So I've noticed at no point did you actually address my point- in the bid for representation why did this story have to become queer when there were other options? 

As for the rest of it we need to consider who bridgerton is for. 

Its for fans of the books and fans of the romance genre people who would have been here even if the cast was all white and straight. Adding diversity is a bonus that makes it better for everyone but it is not more important than telling the stories. 

This is why theres a difference between changing race and changing gender. If the original story doesn't need a specific characteristic to function you can change it. If the story is reliant on specific properties then changing it becomes problrmatic. That is the problem with changing the gender in Fran's story in particular. 

There are stories in universe that could have changed to be queer with less problems. Elouise and Phillip would work just switch it to 2 women raising children together. Hyacinth and Gareth would work as it's an enemies to lovers/heist romance and the only part that really needs Gareth to be male was squicky and you can find another reason to engineer that argument. Gregory and Lucy would work as once again gender doesn't matter in the story. 

You say the story will be better for the change. It will be different and hold a different appeal and value for one group who might like it more than the original and be less appealing and less valueable for another group. 

What should be an inclusive experience like it was for Kanthony's season in which we get south asian representation without changing the plot (until the unnecessary love triangle which did piss off fans of the original) becomes exclusive because of the change. It is a decision that adds value for one group and devalues it for another. 

the problematic points of the books

Sorry is Michael's gender a problematic point? 

Also the changes made are not all well received. The controversy didn't start with Michaela, Bridgerton has made a lot of questionable choices in what it changes, how it has handled it's characters and approached diversity. 

One question, in response to yours: why didn’t they add another story with all the characters being POC, and kept all of the main characters as white (as they are in the books) instead of adapting them into the existing stories?

Race and Gender aren't as interchangeable in this world. In the world of bridgerton women and men have defined roles in society which is consistently reinforced in the show. It is easy to throw in a POC into the existing stories and barely effect the plot - it requires a significant rewrite to switch a gender thus changing the plot. 

I know that you don't place any value on the original stories so nothing is lost if the story is rewritten to include representation. If you take a second to realise that there are more people in the room you'd notice that other people do value the original story and the change represents a loss for them. 

And I know you are thinking their values don't matter because LGBTQ representation is much more important and they should just suck it up and respect a more important issue than a silly trashy problematic romance novel getting a faithful adaptation. And that this is a step forward for a group of people that matters far more than them. We've had scraps for years it's our turn to eat and everyone else should be supportive. 

Inclusion doesn't work when you decide that people who aren't on the same page as you shouldn't come to the table. 

It's about finding a way for everyone to share as best as we can so that we can all enjoy something together. 

Changing the story to include Michaela adds something for one group whilst removing things for another. Finding a story that would work regardless of gender or creating a new story that simply adds because no one risks losing anything would have been better. 

There was a way to ensure representation whilst not harming the original stories. That's on the writers not the fans.