Frustrating relative lack of LGBT NPCs in this game

[Melichoir]

I agree with your earlier points (although I still hold that a great deal of literature that has survided to our days is itself political: Richard III, Don Juan, the Divine Comedy, the Aeneid... the only thing is we now lack the political CONTEXT of them), however I will draw from my experience (which, I know, anecdotal evidence) that when people say "keep your politics out of my game" it tends to be towards inclusionary measures such as "We have added a completely optional female main character", "We added a trans character, who only outright says they're trans via a specific dialogue tree", "there are now same-sex couples in the game" and are met with the reactionary "keep your politics out of my games".

I won't contest that there ARE ham-fisted ways to do so (the ending of BlackKklansman, or the entirety of Birth of a Nation, and Citizen Kane wasn't shy about the titular character being a stand-in for Senator McCarthy), but (and I'm not saying that YOU'VE said this, but others, including the poster I was originally responding to, certainly have), but when "keeping politics out of games" is used as a stand-in for "keep people that I don't want to see in my games out of them" THEN I have a problem.

I fully agree that there are those who have been, for lack of a better word, trained to view certain included topics to be seen as an overtly political (adding a trans character to a game, as an example) by default and that this isnt a fair position to take. However its also just as important to note that there are plenty of creatives who actually do 'hi-jack' an IP or concept to insert their own political beliefs - context to existing narrative be damned. So when you encounter the former, its cause the latter exists as well. I keep an ey eon the media industry and there are plenty of cases where creatives will do something purely for politics or their own 'agenda', even if it is narrative, world, or character breaking to do it. And frankly, if Im going to be blunt, this pisses me off because it is making story and proper development take a backseat so creatives can either virtue signal about some cause they hopped on board with cause its a trend, or to push a political point at the expense of a story, thus creating propaganda in the process.
I think the tactful approach is as I suggested - if you want to incorporate it, do it carefully and through allegory that fits the pre-existing narratives. If you cant make it work, dont include it. Doing hard 180s on characters or making big changes cause "current political topic that the creative is invested in on an emotional personal level" where in its a one sided ham fisted propaganda point isnt acceptable in media and should be rebuked when we encounter it. The key difference, of course, is as long as this is done with some forethought. Meaning, dont knee jerk rebuke the inclusion of a trans character in media as a political agenda. It is possible for creatives to write a story about a character who happens to be trans. If it turns out the creative takes a pre-existing character, warps and breaks them just to make said character trans when it has no contextual meaning to the story at large or the character, and said creative is a big activist on said topic and has openly stated that their intent was solely to create more 'inclusivity' in a pre-existing narrative by making this 'adjustment' (read forced change), then yeah we can push back and say this wasnt appropriate.