I'll copy/paste and extend a prior post of mine to save me typing again:
Regarding the game itself, even though I find the overly woke/SJW approach to many pieces of entertainment to be exhausting, insulting and totally counter-predictive. I'm willing to give ND as a developer the benefit of the doubt for the time being and make my own decision on the game. Even if I have fundamental disagreements with the likes of Druckman's acquaintances like Anita Sarkeesian, ND have yet to forgo quality in the name of agenda in a final product. If they set a precedent for doing so here then my mind may very well change going forward.
To get an idea of my personal outlook, my only issue in regards to trans people is the proposition of legally/professionally compelled speech regarding pronouns, trans athletes, transitioning children and forced equity vs equal opportunity. Outside of that, I'm all for people identifying how they like and being who they feel they are; and I think they deserve all the respect the content of their character commands, just like anyone else.
I think the gay/lesbian movement was fundamentally a libertarian movement, it was a case of "let us be who we want to be". And the trans movement may very well have started out with the same good intentions but has unfortunately -- in parts at least -- morphed into a more authoritarian movement that can often directly encroach upon fundamental freedoms.
There's no reason why trans, gay or lesbian people can't be featured in any piece of entertainment and I think it's easy to fall into the trap of, there must be a specific reason for them to be included which directly relates to them being as they are in terms of gender identity or sexuality.
My concern however, and one that has so often been proven right in recent years is that the aforementioned gender identity, sexuality (and even ethnicity) is often presented as the entirety of their being; so much so that the quality and substance of the characters and the story is reduced to that. Alongside this is a total lack of subtlety. We often see hand-me-down characters and franchises with characters reduced to soulless husks. Or characters that serve only to be the "LGBTQ guy/gal". I find it bizarre that this is often celebrated by many of those most vocal in the community; it seems to be that it would be insulting more than anything.
Perhaps ND have introduced a trans character with substance, where their persuasion or identity doesn't present the entirety of their being and it simply serves as a point of motivation or as a catch in the story. Or, perhaps like most creatives as of late, they've shoehorned them in just to be woke and they'll try to smash you round the face with it. We don't know yet..
What has me hopeful at least, is that these characters are supposedly deeply flawed and hell-bent on revenge. This is a big deal, as a lot of the SJW crowd have been obsessed about trans, gay, lesbian or ethnic-minority characters being presented in a positive fashion all the time. True representation isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows and will often be unflattering, not because they're trans for eg. but because they're human.
To be truly represented, included or accepted isn't always to be positively represented, but sometimes negatively too. It's to sometimes be the butt of a joke, without reservation...not because you're trans/gay etc.; even if that is the subject of the joke. But because like anyone else, you're probably flawed, fucked up and idiosyncratic in one way or the other. When people stop making exceptions for you, that is acceptance, when "acceptance" isn't even a conscious decision or a point of contention, it just kinda is.
I'm quietly hopeful for the time being.
If what matters solely to anyone is that there are gay, lesbian, trans or whatever people in the game then I'd argue your only contributing to the divisiveness just as those on the opposite side of the fence do when they demand total compliance. I believe however, that myself and many others just want quality to take precedence and not be relegated to the sidelines in favour of other things, to not be patronised.
No one helps anyone, on either side, by being vitriolic or calling people names. The two extremes often construct straw-mans, an extreme example they can hold up as something to argue against and people play into it time and time again. They slowly get suckered into that extreme and you only serve to give those with an opposing argument more ammo. By doing this anyone trying to pose a reasoned, nuanced argument will be lumped in with one or the other by those less reasonable; you can lean 1% in one direction or 1% in the other and as far as they're concerned, you're 100% of the way in that direction.
What it all comes down to with me, as alluded to above, is... When it comes to a person what matters is are you decent and are you well reasoned? When it comes to art and entertainment, does quality and effectiveness come first?
Whatever you do, don't be like the guy in this tweet wherever your argument may lay, you only serve to strengthen opposing arguments, make the arguments of yourself and those around you less effective; and make yourself look an idiot. Cory was the better guy here whatever your disagreements may be with him and his ilk.
