Quote Originally Posted by Raineh Daze View Post
A reason which, in the end, only exists because people get it into their head that, say, gay characters need to be written 'differently', when no such difference exists.
This is not universally held to be true among various under-represented groups, though. I have literally had conversations where friends belonging to such a group have said to me, "I wish they didn't write [under-represented group member] to act just like a [over-represented group member]." It wasn't about OOTS, but the sentiment still exists. Nobody is shy about telling the straight white guy that he will never, ever understand their point of view, no matter how hard he tries.

In other words, whether or not such a difference actually exists, it is faulty to assume that everyone agrees on whether or not a difference exists—and that all the people who think that there is a fundamental difference are on the same side of the larger argument.

EDIT:
Quote Originally Posted by Raineh Daze View Post
Someone is always going to get offended.
Unfortunately, this sentiment is a straight line back to non-inclusion. It's too easy for an author to say, "Someone is always going to get offended, so no need to include black/gay/disabled people!" I think trying to not offend people is a worthwhile goal. Unless they get offended by less-than-optimum D&D tactics, in which case to hell with them.