I think it's harder for media to spin a beneficial angle for straight men and straight women. By straight I mean the majority of hets who don't question their orientation post puberty, obviously a small number do question later in life and come out as bi/gay.

That majority generally have a vague life plan that at some point in their 20s/30s involves having kids. Even if they can be persuaded politically that TWAW and TMAM they aren't primed early on for the possibility of IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy or adoption in the way gay and lesbian people are - until something goes wrong it's not really a consideration.

Average, well rounded and healthy straight people are unlikely to be persuaded out of the easiest and most sexually attractive life path for them (opposite sex relationships) in exchange for some flags, glitter and inclusivity. Why would they? Straight people have a plentiful dating pool as it is. Much easier for the media to focus on anyone who sits outside of being straight.

Equally I think gay men, although targeted, are unlikely to perceive much benefit to themselves.

Sadly I think this is why lesbians and to an extent bi women, end up being the focus of both TW & TM much of the time. It's the double whammy of being women (who are generally more agreeable and empathetic) but unlike many straight women are less likely to be fixated on the heteronormative life path of dating-marriage-babies. Hence the erroneous assumption that convention (or genitals) shouldn't matter to lesbians and an expectation they be flexible with how they identify.