Ah, I see the problem now. We're talking past each other about two different things. Let's review: I was talking about the opportunities the makers of a full Trek reboot would've had that the makers of the Kelvin Timeline didn't, the freedom to change anything about Trek continuity instead of trying to work around it. One such possibility I mentioned was the freedom to change characters' sex and race, though that was just one example of the larger point I was making. But some people started a digression arguing over whether such changes were legitimate -- as if it were somehow untried rather than something that's been a routine practice in film and TV since pretty much the start of the century. One of the arguments that tends to be made against such changes is that they're allegedly made with some sort of political motive, an attempt to change the audience's opinions about such inclusion. My response to that is that they don't need to change the audience's opinions -- a large segment of the audience already wants more characters that look like them and will respond positively to having more such characters, whether by altering existing characters to be more diverse or adding more characters who are diverse to begin with.
So you see, the conversation wasn't actually about Discovery at all. I was talking about the hypothetical of a full reboot of Star Trek, the possibility of something like a female Kirk or a black McCoy. I was speaking of the reasons in general why adding more diversity to entertainment properties is known to be a financially successful strategy, refuting the assumption that the only reason to do it is as some sort of artificial imposition of a political agenda. Now, yes, that broader point is applicable to Discovery, but it wasn't Discovery specifically that I was talking about.
