I fully agree with you.
I have watched plenty of shows that are great and doesn't depend on any of those points. I have watched great shows that were focused on those points so it made sense on the history. And have spoiled shows because they forced an agenda without making any sense or need.
But we do know that media is made to profit so as long as putting tokens and pushing narratives generates more profit than leaving them out they'll keep doing it.

Also wanted to point that in real life most of my friends act the similarly independent of their gender, color, religion or orientation. As much as a heterossexual doesn't need to be making love or even kissing in a movie homo also don't. I much prefer how JK Rowling made with subtle hints that Dumbledore was in love with Grindewald than having any explicit scene on it... sure the description of Dumb was stereotypical on the clothing extravaganza =]

I agree on principle, especially on point 1. Not necessarily in entertainment, but in general. There is no need for gender quotas. If the most qualified people cannot get a job/position etc. because of a regulation/quota, then how is that equality for all people?

Again, this is not an entertainment issue, but an economic and political one.

To VGC polyglot. The ridiculous part on "I'm gay" declarations on media is just about similar with celebrities...

How often have you seem someone spouting at loud without any context, need or anything "I'm gay", or even "I'm hetero"? And again, have you seem in any movie someone declaring himself hetero just to say he is hetero?

Even better, how do you see all the requests from the internet to make lesbian princess on Disney movies, to give a gay boyfriend to some prince instead of couple with the princess and other shenanigans?

1 Lets see on my PS4 Horizon, Uncharted LL, 2 Tom Raider Games, Fallout 4, Dishonered 2, Bloodborne,  Dragon Age (female dwarf) Nier Automata, Until Dawn (alright not only but still), Dark Souls 3, Infamous first light. So around 40% of my games I played as a woman.

2. I am pretty sure White Males also buy the most games by far, so it's only logical for companies to cater to 75% of their audience. That doesn't make them sexist or racist, just capitalist. Besides there are plenty of games with a female lead or quite a few meaningful important  woman characters to begin with. Given the choice I usually play as a female. Athough I don't give the slightest crap that the the new GOW doesn't include memorable non white characters. 

How many people who enjoy enjoy AAA games  are gay probably 3% at best. It's very simple companies make games for their audiences not the world, but people who buy and play their games. If games with other races and sexualities sell much better than games only featuring white males they would have made them a long time ago.

3 From the ones I played, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, The last of Us, Borderlands, Fable, Fallout,Skyrim/ or Dragons dogma you can Mary the same sex. Here is a list with LBQT VG Characters. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_with_LGBT_characters

4 Because most of the games I play usually involve me murdering a shit ton of people. And for some reason I find it more believable that I have a bunch of  steroid, testosterone males kill everything they see than a squad of female characters.

As for ghost busters the movie sucked when it was made and sequel ducks too. Also why are you trying to find equality in a comedy. That's like trying to did a good black and Asian representation in Rush Hour.

First of all to point one: he never said all women are talentless. He said that women are hired because they are women and not because of talent. And that statement I must challenge: I can think of no example of women in entertainement biz that are talentless (and successful). So I would say you both are wrong.

But there is a deeper point to it, something that bothers me. I recently noticed, that I can say if a movie is american or european just by looking at the female cast. Pretty much all american actresses are attractive. While many european actresses are also attractive, they also cast women who look ... well, like normal women. American movies give a total wrong impression on women. Even in supporting roles or side roles all women are good looking. And don't understand me wrong, I think these actresses are good at their job. But Hollywood casting agencies must send all actresses back, that can play a role, but look standard and not like fashion models. A note here: movies by Jodie Foster are an exception.

Point two about bending storylines is also more complicated. Hollywood pretty much always bends storylines - because they basically have no original ideas. Everything on a movie screen was a comic, a book, a foreign movie or an older movie before. So if you remake this, you change stuff. I did not watch the new Ghostbusters. Not because the main cast are all women now. But because I already watched Ghostbusters many years ago and nothing indicated the new movie made anything better than the original. I don't waste my lifetime watching bad movies. On the flipside I watched and liked Jessica Jones. Because I was never into comic books and therefore it didn't matter for me that it was an old story. They remade one figure from male to female (Jerry Hogarth became Jeri Hogarth) and I'm cool with that, because Carrie-Anne Moss played great. Most of the male figures there basically idiots (with the exception of the main villain). But I'm cool with that, because it doesn't matter so much, I watched so much movies with all or mainly male cast, I have no problem with mainly female cast. So, for me you can bend storylines - if you do it well and not shitty. But I prefer original stories, about which nobody can say they storyline is bended. Heck, we are on a videogame forum and here new IPs get praised and companies get slammed for making sequels. We should do that more for movies.

Well, and the stereotype-point: it is everywhere and it is annoying too. OTBWY showed an example. The stereotypical women in Hollywood movies moved on from the damsel in distress to the allmighty powerwomen who can do everything but has a soft heart too. A reason I watch movies and series from all over the world is, that at least each region has different stereotypes, so I have more variety.

So, sorry I answered you, most of my points were more or less general, I just stumbled over your post as my opinions articulated in my head and I noticed that you misinterpreted point one of the original post and felt the need to answer.

One producer I watch a bunch of content because of my wife is Shonda....

Talk about a woman that like to portray strong, successful, black characters, plenty of gay characters in something that if you were to look at society is very far from what you would see but doesn't bother much. It bothers only when she tries to push her political agenda, where I just go lalalala waiting for the story-line to follow.

Another funny point is that it seems like she sees herself as main chars in her shows so she go there and put an ugly fat black woman with a very bad temper that no one would really want to be near and give her a very fitting and attractive boyfriend, like in hers wet teenager dreams. Just like the writer of 50 shades of grey that started making fanfic of Crepuscule which was a fanfic of Harry Potter but going for harem. Seem like ocidental people are copying the harem manga style.

I agree. maybe except the 3rd point?

I defend creators should have the freedom to create whatever they want without judgement. The audience just has to decide whether they want to watch it or not. But, productions shouldn't be changed to fit social agendas.

For example, black panther wasn't created to please the black community. He was created like that. That is why it works so well.
Now for example, turning Thor female is dumb, it's a bending of the legend of thor in order to appease social pressure. That i'm strongly against.
Now, wonder woman, was created as a woman since the start and works.

That's what i mean. The intention of the creation must remain unaltered by outside pressures. When it does, i lose interest.

blind hiring meant to improve women's chances of employment stopped because more men were being hired. which means, of course, women were getting special treatment:    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

Women hired 2:1 in some STEM fields over men with identical qualifications:  http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

it is happening more and more. women have already been given every advantage in education, and now they are getting more privileges in employment in the name of their version of """equality"""

The makers of the rebooted Star Trek movies decided to make an established character (Sulu) gay, completely out of the blue, in the 3rd movie of their franchise.  They asked the actor, George Takei, who played Sulu in the original series and movies for his blessing, thinking they would get it easily since he is openly gay in real life.  He told them very clearly, that he portrayed the character as a heterosexual male throughout his entire career, because that was the character that Gene Roddenberry created.  Takei said that he was all for an openly gay character in Star Trek, but that they should create their own character rather than paste the sexuality onto an existing one.  The new Star Trek filmmakers, who claimed they wanted Takei's blessing in the first place, turned around and made their version of Sulu gay anyway.  That was a complete slap in the face to George Takei, basically telling him, "You're gay, so Sulu must also be gay too."  It's also a complete insult to Takei's acting abilities, saying that he couldn't possibly have been portraying a character all those years that wasn't a complete match of his actual sexuality.  The rebooted Star Trek doesn't even take place in an alternate universe where this sudden change would make sense.  It's only supposed to be an alternate timeline.  Sulu was an adult male already when Spock and Nero went back in time and altered the timeline.  How did Nero going back in time suddenly make Sulu gay?  If they really were doing it as an homage to George Takei as they claimed they were, they would have respected his wishes when he said he was against it.  They could have easily created a new character as Takei suggested, but instead they forced a sexuality change on a character who was portrayed as a heterosexual on both TV and film for three decades.  That's not being respectful to the source material, the actor who defined and brought life to the character, or even to good storytelling, since the sudden change is completely unexplainable.  This example is the very definition of forced diversity.  

Since diversity isn't a talent it's very hard to see how some product can fail due to lack of diversity on a team.