Hmm, I think people should create the art that speaks to them, and that understanding shouldn't be a prerequisite--can't be a prerequisite, because things speak with different meanings and no one can guess all the possible meanings in all the possible contexts. The most one can do is guess how much harm it will do to its intended audience and cross one's fingers about everything else, as I argue here and here.

But we absolutely should have ongoing critical conversations so that we can identify racism and sexism and heterosexism where they lie. And except under very specific circumstances, no one is under any obligation to watch or distribute or pay for media which one believes to be damaging to its audience. So if Kripke (SPN is Kripke, right?) wants to tell a story that's ---ist, whether intentionally or unintentionally, either way that's fine, but it's incumbent upon people to complain or not watch or whatever their values require from them, and there's no reason the network should give a pulpet to media which is damaging.

But part of making such media less damaging is creating a critical audience which can detect the issues at work in the text and not be blindly influenced by them.

And that's my $.02 on artistic responsibility.