The typos aside, your biggest problem is substance. You quote mined this article trying to contradict it line by line and you wound up contradicting yourself.
Some examples:
“By whom? Who is the enforcer?”
Protesters it’s cited directly in one of the quotes you mined.
“I’ll go with it. Scarlett was guilted out of a role. Gabriel goes on to explain Gill’s story. I’ll trust that that’s an accurate summation.”
Nope, she was threatened out of it by the social justice lynch mob you alternatively insist is nonexistent or a force for good in the world. Guilted implies she was mad to feel bad and decided to leave rather than she quit out of a desire to preserve her career and/or physical safety.
“I’d be wary of saying because there are acclaimed movies that there wasn’t already an existing genre of sexual minorities.”
Whether a genre already existed is not the point. Gay rights went mainstream, in part, because major movies with big named stars started being made.
“Considering how badass of a story Gabriel presented, I’d think this might actually be a good breakout roll for a trans person rather than give Black Widow an Oscar Bait role.”
So you say. At the moment it looks more likely the movie won’t be made at all. But hey, the lynch mob kept “Black Widow” from getting an Oscar Bait role. Score!
“Regardless of the issue at hand, do you really believe massive movie studios cave easily?”
Yes, Disney fired James Gunn the second a whiff of scandal touched him. Because they pour billions of dollars into films, they often get out while they still can, rather than sink more billions into something protesters will tank in the name of ideological agendas.
“Seriously Gabriel — name one screenplay that was GENIUS that the libs ruined because their feelings were hurt.”
If the movie was never made, how can you possibly tell if it would have been GENIUS? Newsflash: there is more to a movie than just the script. I think of plenty of movies that tanked in large part because the SJW professional whiner crowd pointed the lynch mobs in their direction: Ghost in the Shell and Annihilation being prime examples.
As to what social responsibility means, it’s pretty obvious from the article: the obligation to provide propaganda with a story, cast and creators that are in line with a specific agenda.
“No LGBTQ group is gonna be protesting 12 Years a Slave”
Why the hell not? A few decades ago, the trans community likely would have been thrilled that a big name actress was giving visibility to the trans community at all. Because you want to believe it can’t happen doesn’t mean it can’t. Think this through before calling other people dumb.
“The audience this would most likely affect wanted to see someone from their group as the lead, not Black Widow.”
Again with the lack of specifics. If you mean trans people, say it. As for “Black Widow”, you get that she is a human being with a name, right? In the same way as if Quilette formed a lynch mob who got you fired from your job and blackballed in your field, authors responded by referring to you as QuiletteHater, that might be a little less than polite?
“because the only billable actress on the project drops out for a reason you can’t even for sure cite”
She dropped out because a SJW lynch mob wanted to destroy her career as punishment for offending their ideological sensibilities. Seriously, did you bother to read the article you are criticizing before quote mining it?
“The reason I referenced Ghost in the Shell is to point out that Ms. Johansson clearly has thick enough skin (or contractual obligations) to deal with controversy related to these exact matters.”
Or conversely, she learned that the SJW lynch mob can ruin movies by screaming “RACIST!” loudly enough, and her ability to make money in her profession depends on her being a bankable star.
Again, try thinking this through.