that with said excerpt from the PHB.

I am not talking about rules for gender. To be concise, I am asking two things:

1: How to present trans issues in a world with sex changing magic (which is something D&D fails to address despite having mention of sex changing magic and people trapped in the wrong body in the same book).
2: How to present queer NPCs without it appearing to be token diversity.

For the record, this is the sum of rules about gender in my book:

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness Excerpt

Show

Gender:Player’s can choose to be male, female, or anything in-between. This decision has no effect on scores or abilities.

Switch Gender
Transmutation Enchantment Difficulty:20
Switch gender changes the subject’s sex. The subject's body retains a similar appearance, albeit altered to match their new gender, and has the same scores, traits, and abilities.The subject undergoes no real mental alterations, but hormonal changes may have mild effects on the subject’s behavior.
Empowering this spell allows for the creation of hermaphroditic or androgynous forms or can assign a male or female gender to a species which normally lacks such distinctions.

As well as a few numerical differences for inhuman species with strong sexual dimorphism, primarily giant insects.

The discussion about just how much setting information should be in the core book is an interesting one, but not really what I created the thread for or what I was asking you for clarification about. For the record, this is what my book says on setting issues about gender queer characters:

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness Excerpt

Show

Atlantis was a wholly egalitarian society, and the Imperium and most of the lands that it once controlled are relatively free of enforced gender roles, and as such few people recognize a distinction between gender and biological sex.
Likewise, alchemy and transmutation magic mean that changing one’s sex is an achievable goal for any save those from the poorest or most conservative backgrounds. As a result, intersex or gender nonconforming people are far more likely to be met with confusion or religious awe than hostility or prejudice

A surgeon skilled in the Atlantean sciences can also seamlessly change a character’s cosmetic details, including gender, although the rarity of such practitioners and the associated costs, risks, and social stigma mean it is not often undertaken lightly.

[Rater202]

You wanna know how Unbeatable Squirrel Girl addressed trans inclusiveness?

By not addressing it.

Koi Boi, who can talk to Koi and has all the powers of a Koi, is transmale.

We only know this because in in two issues the main characters have to change clothes on screen and Koi Boi's undergarments include a breast binder. Someone asked about it, and the author confirmed it in the letter pages, and that's it.

The word "transgender" is never uttered, there's no "very special episode" typeplot regarding it... The author of the comic felt that the best way to be trans inclusive was to treat a transgendered character as being so normal that his trans status wasn't something that the other characters commented on or paid special mind to.

[Max_Killjoy]

You wanna know how Unbeatable Squirrel Girl addressed trans inclusiveness?

By not addressing it.

Koi Boi, who can talk to Koi and has all the powers of a Koi, is transmale.

We only know this because in in two issues the main characters have to change clothes on screen and Koi Boi's undergarments include a breast binder. Someone asked about it, and the author confirmed it in the letter pages, and that's it.

The word "transgender" is never uttered, there's no "very special episode" typeplot regarding it... The author of the comic felt that the best way to be trans inclusive was to treat a transgendered character as being so normal that his trans status wasn't something that the other characters commented on or paid special mind to.

I generally think that's the best way to handle this and similar issues.

"Very special episode" stuff is often, IMO, counter-productive.

[Max_Killjoy]

To take a stab at answering, I think that the first example would be a good setting - some cultures aren’t welcoming to LGBTQ+ peoples, which can be a good point of conflict for the players to explore. However, it’s important for this not to be universal, because if that message is repeated enough to players the message may transform from ‘your character is not accepted in this culture’ to ‘you, the player, are not accepted at this table’. It’s important that it not look like a thesis delivered by the GM.

The second example I would take as a bad piece of the setting - a culture can be stridently against LGBTQ+ people and expression, but unless there is absolutely no individuality amongst people within that culture, you’re going for get people who don’t fall into the ‘straight and cis’ category. Saying ‘there are no queer people in this culture by nature’ doesn’t scan for me, because humans (and humanoids) aren’t a monolithic hivemind - there’s no way to stop LGBTQ+ people from existing, only ways to suppress the expression of their identities.

The connecting thread between the two points is, I believe, ‘only a Sith deals in absolutes’ - to say that some cultures are not accepting of LGBTQ+ people is fine, because it also says that some cultures are. Variation is good. But to say that in one culture, there are no (and have never been) LGBTQ+ people, that it simply doesn’t happen, is not fine, because it denies the existence of those people. Lack of variation is bad.

Note that on the second question, I didn't say "culture", I said "species".