The trouble with holy books is that they are interpreted, translated, re-interpreted and practised by human beings. Most of whom have been raised and live in cultures that use deeply ingrained patriarchal structures.
Buddhism is the only one I have passing knowledge of - but the 'canon' is a sprawling collection of literally hundreds of texts that aren't all supported by all sects/schools, so one can often find discrepancies and contradictions within the suttas/texts.
The early scriptures/canons of Buddhism describe the Buddha accepting women as potentially enlightened beings and as students, which I think was pretty progressive for his day. I think his mother and wife were accepted as arahants - sort of equivalent to saints, enlightened beings - nearly Buddhas.
On the other hand, his life story (which may well be metaphorical if not greatly exaggerated) has him dumping his wife and new baby to go off and find himself.
And today, most Buddhist sects or schools are deeply patriarchal. Nuns aren't even accepted in most of the major schools, although some are trying to change that in recent years. Some Buddhists reckon women can't achieve enlightenment at all. On the other hand, there have been mutterings that the 'next Buddha' might be female. The Dalai Lama suggested his next incarnation might be a woman (which he spoiled by then saying she'd have to be a real hottie).
As for sexuality, mostly the scriptures aren't all that fussed about it, just saying we shouldn't be too strongly identified with our sexuality, as far as I know. But again, there are some codes for monastics that forbid gay men from joining the order. Not sure if lesbians get much of a mention.
That is my shitty essay for Buddhism and Patriarchy. Please don't grade me on it.
No news on Santa's expose, yet?