The reality is as what the DM wants it to be.  Cultural erasure in this case is specifically in reference to expectations involving a setting that someone might base an RP on, of which I've seen this occur in multiple mediums.  I believe there is a proper place to fight for equal opportunity when it comes to people who do not fit social norms as it fits the same criteria as people who have physical or mental disability.  However, the people that others here call bigoted have a right to their point of view, good or bad.  People here are free to hate just as they are free to hate, and I find the two tend to go hand in hand. Coming from having done some rather harrowing political science ventures there are people in this world that will never agree or find common ground and our online world has made it far too easy for people with these opposing view points to meet.

Always have an objective that makes sense when bringing up these kinds of things.  What is the objective of bringing up LGBTQ in a game of dungeons and dragons?  Does it improve the game or have some key objective in the plot of the game?  Or is it being brought up as part of a checklist to satisfy some list of things to wear a belief upon ones shoulder?  If it is the latter then shouldn't it be expected that it might also step on the belief of someone else?  The point of recognizing LGBTQ is to assure equal opportunity in society such as gainful employment and to avoid discrimination within that environment.  So in terms of DnD as long as someone is not denying another player the right to play the game based on them being homosexual, transexual, or otherwise, then I believe that objective is met.  It is also the right of an individual to choose whether or not to disclose that information and in all honesty, I would avoid disclosing such information unless necessary (which is to say that disclosing it is required for the individual to feel comfortable playing the game because it might come up later).

For the most part over two thirds of the US is fine with LGBTQ and the third that are not are probably not even frequenting this forum or playing the game.  I find most discussions involving it on this forum are more like nuanced differences within the "okay with" band of people.  

Quote from Daege >>

I've played DnD since around 1984 and haven't had romance or sexual orientation come up in game until about 2 years ago with the group I started playing with. It included a trans person, two bisexual non-binary "women" and a queer guy. There was a lot of sexual content in the game, which I wasn't used to. i don't mean that the content offended me because I am a very open person. But DnD , for me, was always about adventure and slaying monsters. Not about fulfilling sexual fantasies and living out desires of being another gender. And before y'all come at me, I have no problem with that. If that is what you want to base your game around? Go for it. I'm just saying for myself, it was totally weird to me because I've never played in a group like that. And for the record, it was a very fun and interesting campaign.

As far as the OP, there is nothing wrong with designing your world in that way. It is your world. You do with it as you like as long as you and your players are happy.

Been playing just as long, and while it wasn't until Critical Role became popular (Still haven't seen an episode) did people get really caught up in the Table RP to these degrees. I love it BTW, adds a lot to games. But I can assure you in the course   of 30 years of D&D that guy who always played a female elf, guess what he was working out issues with his gender and sexuality even if all "he" did at the table was find and remove traps every 10 feet. (Got to get thief XP) 

Back in the day we just played a different D&D which is still a valid D&D style of play. Just never exclude the ability to play an archetype. 

Quote from EmiDeepDweller >>

1. I believe there is a proper place to fight for equal opportunity when it comes to people who do not fit social norms as it fits the same criteria as people who have physical or mental disability. 
2. However, the people that others here call bigoted have a right to their point of view, good or bad. 
3. What is the objective of bringing up LGBTQ in a game of dungeons and dragons? 
4. Does it improve the game or have some key objective in the plot of the game? 
5. Or is it being brought up as part of a checklist to satisfy some list of things to wear a belief upon ones shoulder? 
6. If it is the latter then shouldn't it be expected that it might also step on the belief of someone else? 
7. The point of recognizing LGBTQ is to assure equal opportunity in society such as gainful employment and to avoid discrimination within that environment. 
8. So in terms of DnD as long as someone is not denying another player the right to play the game based on them being homosexual, transexual, or otherwise, then I believe that objective is met. 
9. It is also the right of an individual to choose whether or not to disclose that information and in all honesty, I would avoid disclosing such information unless necessary (which is to say that disclosing it is required for the individual to feel comfortable playing the game because it might come up later).
10. For the most part over two thirds of the US is fine with LGBTQ and the third that are not are probably not even frequenting this forum or playing the game. 

I find most discussions involving it on this forum are more like nuanced differences within the "okay with" band of people.  

 
1 - LGBTQ people do fit social norms, and are not suffering from any physical, mental, or developmental disability on the basis of being LGBTQ+.  Additionally, persons who have a disability also fit social norms.

2 - While bigotry is part of the discussion, it is more about discrimination and safety, and they do not have that right to do so here, in this space, explicitly.

3 - Greater Role Playing, greater immersion, greater verisimilitude.

4 - Usually, yes, yes it does improve the game. it may also have something to do with the plot. An example of that latter is the entirety of the Book of Many Things. Which, arguably, might not improve a lot of games, but still has a lot of folks who love it.

5 - It may be, or it may also be a checklist of things to ensure that one's players feel safe, welcomed, and that their enjoyment of the game is enhanced and not hampered as a way to display one's belief not on a shoulder, but as a word of power before one. Reduction of it to such a state as described in point 5 is not only insulting, it is lacking in awareness or knowledge.

6 - If so, then it makes it clear that they are the ones who are functioning outside the mores of social grace, and would be unwelcome, as they are, inherently, holding a set of beliefs that denies common humanity, forgoes simple human decency, and disrespects not only human rights but human dignity. Factually speaking.

7 - That is the purpose of anti-discrimination laws, and it is much broader than that (that is only a small part of the whole) as that is only one part of being able to live without discrimination in society as a whole; while lack of familiarity with such is common, that does not change that the statement is incorrect and misleading as it is written.

8 - The belief stated here is incorrect. There is more to this than merely being able to play the game, as has been expressed previously in other comments.

9 - While it is the right of an individual to do so, to recommend not doing so is to recommend that they hide and not express the fullness of themselves and all that they are, and therefore stops them from bringing their "A" game and reduces the amount of enjoyment, pleasure, and participation they can get out of the game. It is akin to saying "let's play monopoly without having the ability to buy property" in that it essentially destroys a portion of the way the game is played.

10 - There are members of that third who do, in fact, frequent these places, even though the rules they agree to do not allow for them to speak those beliefs, and many have commented here, only to have those comments deleted in accordance with those rules. There is, in point of fact, entire communities of those people dedicated to opposition to the idea of allowing anyone on their assorted lists of approved, proper, allowable persons to play the game (some include women and people of color alongside the LGBTQ).

So the goal here is to keep it within a band of "okay with" folks, but the rules exist because it is not possible to do so without them.

No.

We are discussing the aspect of gender expression, however.

I will also note that when someone talks about being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual, (gay, lesbian, straight, bi, or bored) they are not discussing sexual preferences in the game.

When someone talks about how the local tavern wench has a really large chest or a finely shaped hind end, and they like that, well, then we would be discussing sexual preferences.

Sexual orientation is not even near the same thing as sexual preferences. The two phrases have entirely separate meanings.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

No.

We are discussing the aspect of gender expression, however.

I will also note that when someone talks about being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual, (gay, lesbian, straight, bi, or bored) they are not discussing sexual preferences in the game.

When someone talks about how the local tavern wench has a really large chest or a finely shaped hind end, and they like that, well, then we would be discussing sexual preferences.

Sexual orientation is not even near the same thing as sexual preferences. The two phrases have entirely separate meanings.

So the matter of what I was getting to in that statement is that in the art of theatre there has been a wide spectrum of different characters, personalities, and archetypes presented.  That even includes implied sexual orientation.  Roleplaying those aspects of a character in a DnD game says nothing about the individual who is roleplaying the character other than how good they are at getting into character.  From that perspective, if the person who sat across the table was playing a character that was a male character, and he made sexual quips about another male character, would that really serve as proof that the person sitting across the table is homosexual? 

So in that light I do not see someone being restricted from roleplaying to their fullest simply on the grounds of not revealing their own sexual orientation.

I wanted to have clarification on the subject of discussion because people often do conflate sexual preferences into the discussion and as you stated, it is a different subject.  But again, I am not going to change my stance on the matter. I will not give advice that encourages someone to potentially give private information when I do not know anything of their environment and situation.  Even people who are part of a protected class by law suffer discrimination and the only thing the law does is grant recourse.  The rules of this forum likewise do not offer protection or recourse for actions that do not take place on this forum.

Calling up the theatric use of implied sexal oreintation might be a tad bit unwise, given the often offensive historical nature of doing so (and the present day offensive nature of doing so).

That said, it is correct that such things do not say anything about the gender identity, sexual preferences, or sexual orientation of the character or the person playing that character.

Nor has anyone to my knowledge called for someone to out themselves as a member of a group of people playing the game, though. I certainly haven't. 

What has been discussed is ensuring that your space, your setting, and your environment are welcoming to and inclusive of their experiences and needs.  The people doing so do not even need to know if anyone they are playing with is LGBTQ+ to do so.

And, overall, if they are not that way, then there is a really low chance that someone would come out to them without some other factor involved. No one likes to stick around a place where -- intentionally or unintentionally -- they are made to feel unwelcome, informed their experiences are lesser or wrong, or simply so unimportant as to not even be worth a casual reference.

I have played RPG games for over 40 years.

Never once has a players orientation been a problem. Never once has a characters preferences been a problem.

What has become a minor problem is a bad, inappropriate or just outright rude comment once in a while. In that case someone tries to call them out on it BEFORE the offended member says something.
Even I have said something wrong in the last 40 years and I have tried to instantly apologize for it.

We have only kicked a few people out for not correcting themselves. Like 3.

Bringing LGTBQ into a game should at least not turn into a caricature or comedic scene. Do not turn the subject into a reason for comedy. The same with race or even politics. I would even go so far as to include using any of those subjects as an intentional "learning" experience for people around the table.

This is a game. Not a class room.

There have been some good points brought up here, more so by Elgate, but I'd still stick to my earlier statement/belief that Sexuality (and other similar topics) aren't needed for every table/campaign and really the question of what you do should not be determined by internet discussions but rather by what the DM and players are comfortable with at the table. As long as a campaign is not explicitly hateful, there is no reason to not play what the table is comfortable with and enjoys. These are the reasons why Session 0 is always important, finding out what people are comfortable with and saying the type of world you wish to run.

For example, if you're just doing a one-shot that is a Dungeon Exploration with little NPC interaction outside of hostile creatures in combat, worrying about each character's sexuality really isn't needed. If the only NPC is a mimic vendor at the start of the dungeon that acts as the sole trader for the party, people aren't going to worry about it in that type of dungeon exploration campaign.

Ultimately no D&D is better than bad D&D and forcing people to play a game they aren't enjoying or do not want to participate in will never work out in the end. people playing games are looking to have social fun in an escapism environment, and D&D is a system played the world over by people of varying beliefs and circumstances and that is just a reality of how wide and far the system/game has spread. I personally have no issues running LGBTQ characters in my campaign and have even once played a B character. I just don't expect every DM or every player in the world being able to do this comfortably and I can understand the concern of wanting to avoid causing unnecessary offence to people.

Of course I do also agree that if you have an LGBTQ player and they want to play an LGBTQ character, work with them for sure, then again if the world your hosting is a world derelict of life and everybody is playing a homebrew robot/android race that is devoid of sexuality, you can work with it to have some elements, Nier: Automata is a game with no living beings at all and still had some sexuality come into the story after all, so such a setting can be adjusted.

Also in regards to explicit content/roleplay, it's definitely an unrelated topic but another topic for session 0. Really it's about player expectations and not all players have the same expectations, that is where some compromising is needed. Personally, I think 'fade to black' is applicable 99% of the time for any type of romance like that.

To be fair, we went a bit beyond what the OPs post was even asking at this point, which is typical for threads like this.

Quote from EmiDeepDweller >>

 

 

The question I have right now is if we are discussing the presentation of an individual as being masculine or feminine, or are we discussing sexual preferences being presented in the game? 

(Edited to avoid misunderstanding or inference of an insult)

 

To explain how this works in D&D I need to give a few definitions, so we are on the same page. So like all things biology, it's a spectrum, gender and sexuality is like a 4D spectrum of multiple things. 

Assigned ___ at Birth :  (Male : Female : Intersex) this is what the hospital see, genetic testing normally not done. 

Genetics (XX;XY) : (Male : Female : Intersex ) DNA is weird yo, while the two common ones are XY & XX it's not always, and not always does the external bits match the DNA. 

Gender Identity: (Male : Female : Non-Binary : Nul ) this is how you feel inside in relationship to your perceived sex at birth. If it matches Cis Gender, if it doesn't match Transgender. Questions come into play are Intersex people Trans? But that is a higher order of thought. 

Gender Presentation: (Masculine : Feminine : Gender Neutral ) this is how you like to be seen. This is not tied to anything but the presentation you give. 

Sexual Preference:  (Heterosexual : Homosexual : Bisexual/Pansexual :Asexual ) - This is who you like to have private times with. No need to show in game, but people can be these things at the table, and as a DM I will give NPCs in my settings to match what my players want to interact with. I Repeat I'm Ace (Asexual) so I will not be a part of it, that is for your own characters stories you write in your free time. 

Romantic Preference: (Heteroromantic : Homoromanic: Bi/Panromantic :Aromanic) - who you like to date, this does not always match your sexual preference. I'm Bi/Panromanic  I can date anyone, ironically a lot heterosexual men are not Heterormantic you know that straight guy who always goes to the bar with the boys? ... yeah, I think the most glorious example of this is Gene Rodenberry, the irony here these terms where not understood when he was living, so he never knew that his love for manly bonds was a thing. At the game table this is a great way to have party RP, and social interaction. having awareness that your character might prefer the company of the same sex or opposite sex really can give a well rounded character design. 

There are other categories which exists but for the purposes of DnD I don't need to express them. 

You will see, that each of these categories is not linked to the others. You can mix each of these up, and it's really common actually. I feel when you roll up a new character sheet you should always consider these aspects of your character, it can make the Roleplay of the character more in depth, and make the game more interesting. And the beauty the DM doesn't have to be involved in this, I can run the game, adjudicate the rules, and present NPCs for the party to interact with.

I wouldn’t necessarily go with the absolute of “always”; some people will find a lot of depth and meaning in all of these, others prefer to just go cis/hetero/typical presentation. As a matter of how a player defines their own character, it doesn’t matter which way they go. For a DM, it can create a more inclusive vibe to incorporate these elements at times, but it’s more work than I’d ever really care to put into a basic one-scene NPC who’s just there to say a few lines to move the plot along. And sometimes that’s most if not all NPCs in an adventure if the group is just doing a lot of dungeon crawling this time.

I just sprinkle it in in the same way as I might randomly decide the race, gender, height, age etc. of an NPC. It exists in the world, and it's apparent when peopel talk about their wives or husbands or lovers, if that sort of thing should ever come up.

I do not go into these details in-depth, because I would be concerned about inadvertently using stereotypes. I actively avoid doing so, but frankly I don't see how the librarian being married to her wife has any effect whatsoever on her personality when interacting with the PCs. So yes, she has a wife, therefore is attracted to women. Is she Bi or lesbian? Irrelevant - what she is is a kindly old lady who loves books and can always help you to find the right book in the library, and who loves her wife very much. I roleplay this exactly as I would a kindly old lady who loves books and can always help you to find the right book in the library, and who loves her husband very much.

There are tables out there better qualified for diving into the LGBTQIA+ world, but I am not sufficiently experienced, nor do I hand any real weight on romance in my world (except as a motive).