Why does Bridgerton's inclusiveness fail to embrace gay people?

The Daily Dot

"In the supporting cast, queer representation declined from tokenism in season 1, to nothing at all in season 2. A bizarre oversight for a show that markets itself on inclusivity," says Gavia Baker-Whitelaw. "Bridgerton’s inclusive branding is, of course, criticized in its own right. The show welcomes a racially diverse cast to a lighthearted faux-Regency setting, expanding the scope of a notoriously conservative genre. At the same time, it has also faced pushback for racist storytelling choices and incoherent political worldbuilding. In order to enjoy season 2—a passionate enemies-to-lovers romance between a white British aristocrat and an Indian ex-pat—you must ignore any prior knowledge of the British Empire’s atrocious history in India. Suspension of disbelief is paramount, and Bridgerton fans are happy to perform these mental gymnastics. The show’s creators and target audience share an understanding of what we’re here for: An escapist, ahistorical riff on Regency romance tropes. For some reason though, this philosophy fails to embrace queer people."

ALSO:

• Bridgerton has burdened Penelope Featherington by making her both annoying and manipulative
• Bridgerton intimacy coordinator Lizzy Talbot  reveals how Jonathan Bailey and Simone Ashley choreographed their own sex scenes
• Simone Ashley credits Talbot for making intimate scenes "very comfortable, confident and safe"
• Bailey Sent Charithra Chandran a "good luck" DM before their chemistry read
• Here are 22 ways Bridgerton Season 2 is different from Julia Quinn's novel The Viscount who Loved Me
• Why Season 2 didn't show Anthony Bridgerton’s wedding to Kate Sharma
• The Netflix editions of the Bridgerton novels are a major disservice to new readers
• Ranking every Bridgerton near-kiss