I'm as skeptical of rainbow capitalism as the next queer anarchist, but WotC has honestly done a pretty decent job of queer representation and inclusivity, as far as these things go. I've seen thinkpieces talking about why D&D has such a large queer following.
Now,
race on the other hand...
To comment on other points:
*Queer is the preferred term of most of the folks that I know. I've most commonly seen pushback on that term because they don't want to lumped in with others under the same umbrella (transphobic LGB people; biphobic lesbians and gays, etc.) and if I'm being frank I don't think those people should get to have a stake in how we define ourselves/want to be defined as.
*Not that I was the person who reported it (I actually didn't notice it until I saw the red text), but I've only ever seen some variation of "alphabet soup" as a derisive and derogatory commentary on the queer community's admittedly somewhat overboard obsession with micro-identities (they say, as an asexual nonbinary transfemme lesbian
)
*Not to be too pedantic, but if you've never played a trans (or otherwise gender noncomforming) character, then all of your characters have been cisgender. That's the literal definition of cisgender.
*It's also already been commented on, but the absence of even NPCs in relationships seems highly improbable, and even if you haven't given that much if any thought and fallen back of heterosexual relationships by default, your game is giving commentary on the prevalence (or absence) of non-cis, non-hetero individuals in your worlds.
*And again, relationships, even queer relationships, are not necessarily sexual in nature. Comments of asexuality aside, if your world has married people, there's not really any reason for there not be queer married people (or otherwise in relationships) in that world as well.