It really went a ways off-topic with the dimorphism issue.
It was nice to prove that the members of the community are capable of handling these issues maturely, and it is the first time I've seen that happen. It doesn't look like there is much more to say about them. We didn't really come to any kind of consensus, and I find myself still uncertain about the inclusion of sexual violence in the game.
Many people made comments along the lines of "I don't think Toady would ever include X, but it's really up to him..."
The fact is that Toady's currently posted goals DO include some of these (sometimes offensive) things, and while he will undoubtedly handle them well when he eventually gets to them, it would be nice if the community had a mature, well-formulated view of them.
I think the generally most common opinion is as follows, but of course a small sampling of comments doesn't prove a thing:
Elements of sexual crime, especially against "minors", is the most offensive firestarter a game could include. Most people would only want to see them included as a part of Legends and at the most as accepted trademarks of evil civilizations and cultures. Another desired item for flavour seems to be the presense of sexual violence as a crime to be punished by adventurers. It has been pointed out that there are far better things to use programming time for, but when it comes down to it we do need a mature understanding of what it could offer to the game and what damage it could do.
Very few people seem to have issue with slavery or religious elements. Both seem to be likely to forever remain on the list of items players can choose to participate in or not, though they will generate events in the worlds of DF.
A miniscule minority is undoubtedly deeply bothered by the way we have our Dwarves treat animals, but it does fit in with the time period where everything was cattle. Again, it remains up to the player how they wish to treat animals and nature within the game.
The issue of homosexuality within the game did not come up. Does anyone see it as possibly adding flavour or anything tangible to the game? I think forum disputes would multiply like bunnies as eventually some people would undoubtedly begin treating homosexuality as a crime within their forts (and describing that in their narrations, believing it to be a good joke, or making fun of it), and of all the issues that have caused dispute this seems to be the most highly volatile. Should it be included for completeness? Avoided as a can of worms? Should it simply take the form of some dwarves* having "lovers" who are of the same sex? Is it something anyone feels strongly should be included? I've had a gender-confused dwarf in my narration of a community fort before, but it didn't require the game to actually simulate it. Could it serve any important purpose?
*Edit: typo correction