I do think it's somewhat unfair to compare character creation options with accessibility features - not having some of the former would reasonably alienate fewer people than how many having the latter will let actually play the game in the first place. It's fluff versus functionality and user experience. I may come off as cruel here, but I don't think that the inability to play an alternate identity character while being able to still play the game is equal to not being able to play the game at all. One enables somebody who would otherwise not be able to experience the game in the first place to experience it and is hardly something that will cause an opinion war (I highly doubt that the needs of disabled people are in any way controversial in nature, although seeing how many would rather - again - make them "seen" or "represented" rather than work on making better conditions for them both in real life and in interactive experiences - also raises questions as to the degree of absurdity the world's come to lately) and does not affect the immersion/world-building aspects (unless you argue that something like an alternate colour pallete or larger fonts defy canon in some way...), while the other is a vanity feature which does not ultimately accomplish the supposed idea behind it and causes a lot of inconsistencies with the writing and the interactions (overbearingly presented in the posts above).
You might be surprised; this sort of thing can be quite significant to people trying to figure themselves out and can have a big impact on them and get through where other things have failed. I know of several gamers who've "found themselves" thanks to the freedom of roleplaying and others who've found that the other perspectives it offers are quite enlightening. I suppose I view it the same way as I do with e.g. save-scumming or story-mode difficulty, which is as long as people are given the choice, I don't really see the problem. I mean as compared with games which have required a mandatory online component to progress, for example: if people want to do that then fine, but the obligation to do so is a different matter.
I know that some people often argue that it uses up development effort that would be better spent on something they would prefer it was spent on, which apart from being a rather divisive argument given that everyone could say the same thing about their own preferred area (in my case it's a landscape I can aimlessly explore as the mood takes me; but it's not entirely reasonable of me to expect a game like BG3 to prioritise that as a feature!) I think it's also specious; especially for a game whose development timeframe has always been "it'll be ready when it's ready".
