>Why is the sole listed characteristic for the navigator is that he is gay?
I agree, and thought this as I wrote it. Bear in mind 3 things though: first, the pilot (and cast) dates to 2002, when a gay male on TV was less common or acceptable than today; 2)lack of gay representation in official Trek persists to this day and 3)the purpose of this section of the description is to play up the diversity of the crew by (relatively) contemporary standards.
I certainly agree that the guy's being gay isn't a defining characteristic as such, nor in fact does any existing script reference it. As for Daystrom's son, I agree that only TOS fans would recognize the name; citing it was a covert way of saying "he's black."
The painful truth is that franchised Trek hasn't broken new "radical" ground in diversity since Number One. A black commander was no big deal by the time we met Sisko, a woman Captain a "so what?" on introduction of Janeway. As I asked a friend once, given a united Earth, what would be the most statistically unlikely identity for a typical captain? Answer: a white male.
I hasten to add, Redux' cast isn't diverse for the "sake" of diversity, but to try to tell its audience, subliminally, "See? It's the future
equal now" with as close as possible to the impact of Uhura & Chekov on the bridge. Thus my "enemy as hero" captain -- an intrinsic reminder that all is no longer as it is today.
I'm surprised no one has taken me to task for religion, BTW. I'll say only that, secular utopia though it appeared, TOS made repeatedly clear that Kirk, McCoy & Uhura (at least) believed not just in one god, but (in the former & latter cases) Christ. Were they "Christians" by contemporary standards? Roddenberry couldn't/wouldn't address that. But I find it unlikely that identifiable beliefs will all be gone by the 23rd century. Changed, sure; matured, hopefully…but not gone.