>>104867596It's the "forcibly" part that people are concerned about, and it doesn't make you homophobic or fragile to criticize a culture fanatic about virtue-signalling. By all means put LGBT characters in cartoons, there's nothing wrong with that. But people take issue when it's done just for the sake of it and not for any particular reason other than to insist the company's progressiveness when it's just attempting to capitalize on people's identities and garner brownie points from the crowd its pandering to. LGBT characters can be written well too, but they aren't written well just because they're LGBT.
So in this case specifically there are a few things to note.
Both of the boys have been shown to be attracted to girls. They are canologically heterosexual. If the writers really wanted to take the gay route, maybe bisexual. But I doubt (and personally hope) the writer's won't make them that way. Not that I take issue with LGBT, but because it wouldn't make sense as the idea had never been hinted at before so it would seem awkward, random and just generally out of place. And that makes it bad writing. Sure, characters shouldn't usually be predictable but you can't randomly give them traits, especially when the intention is to satisfy a group of people that almost completely ignores your target demographic. You could argue that because it's a reboot, nobody will give a crap since characters get tweaked all the time. It's a different year now, so things have to be changed, right? Perhaps, but that doesn't excuse lazy/poor writing.
In addition, there's already enough controversy regarding LGBT characters in kids cartoons. Imagine how people would react if every episode had a couple of young boys gawking and drooling over some flexing beefcakes or drag stars. Even though I'd imagine most studios would be able to handle the heat, because the positive responses would be far more overwhelming, it's still a lot of unnecessary shit to have to deal with.
