Are we breaking rules or just changing out parts?

Last night at FogCon 5 I at through a conversation about breaking rules in story telling. The blurb in the conference guide suggested that the talk would be about characters not following their stereotypes. That seemed like a good idea. And there were several attempts to touch on the subject. Heck, maybe there were more but I just tuned out after hearing the word "hetero-normative" one too many times.
Yes, I'm a white, middle aged, heterosexual male, but that doesn't mean I don't care about people who don't fit in the same pigeon hole with me. Because I do. But when the discussion stays fixated on the idea that writing about transgender people or "non-tragic lesbians" in the same roles as a heterosexual male would have been in, are you really breaking rules? Personally, I don't think you are. You might be leveling the playing field, but you aren't breaking new ground. Especially if all you're doing is preaching to the choir.
A good attempt at explaining the breaking of the storytelling rule was the idea of "Flowers For Algernon." However, the story has been told before in H. G. Wells's "The Invisible Man." Both are the same story of humanities distrust and fear off those who are different. What is different is the kind of character in the same situation: you're not like us, we can't determine your motivations so you are a that to use, we will isolate you. No rules broken here, please move along. And there are probably older and newer stories that are the same, just different characters.
So whether the character is Anglo Saxon hetero, or green scaled poly sexual, doesn't matter if they are the captain of the research vessel Beagle, they're still just the captain. Nothing's changed in the story, only a part has been replaced for another part. Same rules, just different characters.
I admire those who write non-traditional characters into their stories. I think it's important that we see that the role can be played by anyone and the job still gets done. I think that's called "normalizing," making things that seem untraditional traditional. Whatever you call, it the point remains the same, the song remains the same, the story hasn't changed, only the parts have been replaced.
Rules haven't been broken.
All of which doesn't mean the conversation wasn't interest or thought provoking, it probably just needed a more relevant title. Like: If Kirk had been gay, would the universe have turned out differently? That'd be an interesting conversation.