I think I might have an entirely different take on the issues with player sexuality among NPCs.
While I generally agree its a good thing, I think that there is ultimately one potential issue with it, and that is the lack of ability to tell queer narratives.
See, when writing stories with LGBT characters you get caught in the is/ought problem pretty easily. Both of these methods have their advantages and disadvantage. In this instance player sexuality represents a form of "ought" stortelling, so we get the disadvantages of chosing ought, which is lack of reprerentation of the queer experience and uniquely queer stories.
I guess one response would be that playersexuality is precisely what allows you to build your own personal narrative with more freedom, whether queer or otherwise, rather than the game designers forcing all players to accept the boundaries they decided to include.
Yes, we don't get to say "the game developers presented a specifically queer narrative" in that respect (although, for the record, BG3 already has several in-universe gay or lesbian relationships among various NPCs, so it's pretty queer per se! I think that's good). Roleplaying with this system is meant to be very open-ended, so you can't determine much of that without the player's input.
However, you can say "my personal BG3 narrative was very queer" due to the decisions you made, thanks to the character creator combined with playersexuality. We can do this even with characters that, in another reality without playersexuality, might not be available as options for a queer romance (or, of course, vice versa).
