Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Dream]

...

It is also fair to say that there are many large groups of people that weren't mentioned in WOT, despite their importance in any kind of "realistic" society. What with e.g. old people who are dependent on others? In WOT we see only strong and able old people (Cadsuane, Sorilea). Wouldn't it be more realistic if at least one of our heroes had a relative that was dependent upon his or hers care and would die when left alone? That's what would happen in XVI century village, especially with hard winter from EotW. What about disabled people? What about mental illness not related to channeling? What about transexuals?

Isn't our insistence on one subject an example of another kind of bias? Isn't there a little "fashion" factor involved?

...

 

This isn't the first time this type of argument has appeared, but you seem sincere in effort to remain open-minded.

 

Let me present a few questions you can ask yourself.

 

If an elderly dependant was introduced in the AMoL, would you speak against it because there are no gay men in the book either?

 

If one of the characters became disabled would you likewise have a problem with it? What about Mesaana, who is now mentally disabled?

 

If a character is introduced with a non-magic-related mental illness, would it's inclusion bother you?

 

What about transexuals? Did you curse Robert Jordan for coming up with Halima/Aran'gar?

 

Is it really Brandon Sanderson who is focusing on one subject?

[randsc]

Except that it was made by way of jesting (I presume).

I don't actually see anything to suggest that it was.

[yoniy0]

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance.

In all fairness, you can't know that until you've read the last book. Nor do you get to decide which part of your post is open for discussion. Anyone is within their right to respond to the "including a gay character in the 11th hour" part and not accept your assertion that it was done "just to appease the masses". And as I said, I disagree that including a character's love life in the story is sidetracking it. On the contrary, it sits well with how the story was told until now, as both Terez any myself have argued.

[UGAShadow]

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is a Mormon. This disappoints me. I've always pictured Mormons as the crazy cousins of normal Christians (atheist myself).

 

And there we have the first truly bigoted statement of this entire debate.

 

 

 

 

I have nothing against Mormons or Christians. The crazy cousin thing was a joke. I was disappointed to learn he was a Mormon because that broke a preconceived notion I had about him. For some strange reason I've always pictured him as agnostic. Also anything that connects him to Stephanie Meyer is a bad thing IMO (another joke if you couldn't tell).

 

 

Not sure if you took the crazy comment thing or me being dissappointed as bigoted. At least I don't think theyre a cult anymore, haha. Was a Christian till my Sophomore year in college. My entire view of everything has changed since then.

[Goramier]

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance.

In all fairness, you can't know that until you've read the last book. [/Quote]

 

I agree that is a fair statement and that yes, I can't know until then. But it hasn't stopped any of the pro-inclusion people from asserting the opposing view the same way.

 

Nor do you get to decide which part of your post is open for discussion. Anyone is within their right to respond to the "including a gay character in the 11th hour" part and not accept your assertion that it was done "just to appease the masses". And as I said, I disagree that including a character's love life in the story is sidetracking it. On the contrary, it sits well with how the story was told until now, as both Terez any myself have argued.

 

In all fairness, I never decided or argued that people can't discuss or debate any part of what I said nor imply that anyone can't respond to anything I said. Your point is basically the same I made, which boils down to, "just because we think something, doesn't mean we are right."

[randsc]

Your defense of your bigoted comment is itself bigoted.

 

Let's just change the charged words in question, shall we? Instead of "Mormon" let's use...oh, I don't know...how about "Gay?"

 

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is Gay. This disappoints me. I've always pictured gays as the crazy cousins of normal people (all-man, myself).

 

 

I have nothing against Gays or other freaks. The crazy cousin thing was a joke. I was disappointed to learn he was gay because that broke a preconceived notion I had about him. For some strange reason I've always pictured him as normal. Also anything that connects him to Elton John is a bad thing IMO (another joke if you couldn't tell).

 

 

Not sure if you took the crazy comment thing or me being dissappointed as bigoted. At least I don't think theyre pedophiles anymore, haha. Was gay till my Sophomore year in college. My entire view of everything has changed since then.

[Goramier]

 

I have nothing against Mormons or Christians. The crazy cousin thing was a joke. I was disappointed to learn he was a Mormon because that broke a preconceived notion I had about him. For some strange reason I've always pictured him as agnostic. Also anything that connects him to Stephanie Meyer is a bad thing IMO (another joke if you couldn't tell).

 

 

Not sure if you took the crazy comment thing or me being dissappointed as bigoted. At least I don't think theyre a cult anymore, haha. Was a Christian till my Sophomore year in college. My entire view of everything has changed since then.

 

Perhaps if you will humor my friendly comment for a moment....keep in mind that certain topics are sensative and it is very difficult for a reader to read a joke into something when they only have black and white words and no way to view you. When we tell jokes and the like, we are using body language as much as anything else and when people read something, and cannot see body language or distinguishing features, it can very easily be read different from what we intended.

 

Look at what your wrote, you inlcuded the words: crazy, normal people, disappointed, and cult.

 

If you didn't know you and couldn't see the manner in which you were speaking...would it be fair to say the use of these words with such a topic could be construed as being offensive?

[ajameswhitehead]

Except that it was made by way of jesting (I presume).

I don't actually see anything to suggest that it was.

 

I think yoniy0 was hoping, as I was, that it was an attempt at humour that didn't work. Postings have no tone or inflection since we can't hear them being said. We don't really know if someone is trying to be funny, ironic, or deadly serious. It's why everyone uses emoticons, no? ;-)

 

Also, if USAShawdow was serious, well it wasn't any worse of a sweeping generalisation than Terez's ... "By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth..." was.

 

I do agree that we shouldn't pass judgement on how the insertion of a gay male character will work until we've read the book.

 

I trust Sanderson, as I've said before, to work it in to the final book with little or no issue. The suggestions of how it will be fitted in that bring up the Whitecloaks or Asha'man from the Black Tower seem the most likely to me.

 

HGT

 

PS - Dream, I've always liked the DO's sense of humour for the whole Halima/Aran'gar switch. A being of truly dark irony.

[randsc]

I think yoniy0 was hoping, as I was, that it was an attempt at humour that didn't work. Postings have no tone or inflection since we can't hear them being said. We don't really know if someone is trying to be funny, ironic, or deadly serious. It's why everyone uses emoticons, no? ;-)

Well, read the bigoted defense of the original posting, and see if you think he has redeemed himself.

 

Also, if USAShawdow was serious, well it wasn't any worse of a sweeping generalisation than Terez's ... "By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth..." was.

 

Obviously true, but certain people get to write things here that would get anyone else banned. That's just the way it is, like water being wet or the sun rising in the East. So there's no use getting upset about it.

[Grig]

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance.

 

Yes, and the counterpoint is where are all the people complaining about the pointless detail of the female innkeeper in ToM who is sexually involved with her bouncer? When a gay male is in the story (even though we have no reason to believe it will be anything other than an aside mention comparable to the innkeeper, only using an established character), it's a "pointless side detail concerning sexual escapades". When we get references to other characters' hetero-normative sexuality that are meaningless to the overall plot, it's "good world-building". Why is Therava's/Galina's/Evil Lesbian #42s sexuality germane? What to pillow-friends add to the plot developments, when they are in almost all cases structured as throwaway sexual relationships when menfolk aren't around?

 

tl;dr I miss Usenet before Eternal September. Impossible to find a fan discussion area without these ridiculous threads anymore.

[ajameswhitehead]

I think yoniy0 was hoping, as I was, that it was an attempt at humour that didn't work. Postings have no tone or inflection since we can't hear them being said. We don't really know if someone is trying to be funny, ironic, or deadly serious. It's why everyone uses emoticons, no? ;-)

Well, read the bigoted defense of the original posting, and see if you think he has redeemed himself.

 

Also, if USAShawdow was serious, well it wasn't any worse of a sweeping generalisation than Terez's ... "By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth..." was.

 

Obviously true, but certain people get to write things here that would get anyone else banned. That's just the way it is, like water being wet or the sun rising in the East. So there's no use getting upset about it.

 

Well, I hadn't seen UGAShadow's 'redeeming' post when I was posting otherwise I would've stopped myself.

 

As for the other, well being terribly new to the forum I hadn't been given the tour where they give you the 'how things work around here' speech yet. ;-)

 

And I'm not upset in the least; just made an observation.

 

HGT

[Goramier]

I absolutely made no reference to getting rid of love or any love scene. "Pointless side detailes concerning sexual escapades" was a point made about including a gay character in the 11th hour just to appease the masses and get down with that which is politically correct. That is all this is about, period. This gay character issue has no other relevance.

 

Yes, and the counterpoint is where are all the people complaining about the pointless detail of the female innkeeper in ToM who is sexually involved with her bouncer? When a gay male is in the story (even though we have no reason to believe it will be anything other than an aside mention comparable to the innkeeper, only using an established character), it's a "pointless side detail concerning sexual escapades". When we get references to other characters' hetero-normative sexuality that are meaningless to the overall plot, it's "good world-building". Why is Therava's/Galina's/Evil Lesbian #42s sexuality germane? What to pillow-friends add to the plot developments, when they are in almost all cases structured as throwaway sexual relationships when menfolk aren't around?

 

tl;dr I miss Usenet before Eternal September. Impossible to find a fan discussion area without these ridiculous threads anymore.

 

At Terez and yoniy0:

 

Just so its clear, I actually full agree and support your underlying substantive arguments. I personally just see a thick blue line between equality and what I percieve as making a non-issue an issue in a way that is harmful to those we otherwise fully agree must be equal and treated as such.

 

 

To the quoted poster above:

 

It's unfortunate that you are trying to twist it into a fight and see an opinion you might not agree with as "ridiculous." Part of life is the understanding that you are not the only one with an opinion and just because we have an opinion doesn't mean we are right.

 

At not point did I argue for the things you suggest I did. Again, because my post doesn't nicely fit into what has been said, I must love hetero sex and must hate homosexual encounters. That is completely false and either entirely made up or imputed into what I said. I have absolutely no issue with any of the pillow friend or other such lesbian encounters, nor would I have any issue with any gay male encounters.

[SethBaker]

I'm a woman, and I find the sight of lesbians interacting fills me with revulsion (not fear), at least as it was depicted in 'The Killing of Sister George'. I find the sight of men holding hands and being physically affectionate does the same. I find the attitude that anyone experiencing these feelings has 'something wrong with them' to be deeply saddening - it's up there with those deaf people who won't let their children be treated for the condition with cochlear implants. I find the attitude that targets men as 'inherently sexist' and 'homophobic' to be itself sexist.

 

I'm also a blood donor, and as such I know that the homosexual act is medically dangerous. If you want to know why it is, look up the term 'immune modulation' and consider a certain type of drug delivery system. And ask yourselves how it is that a woman's immune system ever lets her get pregnant.

 

I had a very real reason for choosing the words I did. Your reaction of revulsion is not innately human - it's a socially programmed response. Enough people who hate homosexuality (some of whom hate homosexuals; some of whom do not) told you during your formative years that it was wrong, and that sex is dirty, that you're responding in kind. While you've learned by experience that the sex you enjoy is not dirty (or maybe it is? :D Okay, we'll say "morally unclean"), the sex that you do not enjoy is still subject to the latent anti-sexual cultural forces put in place by the early Church.

 

Sex is not dirty. It's something people do. It's not vile. It's not disgusting. It's simply natural. Whatever the coupling (MM, FF, MF, MFF, MMF, or any other conceivable combination), it happens across the ages and transcends our societies. It is natural to humanity. What is unnatural is when misunderstanding or disinterest from someone like you or me (MF) learns to have a revulsion response. For years, I had the same response. Honestly, once I realized that the revulsion response was a rather childish response based on what other people (with whom I already disagreed with) felt like, I began trying to bring my viewpoint around. That's not to say I went out of the way, or tried to compensate for something. I simply tried to control my emotional response and remind myself that if I reject the Christian sexual-guilt and heterosexual-moral complex, I shouldn't be having that reaction. It didn't take long for me to stop feeling that revulsion that you're talking about. If you don't hate homosexuality, do yourself a favor and stop feeling the way that some parts of society have taught you to feel. Life's much easier when you don't have to avert your eyes to keep from feeling revulsion when two people exercise a right that you don't oppose int he first place.

 

People have said this is PC crusade. I disagree. It's an attempt to make the Wheel of Time stand the test of time a little bit better. People like Fred Phelps are turning into people like me at a predictable rate of about 2% per year in the United States. We're not good at absolute equality (look at modern treatment of women and blacks), but we're plainly going to try, here. And soon.

 

This whole discussion is basically the discussion we'd be having if the internet existed in 1930 and we were talking about putting a (non-minstrel) black character in the Hobbit.

[Glip]

I think this whole discussion calls for a poll wether or not the inclusion of same-sex attraction in a character's POV will influence the quality of the story. (Male same-sex attraction that is, for we have seen female same-sex attraction in the Wheel of Time and IIRC there haven't been these discussions, compared to this thread that is)

 

Personally I would say NO. If BS should decide to include a male same-sex attraction POV in AMoL I hardly think it would influence the story I have loved for almost 15 years. I simply have faith in Brandon Sanderson to tell a good story and for me that's all that matters.

[Grig]

Not ignoring Gora, but since he/she didn't actually address the point I was making riffing off their comment there's no point in responding. Hint: I twisted nothing. I was pointing out that "This gay character issue has no other relevance" could just as easily have been "This straight character issue has no relevance" in myriad situations in the books, yet it's the gay one that gets people up in arms. Huh, odd how that works.

 

I think this whole discussion calls for a poll wether or not the inclusion of same-sex attraction in a character's POV will influence the quality of the story. (Male same-sex attraction that is, for we have seen female same-sex attraction in the Wheel of Time and IIRC there haven't been these discussions, compared to this thread that is)

 

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

[randsc]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot. Actually, not so much "moot" as "completely wrong."

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

[SethBaker]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot. Actually, not so much "moot" as "completely wrong."

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

 

Because it's off-topic. If you want to make a thread about his bias against Mormons, that's fine. This thread is about the inclusion of a gay character in the Wheel of Time. That's why I'm not addressing other topics.

[randsc]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot. Actually, not so much "moot" as "completely wrong."

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

 

Because it's off-topic. If you want to make a thread about his bias against Mormons, that's fine. This thread is about the inclusion of a gay character in the Wheel of Time. That's why I'm not addressing other topics.

 

 

Riiiighhhhhytttt.

 

If someone makes a bigoted comment about African-Americans on this thread, you'll all ignore that?

[SethBaker]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot. Actually, not so much "moot" as "completely wrong."

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

 

Because it's off-topic. If you want to make a thread about his bias against Mormons, that's fine. This thread is about the inclusion of a gay character in the Wheel of Time. That's why I'm not addressing other topics.

 

 

Riiiighhhhhytttt.

 

If someone makes a bigoted comment about African-Americans on this thread, you'll all ignore that?

 

Are you deliberately trying to change the subject? You raised the point, I didn't see a point in weighing in further, since this thread is about a GAY CHARACTER in THE WHEEL OF TIME; this thread is not about somebody who has a BIAS AGAINST MORMONS in THE REAL WORLD

[Grig]

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

Sanderson said he WROTE a gay character for ToM, but that scene was moved to AMoL. So your point is moot.

 

What I think is interesting is that there was a flat-out bigoted post on this thread, followed by another bigoted post defending the first, and all of the people who claim to be defenders of tolerance and inclusion are silent.

 

My mistake on the scene movement. I do still note that he specifically says he wrote a GAY CHARACTER, not a GAY SCENE. It could just as easily be a character who is gay and acts/lives accordingly, without openly trying to seduce other men or openly reflecting on it in the text itself. Kind of like Jordan wrote Noal as Jain Farstrider for multiple books without actually coming out and having the text proclaim "he's Jain Farstrider". States of being can be alluded to or revealed without being directly declared or acted upon.

 

Oh, and you mean the guy that most people thought was making a clumsy poor attempt at a joke? I come from the same Christian background, so perhaps I was overly biased towards recognizing it as such (that is, internecine turf wars between various sects and how silly they can seem) and giving too much credit. Still didn't seem worth spending time on. There are so many people saying WRONG THINGS on the internet, and you have to pick and choose which you waste your time on. But I'm sure you're off right this moment fighting the good fight against people who say homosexuality is morally wrong at the same time we're having this discussion, right? It's just not appropriate for mass-market Fantasy books, unless you limit it to the good kind (women waiting for the right man to come along).

 

Sorry for dropping out of the discussion, but it was stalled before I started posting and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Better to raise my blood pressure elsewhere.

[randsc]

Right, so the standard here is, if the group being targeted with bigoted statements (which aren't bigoted at all, but simply suggest that perhaps, going into the final book, the author should be focussed on other things) is politically favored, there must be repeated threads, all containing the suggestion if not outright statement that those who disagree are homophobes.

 

But if the group being targeted with bigoted remarks is not politically favored, any discussion of the bigotry is "off-topic" or the bigotry is "just a joke."

 

OK, I've got it now. Thanks very much for clearing that up.

 

My point here, and what makes my posts exactly on topic, is that identity politics and excessive concern for political correctness are not conducive to good story-telling, or for that matter, civil discussion.

 

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you will see the point.

[dobraine]

You make some pretty good points. I agree with your sentiment.

I'm a woman, and I find the sight of lesbians interacting fills me with revulsion (not fear), at least as it was depicted in 'The Killing of Sister George'. I find the sight of men holding hands and being physically affectionate does the same. I find the attitude that anyone experiencing these feelings has 'something wrong with them' to be deeply saddening - it's up there with those deaf people who won't let their children be treated for the condition with cochlear implants. I find the attitude that targets men as 'inherently sexist' and 'homophobic' to be itself sexist.

 

I'm also a blood donor, and as such I know that the homosexual act is medically dangerous. If you want to know why it is, look up the term 'immune modulation' and consider a certain type of drug delivery system. And ask yourselves how it is that a woman's immune system ever lets her get pregnant.

 

Unfortunately this is a tough thing to argue. Everyone's opinions our rather personal on this issue.

And it is hard not to get down to name calling. Having a true discourse on these issues is almost impossible. Seeing as how it has already gotten to the point of "You sexually repressed Christians

are wrong !". It is going downhill fast. When you get to the point of attacking someones faith.

Something quite a few are willing to die for. You should realize you are not just attacking someones

ideals but them as well. Every poster is another human being and we should treat them with dignity.

I think we are no longer talking of WoT and maybe this discussion belongs elsewhere.

 

Edit: Just some opinions take 'em or leave 'em

[SethBaker]

Right, so the standard here is, if the group being targeted with bigoted statements (which aren't bigoted at all, but simply suggest that perhaps, going into the final book, the author should be focussed on other things) is politically favored, there must be repeated threads, all containing the suggestion if not outright statement that those who disagree are homophobes.

 

But if the group being targeted with bigoted remarks is not politically favored, any discussion of the bigotry is "off-topic" or the bigotry is "just a joke."

 

OK, I've got it now. Thanks very much for clearing that up.

 

My point here, and what makes my posts exactly on topic, is that identity politics and excessive concern for political correctness are not conducive to good story-telling, or for that matter, civil discussion.

 

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you will see the point.

 

Please, look at the title of the thread. If you want to talk about something that's not related to the title of the thread, it belongs in a new thread or in PMs. I did not think this was a very hard concept. You're saying that I'm reacting based on the political favor of the groups. I'm not. I'm talking about homosexuals and not Mormons because this thread is about homosexuals (and not Mormons).

 

If you can't understand what I'm saying, that's your problem. I'm done arguing it with you, because this is also off-topic.

 

ON-TOPIC. This is not excessive political correctness. It's a recognition of the reality of the human condition. Some people are attracted to others of the same gender. It's been recognized with regard to women (even with a reference to direct sexual activity, in some cases) many times in the series. It hasn't with men. This is not going to be a major plot point. It's not going to distract. The story will not suffer, or Brandon would not include it.

 

Brandon isn't politically correct about homosexuality. His article shows that. I disagree with him, but he's recognizing one of the truths of the human condition, and incorporating it into the story. RJ explicitly said that there are gay characters in the WOT. It just so happens that Brandon's going to mention one.

 

Really. Who gives a damn?

[randsc]

Actually, I'm not reacting to YOU at all. I don't even know who you are, and you seem to have registered just for this discussion. So I'll thank you to leave off with the "stay on topic" forum etiquette crap. The question of why a gay male character ought to be included, and why, IS the topic. I maintain that Sanderson's primary motivation was political correctness and pandering to a certain segment of his fan base. You obviously disagree, but my position is exactly on-topic.

 

There are many, many, many "realities of the human condition" that are not included in these books. Sanderson decided that this one needed to be included. That decision is subject to perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted criticism as being untimely and not in accordance with the original author's vision. Deal.

[Nightstrike]

I think gay characters might be included because it might seem a bit odd otherwise. There should be some around in the story (another age of the "Wheel"). If everything else is the same...

 

I wouldn't exactly call it "political correctness". More like a correct representation of the world.