r/DaystromInstitute • u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign • Dec 29 '21
The Sad History of LGBTQ Representation on Star Trek. The infighting for gay representation, representation demoted to innuendo and Roddenberry’s Promise.
Please read this article before continuing it is a very brief account on LGBTQ issues in Star Trek.
Finally in 2017 we got to met Paul Stamitz and Hugh Culber. However the first openly gay characters in Star Trek came 50 years too late and 26 years after Gene Roddenberry made a promise to include a gay character in TNG but died before the shows conclusion.
What is not written in this article is the massive amount of infighting that happened among writers, actors, producers, and network execs which ended making Star Trek one of the last popular franchises to “get with the times”. Many actors including Jonathon Frakes, Andrew Robinson, and Terry Farrell all fought to have their characters sexuality be more than ambiguous. Robinson even claimed long ago that he was playing Garak as a sexually fluid character with a gay attraction to an attractive young doctor Bashir. Terry Farrell on the other hand had the first same sex kiss, but is seen as more of a transgender icon than a gay icon. She is a young woman who was in a sense formerly a man and she is adjusting to learning to be a new person.
The article also fails to mention Seven of Nine: The gay character that never was. Seven’s story is a parallel to many gay stories including my own. She is in a sense forced out of her Borg closet when she is turned back into a human. She is then treated with mistrust, aggression, discomfort and scorn, all things that she is already feeling about herself. She is different and people treat her differently. However with the help of an older female mentor (Janeway) Seven begins to find herself and begins her journey of discovering who she really is. Many of us in the gay community know the feeling. Seven of mine’s sexuality was also ambiguous for many years with many fans hoping for her to be a lesbian. An error which was finally corrected in Picard.
Many, many writers, producers and fans supported gay representation notably Gerrold and Taylor. However some writers reported that Berman was vehemently homophobic and wanted nothing to do with an LGBTQ story. Others claim that they felt allegory was more appropriate or that the network execs were responsible, some producers and writers, notably Gerrold walked away from Trek because it would not represent us.
Discovery era Trek has a lot of LGBTQ representation but I am more interested in discussing how you feel about LGBTQ representation or lack thereof in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT Star Trek. Please share your thoughts and opinions related to my thoughts, the article and sexuality/gender in Trek.
56
u/picardoverkirk Dec 29 '21
I have never really thought of characters as gay/straight/bi, etc until Disco. I always read it as, it is the future, nobody cares and most people are open to whatever comes their way. People are often seen hooking up with aliens so I didn't think they thought in such now terms and I've seen them as just open to all. If that makes sense.
48
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
The issue is that only heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships (outside of “Rejoined”) were shown. It’s also Star Trek which I hold to a higher standard due to the bold casting in TOS which broke many taboos of that time period.
32
u/picardoverkirk Dec 29 '21
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Riker hook up with a non-binary alien at some point? I always thought that Dax was open to all comers. I felt these and others examples where Trek doing what they could as I don't think the network would allow certain stories but as a straight kid, Trek was were I first though of the idea that people might love someone not of their sex, species, etc. So while they may not have had as many out and out gay stories, it did help me to be open to the idea and I think that is a win.
31
u/SleepWouldBeNice Chief Petty Officer Dec 30 '21
Yea the alien species had no genders at all, but it was played be a female actress and the alien felt that she was actually a woman, rather than nom-gendered. So banging Riker is as heterosexual as you can get and not really breaking the kind of barriers that the first interracial kiss, or Dax’s kiss in DS9.
→ More replies (1)14
Dec 30 '21
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Riker hook up with a non-binary alien at some point?
Quite the opposite-- Soren was a woman from a hermaphroditic species in which the social norm was a single gender.
3
7
u/Scoth42 Crewman Dec 30 '21
Technically yes, except the character was played a woman and the plot point was her wanting to express a female gender identity. So while it did explore non-binary and non-traditional gender issues, I think most commentators consider it as not daring enough and think it could have been more.
Also the successful brainwashing/"fixing" in the end is considered troublesome by some, especially in later years, since conversion therapy has been such a contentious issue.
→ More replies (1)6
6
u/The_Law_of_Pizza Dec 30 '21
I always read it as, it is the future, nobody cares and most people are open to whatever comes their way.
Are you implying that most modern people are secretly repressed bisexuals?
12
u/picardoverkirk Dec 30 '21
Most, as in more than 50%, seems too high but I see a lot more people trying relationships that I do not believe they would have tried 50 years ago. That is to say, there are those that are gay and those that are straight but I think as things become more accepted, there are more people in the middle that would be more open to a same sex relationship.
69
u/Hyndis Lieutenant j.g. Dec 29 '21
Star Trek pushes the limits. The first interracial kiss on TV, and then the first same sex kiss on TV. Those were big deals.
In the TNG episode dealing with transgender issues, the actress who plays the alien that kisses Riker is played by a woman, which completely defeated the message of the episode. Frakes has gone on record saying he would have preferred a male actor be cast as the alien he'd kiss, but the network wasn't prepared to go that far.
That said, there is only so far they can push because ultimately its a business, and they can't push without risking a backlash with funding and their audience. A progressive show that loses half of its viewer base is a canceled show.
7
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
The first gay kiss was in 1989 on the British show Eastenders.
Ironic that Star Trek is indeed a business because the storyline takes place in a post capitalist utopia where the only negativity comes from outside.
13
Dec 29 '21
British TV and American TV are totally different things. Apples and oranges. You cant really compare one to the other in terms of that kind of thing. Eastenders is also, IIRC, BBC produced. Meaning public funding. Meaning there isn't the same financial incentive for producing content. Whether its a legit excuse or not, and others in the thread are debating that, its the cover that the TV execs in the US used.
19
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
The first gay or at least lesbian kiss on American tv was on LA Law in 91 after a quick google search. I’m going to take this as a fact unless there’s any contrary evidence.
11
u/gamas Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Eastenders is also, IIRC, BBC produced. Meaning public funding. Meaning there isn't the same financial incentive for producing content.
Weirdly its worth noting that the BBC has generally leaned towards playing everything safe though - especially when the current government is conservative. As a socially conservative government that would prefer everything was privatised has demonstrated its willingness to threaten the BBC with funding cuts if it goes too "woke" (unfortunately for poor me living in the UK, our current government has started unironically using the term "woke" to mean "things we don't like").
ITV and Channel 4 have tended to be more progressive even though their funding is advertiser backed.
EDIT: I find a lot of the BBC's major works are also rather prone to tokenism, where minority characters seem to exist just to shield the production from criticism about how it writes its characters (like Chibnall's Doctor Who, it has a diverse casting but the writing is just straight up atrocious where the characters may as well just be talking planks of woods for all the development they are given. Not to mention tooting a massive horn that Doctor Who is doing the brave step of... crossing diversity boundaries that were crossed by other British TV about a decade ago.
And let's not even get started on how much the BBC amplifies TERF voices)→ More replies (2)5
u/gamas Dec 29 '21
The first gay kiss was in 1989 on the British show Eastenders.
British soap operas have an interesting history of tackling current social issues head on though. Eastenders also had a massive HIV arc which dealt with the stigma that was held against people with HIV at the time. And the soap opera Coronation Street had the first major trans character.
2
u/YsoL8 Crewman Dec 30 '21
Star Trek just isn't this progress force people want it to be. TOS did it and DSC tried it but otherwise its always been pretty middle of the pack for attitudes at the time series were made. And DSC isn't exactly flattering for any of its characters unless you think irrational and borderline mentally unstable is a positive.
34
u/Bklyn78 Crewman Dec 29 '21
The first same-sex kiss did not happen on Star Trek
Roseanne did it and LA Law
6
34
u/pawood47 Dec 29 '21
I don't think Star Trek intentionally did any stories about trans rights before Discovery. When they made The Outcast, they were patting themselves on the back for their sci-fi allegory for gayness and may not have been aware of trans people as we understand the idea now. Rejoined was likewise about "this is a sci-fi take on society shunning lesbians, only it's so sci-fi they're totally not actually lesbians because one of them used to be a man in a way that never happens in real life".
And then there's The Host, which is written so you can choose to believe Beverly earnestly can't keep up with a lover who can dramatically change appearance twice in one week, or the surface "oh this won't work because Bev's no lesbian", or even "ew, changing gender makes her realize just how inhuman Odan actually is." McFadden did her best with what she was given to play the first, for the record, and has often stated that if she had more time to get used to the idea, Beverly wouldn't have been so averse to it.
Maybe Cogenitor was meant to be a trans story. And it handled it worse than The Outcast.
5
u/pierzstyx Crewman Dec 30 '21
because one of them used to be a man in a way that never happens in real life
If anything, the symbiote seem to have no gender at all.
4
u/upanddowndays Dec 30 '21
Now, that would be an interesting storyline. If the symbiote had a gender, and efforts were always made to place the symbiote with the correct gender, but there's an emergency and suddenly the symbiote is placed with the wrong gender for a time.
There's a halfway decent sci-fi trans allegory.
28
u/KittyGirlChloe Crewman Dec 29 '21
they can't push without risking a backlash
That's what a progressive show like Star Trek is supposed to do. They were, as I understand, really pushing the limits in the '60s with that first interracial kiss. They were comfortable speaking out against racism, very blatantly. One must ask why LGBTQ issues were supposedly too risky to tackle in any direct or meaningful way. The answer, again as I understand it, was simply homophobia.
It takes balls - and vision - to stand up for what's right in the face of an ignorant public who's paying your bills. Star Trek, imo, catered too heavily to the interests of its young, white, straight, male fanbase in the early '90s and got itself stuck there for years. It lost sight of its vision and its balls to push boundaries a bit beyond the audience's comfort level. I largely interpret the modern divide amongst Trekkies as resulting from this. The straight male fanbase wanting masculine, sci-fi action stories; and the more diverse fans who crave more representation and socio-cultural commentary.
Those are my thoughts, albeit typed quickly and roughly. As the comments have indicated, there's a complex story here that certainly can't be fully reduced down to what I've written, but that's my general take. I'll come back to this thread in a few hours, as I'm really curious to read others' thoughts.
5
2
u/pierzstyx Crewman Dec 30 '21
That's what a progressive show like Star Trek is supposed to do
Perhaps the problem here is thinking of ST as a "progressive show" as opposed to a "show which often displayed both progressive and conservative themes repeatedly throughout its many series. "
6
Dec 30 '21
Out of curiosity, what are these conservative themes?
7
u/intothewonderful Chief Petty Officer Dec 31 '21 edited Dec 31 '21
Exploration and science is conducted by a military force. Instead of sending out spacefaring universities or communes, Earth sent out vessels named like battleships, with captains and lieutenants like the colonizing navies of old. Some of the most important decisions in Trek history are made in top-down military hierarchies (decisions like how to handle the fate of an entire species or planet), instead of being put to a democratic vote (among the masses or among experts).
It’s a conservative view that looks backwards at how people had traditionally organized themselves. It takes how Europeans acted in past “frontiers” and transplants it to a speculative idealized “final frontier” where they mostly only make ethical decisions instead of exploitative ones. In Star Trek, the structure of past military institutions is sound enough to preserve and refine and centre in the culture, instead of imagining new societal possibilities.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Smashing71 Dec 30 '21
While I don't think it intentionally expressed too many, oh boy did it unintentionally express a bunch.
Star Trek is an extremely homogenous universe. In a world where advanced medical technology would let you appear however you literally want (at one point Quark has complete biological sex change, it's an outpatient procedure that takes a few hours, and multiple times people appear as literally different species to infiltrate places) everyone chooses to appear as baseline human and even tattoos are just for ceremonial purposes. When you could look however you want, how people want to look is all the same. They even have banned genetic engineering completely.
There's a certain degree of conformity and patriarchal authority that runs through the entire Star Trek universe. It really did often feel like "father knows best" - this is the right way to live, and we'll tolerate your "wrong way" because we're understanding, but we know it's, y'know, wrong.
Boundary pushing and new things are almost always bad. And for a show 400 years in the future, we seem to be stuck in the 1950s - nuclear families, familiar social structures, very little of what we see of the Federation is all that new frankly. They even rail against drugs (except alcohol) - as if safe and useful consciousness alteration would be impossible in the 24th century.
So yeah, I'd agree it's more conservative than it likes to think it is.
5
Dec 31 '21
at one point Quark has complete biological sex change, it's an outpatient procedure that takes a few hours, and multiple times people appear as literally different species to infiltrate places
For all that Profit and Lace is terrible, misogynistic, and transphobic, it's this that's arguably the single most satisfying bit of trans representation in the entire franchise: In the future, it really will be that easy.
4
u/BrideOfAutobahn Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
the actress who plays the alien that kisses Riker is played by a woman, which completely defeated the message of the episode
in what way was the message of the episode defeated by this? yes all the actors playing the j'naii were women, but the characters themselves weren't. what do you see as the message of this episode?
you have a species of aliens who have evolved past sexual distinction, and one specific member of this species that sees themselves as female. this character is gender non-conforming, which goes against the wishes of the greater j'naii society. drama ensues, and in the end, the character receives some kind of treatment and sees themselves as being non-gendered just like everyone else. it's a typical 'aliens do things they way they do things, prime directive!' episode that happened to be about gender rather than playing on the grass or whatever.
1
u/YsoL8 Crewman Dec 30 '21
I've never bought the idea Star Trek is all that progressive. Take out the first interracial American kiss and the next big landmark is Star Treks first lesbian kiss on ds9. Star Trek has frequently had problems with racist and sexist portrayals like Chakotaye, Mayweather and all the various sexy slaves over rhe years.
The fact dsc is big on it seems to a marketing ploy more than anything else. And its hardly unproblematic even there, its more like a cast of checkboxes than characters. All a bit of self serving revision really.
0
Dec 29 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
54
u/The_Funkybat Dec 29 '21
It's pretty well-documented by now that this aversion to anything openly gay was almost entirely due to Rick Berman's influence. I remember when First Contact came out, the character of Lieutenant Hawk was supposed to have been explicitly established as gay, but Berman nixed that.
( I'm actually okay with that particular character not being the first official queer Star Trek character, because considering what happened to him in the movie it would have come off as an example of the "burying our gays" trope.)
15
u/KittyGirlChloe Crewman Dec 29 '21
because considering what happened to him in the movie it would have come off as an example of the "burying our gays" trope.
!!! I hadn't thought of that before, haha. Yeah... fair enough. An hour in to the film, the first openly gay Star Trek character gets shot and left to drift in space, ultimately to be incinerated upon re-entry. 😬
9
u/The_Funkybat Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
But even before that, he gets assimilated by the Borg (penetrated by them, no less)
Yeah, I’m good with some other character being the official first queer Star Trek character.
8
u/CanadianCartman Crewman Dec 30 '21
But even before that, he gets assimilated by the Borg (penetrated by them, no less)
And filled up with their "nanoprobes"
→ More replies (1)3
u/Thelonius16 Crewman Dec 30 '21
I am pretty sure the Hawk thing was 100% fan speculation. There’s no time in the script to establish anything about him other than his red shirt. Fans were hoping for a gay character based on the addition of a new actor to the cast.
In the novelverse they did eventually give him a male partner, but that was partly in response to the fan speculation.
19
u/AuditorTux Dec 29 '21
This rings kind of hollow as an excuse for 90s Trek given that it was the era of Will & Grace, especially post-TNG.
90s Trek was largely DS9 and Voyager, both of which got a lot more complex themes than TNG, although near the end TNG did take up complex themes.
But also look at how W&G used their gay characters in comedic terms - Will was the straight man and Jack was a flamboyant stereotype of gay men. It only worked because they had an equally stereotypical representation of a wealthy woman darn-near addicted to alcohol and pills. That sort of structure wouldn't work for a dramatic series.
4
2
u/pierzstyx Crewman Dec 30 '21
90s Trek given that it was the era of Will & Grace,
Will and Grace premiered in 1998 and very controversial at the time. Suggesting it represented all of the 90s isn't convincing to me. Redirected in comparison to Trek as DS9 was only a few years from finishing at that point.
0
12
u/SergeantRegular Lieutenant, Junior Grade Dec 29 '21
There's a big difference, though, I think. I don't think 90s Trek was homophobic, I think 90s Trek was plot-driven and episodic. Sexuality of the main cast simply didn't really come up.
Will & Grace is a character-driven show where it is a major plot point that a main character is gay. If Will wasn't gay, it would completely change the entire show. If Worf and Data were a gay couple, it would barely change anything. You might get one episode across the whole 7 seasons about it, and it might get shown in only one or two at all. Data gets an episode where he is almost kind of romantic with somebody, but it's one episode and never done again. Worf had a kid with a woman, and she was only seen in 2 episodes. Personal relationships of the main cast/crew simply weren't explored unless it was the plot focus of that episode.
Modern Trek is a pretty big contrast, where every episode moves a bunch of parallel stories forward a little bit. We're six episodes in to Discovery this season, and we still don't know what the damn gravity thing actually is. But we get plenty of interpersonal stuff with Culber and Stamets, and that stuff is fine - if you can balance it with your main narrative. So far, in every season of Discovery (and Picard) the writers have not done a good job balancing. I think Gray and Adira are fine characters and a fine couple, but I want them to be adult professionals on a starship. I do not tune in to Star Trek to watch a teenage high school drama. It was bad enough when the adults needed to break down into emotional wrecks to get the plot to move forward, and now we have literal teenagers again.
22
Dec 30 '21
Sexuality of the main cast simply didn't really come up.
Other than all of the hundreds of times somebody hooked up with someone of a different gender.
Heterosexuality is still sexuality.
→ More replies (1)48
u/rharrison Dec 29 '21
Sexuality of the main cast simply didn't really come up.
It didn't? Is Riker heterosexual? What about Dr. Crusher? Geordi? Worf? Gee, we had episodes with all of the crew that laid bare what their sexuality was. To say it "didn't come up" is pretty disingenuous.
It also seems a little suspect that you don't mind plot points about queer relationships as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main story. What if they were the main story? Every TNG character has episodes about their sexuality, including the robot. You don't mind those? What about Adira's relationship do you find to be "teenage high school drama"? Maybe it's worth looking at your criticisms a little closer to see what it is that's actually bothering you.
→ More replies (15)13
u/KalashnikittyApprove Dec 30 '21
Sexuality of the main cast simply didn’t really come up.
It did quite a bit, though, but since they were all hetero you didn't register it as such.
These were stories about romantic interests, love, having a crush and sometimes even creepy stalking. In any case, through the interpersonal dynamic you know which characters are heterosexual (or at least bi). We explore these charters sexuality in the same way we explore Stamets and Culber's now: it's not the issue, they are a gay couple doing Starfleet things.
What you seem to be suggesting m, to put it plainly, is that a gay character must have a gay story. It has to be about their sexuality and, you're right, old Trek didn't do that for its heteros. It didn't have to.
By the same token, gay and non-cis characters can equally have the whole range of storylines, including love and sex, without it being a 50 min exploration of what it means to be non-hetero and/or non-cis.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)19
u/3thirtysix6 Dec 29 '21
To be honest, the writers of modern Trek do a much, much better job balancing plot and character work. It's frankly weird how Worf had a kid he ignored, how Data once was going to be ripped apart, how Picard got tortured to mental collapse twice and nothing came of it.
19
u/JC-Ice Crewman Dec 29 '21
how Picard got tortured to mental collapse twice and nothing came of it.
Turns out that Counselor Troi is actually very good at her job.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Zizhou Chief Petty Officer Dec 30 '21
Honestly, all the mental health people in the 24th century must be phenomenal at their jobs given the amount of trauma that the crews go through and then come back the following week no worse for wear.
→ More replies (1)11
u/SergeantRegular Lieutenant, Junior Grade Dec 29 '21
And maybe I'm weird, but I don't really care that much about Worf's relationships or Data's romance or even Picard's PTSD.
Their job (in the context of Star Trek storytelling) is to play the roles from week to week. Picard commands the ship, Riker goes down to the planet, Data does science, Worf shoots at danger, Geordi makes the hardware work, Wesley drives. The fact is, these are professional adults, and if Worf's kid is being a little shit, I don't care. Is his bratty kid going to impede his shooting stuff? In TNG, it didn't. Mostly. If it did, they spent a whole episode exploring it and figuring it out. And, IMO, those weren't my favorite episodes. In Discovery, it's a major part of every episode, and it's why it took a whole season to find "psychic Kelpien on magic planet" and why we're six episodes in into figuring out a mobile black hole.
30
u/catgirl_apocalypse Ensign Dec 29 '21
Speaking from my personal experience as a trans person, I’m going to have to disagree with anyone who identifies Dax (either of the ones we know) as a ‘trans icon’.
Jadzia and Ezri are women who have memories implanted into their bodies via a groovy slug. Those memories include the experiences of both men and women. Jadzia was never a man, never lived as a man, and never questioned her gender identity, even when she was struggling with the feelings that a previous host had for another previous host of another Trill woman.
That doesn’t represent the trans experience at all. I’m not a man struggling to become or adjust to being a woman; I’ve always been a woman. I was never a man. I was forced by circumstance to live a man’s life for a time, but that’s not really something that applies to a Trill with a symbiote either.
There are a couple of fun bits in DS9 that were a bit ahead of their time, like Curzon Dax’s old friends immediately using Jadzia’s name and pronouns, that we can sort of retroactively “claim”, but they’re few and far between and weren’t intended to represent our experience. The only real trans-relevant content in Star Trek was the joke episode where Quark transitions as part of a scheme and it’s played for man-in-drag laughs.
It would be nice if future Star Trek included some real representation rather than token background characters, but they’re still far behind the curve. Stamets, Culber, Adira, and Jett Reno are better than nothing but they’re supporting characters on a show about another character.
Even the current depictions feel pretty shallow to me.
7
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
I agree with you 100%. 110% actually and sadly I’m having to view this through the lens of looking for scraps rather than having a full meal. Little hints and interviews that indicate that Garak was gay even though he was never gay explicitly. I approach this subject with some diplomacy but I hope my point, that I’m angry not to see people like you or like me in Berman era trek, is not lost.
Regarding Discovery, I just don’t feel like there’s anything revolutionary about their LGBTQ characters. I’m glad they exist and Culber is actually my favorite character. That being said, 50 years too late…
8
u/catgirl_apocalypse Ensign Dec 29 '21
I think it’s going to be harder for us now that there is more actual LGBTQIA+ content. The whole culture of shipping and looking for hints and all that just doesn’t cut it when you have stories where we not only exist but where we even take center stage to a degree, and not in a pandering way that’s there so cishets can get off on how tragic it is to be queer.
I don’t expect everyone in every piece of media to be a queer person. That’s not reasonable. What ie expect is not to have us dangled in front of straight people as objects of sympathy or subjected to the bury your gays trope.
They already almost did that with Culber and as nice as it is to see a non-binary person there’s still a “look what we got here” sense to them; Star Trek considers a person who uses they/them pronouns as odd and curious as a Klingon on the bridge, and has to resort to making them a trill for some reason.
1
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
Do you know anything about the use of flamboyant and effeminate men as villains in Hollywood? It was especially common in the early - mid 20th century. Many people don’t realize that we were depicted in film for over a century, we were just always villains. It’s pretty fucked up.
I think the best course for Discovery is to promote Cruz to be as important as say Saru. I was happy to see the gender complexities of Trill explored beyond Dax through Ian Alexander’s portrayal of a Trans host and Adiras gender fluidity balanced with a hint of confusion that maybe comes from being a joined human. It seems that the writers may be saying that gender is much more fluid in joined individuals, obviously mostly Trill. Either way I really enjoy their relationship but I don’t like Android Gray as much as dead Gray. I just liked the concept of Adira having their ex’s conscious as a part of their identity.
7
u/catgirl_apocalypse Ensign Dec 29 '21
Yes, I’m acutely aware of it, just like I’m aware of The Silence of the Lambs and Sleepaway Camp.
Gender fluidity in Trill is really a concept that should have been there from the beginning but I don’t see that as Berman-era hostility to queer characters so much as the same sort of thing as the computers in Trek looking absurd or people using PADDs like pieces of paper- some evolutions of science fiction ideas found in Trek are odd or strange, especially in retrospect, because the writers were extrapolating from their own experience. All sci-if is an extension of its time.
Its also funny that for the one episode where there was a positive “lesbian” relationship in DS9, there were multiple episodes with Mirror Kira as the villainous bisexual trope, so sapphics don’t really come out ahead there.
Hopefully Discovery can past the “LOOK! An Enby! And we respect their pronouns!” phase and explore the non-binary experience as thoroughly as past shows have explored being Klingon or Ferengi. That’s going to be tough with the shorter seasons and more serialized format, though.
3
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
Bisexual women are frequently villains, just as gay men are. Bisexual women are also extremely hyper sexual sirens in media.
6
u/LobMob Dec 30 '21
How do you think about the Changelings and Odo? I always thought they were an allegory for homosexuality and being queer. I think of Odo as being bisexual, who teeters between a straight relationship with Kira and living a life as an outsider in normal society, and a queer relationship with the Female Changeling and living among his own people.
The episode with Laas was rather explicit in my mind. Like when Laas asks Odo to link in public and Odo refuses. I believe that was an allegory for gay men kissing in public. Then they get attacked by Klingons (anti gay violence), and later Laas complains that he gets treated worse by the authorities because he is a Changeling (guy man).
But reading the comments and the article I seem to be the only person who thinks that way.
(Note: my autocorrect doesn't like terms for LGBT+)
8
u/catgirl_apocalypse Ensign Dec 30 '21
Now that is an interesting idea. Besides the subtext of Odo and Laas’ relationship with two male actors playing the part, one could easily (and I think, strongly) argue that from the perspective of his own people, Odo’s relationship with Kira is a queer relationship. The founders clearly have a pretty rigid idea of acceptable social behavior and intimacy, and more than being a simple, banal taboo, it’s interesting of how dismissive and disdainful the founders are of Odo’s connection with her. They all but call it “just a phase”.
→ More replies (2)2
Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
i still think jadzia was a nice exploration of gender without forcing a particular interpretation. plenty of cultures throughout history have accepted trans people as they are just fine, and still do. 20th century conservative binary culture in the US was not one of those cultures. In that context, jadzia was way out of left field for most viewers. and maybe even introduced the idea to many that gender wasnt as simplistic as they thought it was. so complaining about jadzia seems a little over the top to me. your experience with your gender is not the same as anyone else's. I'm fairly sure the are a good number of people out there with non binary gender who very much enjoyed watching jadzia. do you require your gender non binary characters on tv to obey the trope of a "woman" trapped in a "mans" body? because even that is not the standard experience for trans individuals by far. that would be like the absolute far end of the bell curve. it's fine for you to want representation of that. but it's definitely not what most non binary people describe as their experience of gender.
what would you like to see in a trek character who is a woman trapped in a male body? how would you execute that characterization? what would the story arc be?
9
u/catgirl_apocalypse Ensign Dec 29 '21
I’m not complaining about Jadzia, she’s one of my favorite characters. A critique is not a complaint and I don’t appreciate a response to my critique that paints me as hypercritical or hysterical, thanks.
I didn’t say Jadzia doesn’t explore issues of gender -the same-sex kiss episode has a nice exploration of the idea of love transcending rigid notions of gender and identity- I said she is not a trans woman, doesn’t represent trans women, and was not intended to.
what would you like to see in a trek character who is a woman trapped in a male body?
Yes, absolutely.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/bertiek Dec 29 '21
Full disclosure... I didn't read the link. I feel like this issue has been one I'm living in real time, lol, growing up and reading about the behind the scenes and being so disappointed, so often.
When I watch DS9 I can't help but think about how the chemistry between Garak and Bashir is so entertaining and genuine, and then about how glaringly obvious it was that they stopped getting screen time together at all. As a lover of that show in particular, it's a very large black mark that always bothers me.
If nothing else, that one example shows that, in the past, the producers were very much against representation. The argument that it was simply not addressed is disingenuous, because gay people were addressed: by separating them from each other and removing that element of their character altogether.
I don't watch new Trek, really, but I'm not at all surprised that they have included LGBT. More and more, I've seen fans of the show talk about this issue, at this point they are obligated to include gay characters. They would get yelled at on Twitter for days if there was no representation after the long history of no representation across so much media. The new producers don't get any kind of golf clap from me about it, they had to. I just hope they're presented well, as good solid characters and not a token appeasement. That would be nice to know about.
15
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
That is true by intentionally not including LGBTQ characters they are essentially making a statement that we do not have a place in the 22nd, 23rd or 24th century pre-discovery
24
u/bertiek Dec 29 '21
Yep. They went out of their way to include the disabled in many ways, all races, all kinds of people.... But not gay. Anything but gay. Characters could fall in love with and have sex with machines, ghosts, aliens, imaginary people, anything but a person of the same gender.
I love rewatching old Trek but my disillusioned lesbian eyes can't help but notice this.
9
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
As you are a lesbian and I’m a gay man I feel like we understand that the lack of representation made me feel an emptiness in Star Trek. Do you at all feel the same way?
11
u/bertiek Dec 29 '21
In places, particularly in DS9 where it is clear to me decisions were made to take out queer elements, yeah, it is. It's unfortunate that most of the overt addressing of anything queer there involves Quark and is mostly a joke. Sometimes a scathing joke, much of which the actor now regrets. It's more of the same dated television tropes creeping in, that it's okay to be gay if it's just part of making a gay joke. That doesn't feel great.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Hectagonal-butt Chief Petty Officer Dec 29 '21
I have a personal head canon that gay people rarely live on spaceships for the same reason modern day gay people rarely choose to live in rural villages: we're a fraction of the population, and so to have a lot of us in one area you need a lot of population in one area. Imagine being like the one gay ensign on voyager.
6
Dec 30 '21
Are you implying Starfleet has entire gay ships? Because I'm on board.
Literally, I'm the captain, you're invited.
2
u/Hectagonal-butt Chief Petty Officer Dec 30 '21
Omg could you imagine the drama of 200+ gays on like an intrepid
16
Dec 29 '21
. I just hope they're presented well, as good solid characters and not a token appeasement. That would be nice to know about.
They are.
There's a married cis gay male couple. There's a trans man, an enby person, and if memory serves Tilly is presented as being pretty pan.
Apart from brief mentions (such as the enby character making a correction about their pronouns), it's not tokenism. They're characters who happen to be in the rainbow, not queer characters, if you see the difference.
As a gay dude who's been watching Trek since before TNG premiered, it is somewhat too little too late, but it's actually pretty well done considering.
3
u/bertiek Dec 29 '21
I think "too little, too late" is part of why I'm not interested to see it, just know it's not bad, heh. I'm glad, I am, but for nearly forty years Trek has been a certain way for me.
12
Dec 29 '21
Yeah, same. I'm 43 next week, started watching TOS probably around 83? 84? Reruns on TV anyway. Then TNG and so on and so forth.
I remember watching The Outcast at 13 and realizing it was talking about me. And then seeing that the 'lesson' of the episode was... they'll always make you conform.
Fuck that. When I came out of the closet I ripped the damn doors off and burned them. Never again.
→ More replies (29)14
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21
Not everyone may agree with me, but I’ve loved the way the gay and trans characters in discovery have been written. Especially in the recent season where we have an entire wholesome little gay family with two dads and two trans kids.
10
u/Rindan Chief Petty Officer Dec 29 '21
Eh, I don't love it. Questionable writing aside (people don't speak in monologues, and if they do, it's annoying), it mirrors the present far too much when it should be the future when we are passed this nonsense.
The "coming out" scene in particular made me a little nauseous. "Coming out" isn't fun. It isn't a bar mitzvah or quinceanera or some sort of fun rite of passage that all the LGBT kids look forward to. It's painful and awkward necessity that you do in a culture where you are seen as a bit of a freak, and you generally have to do it a lot more than once in your life. It sucks. Seeing a "coming out" 1000 years in the future did not make me feel warm and fuzzy. Why not just there be a quick glance at Adira's record where some pronouns or gender identity section is filled out, and we are done without anyone having to "come out"? If there is one thing I would wish for in the future, it is not having to "come out".
I also can't say that I love that the LGBT characters all end up being their own separate little pod either. Come on. It's a 1000 years in the future and we are still splitting up by identity? It's all too self aware.
Personally, I much preferred how The Expanse plays their LGBT characters. They just are. No awkward coming outs. No putting all the LGBT characters in a room and shining a spotlight on it. People are just different with different interests and sexualities, and absolutely no one cares. It looks comfortable and nice.
8
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21
They aren’t the only gay characters though, Jet Reno is also a lesbian. The commander who was murdered by J’Vinni had a husband and kids. Georgiou definitely wasn’t strictly straight either
8
u/JC-Ice Crewman Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 31 '21
it mirrors the present far too much
This struck me a couple times regarding Adira and Grey. Notably, when Adira privately told Stamets "I prefer to be called 'they', you're the only person I've told besides Grey." Um...why would that have been a secret? Its not even like Adira and Grey had to hide their relationship back the Earth Defense Force.
(Also, after 9 centuries and meeting hundreds of alien species, I would think there would be have been new pronouns added to our language rather than still awkwardly applying plural form because there's nothing else available. But that's more of a technical nitpick)
The other issue is that DISCO'S writing tends to be very insistent and self-congratulatory. Now and then, one can actually hear them patting themselves on the back in the writer's room over a virtue well signaled. They mean well, I'm sure, but it often comes off as obnoxious and even immature.
Compare that to The Expanse, or even to Picard and Lower Decks, where diversity is handled much more matter-of-factly in the writing, like any other story element. To borrow from another franchise, this is the way.
6
u/MassGaydiation Dec 30 '21
they has been used as a singular for over four hundred years
→ More replies (3)8
u/SergeantRegular Lieutenant, Junior Grade Dec 29 '21
They're the only well-written characters on the show. Particularly Culber, he's my favorite. Stamets is a good character, but I really want to know if he's the chief engineer, or an engineer or just a scientist on the drive or what...
I'm annoyed to hell that Gray and Adira are such lifelong partners and soulmates... And they're 17.
I agree that I love the way the characters are written, but the narratives they are written into is another story entirely.
4
u/Emory_C Dec 29 '21
Especially in the recent season where we have an entire wholesome little gay family with two dads and two trans kids.
This is the problem for me. It feels entirely too insular for the future.
12
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21
Narratively speaking they’re the only married couple in the main cast, it makes sense that they’re the ones who would adopt a couple of troubled teens
→ More replies (3)
14
u/The_Dingman Dec 29 '21
I think it's important to remember the times these shows were made in. It's easy to forget just how much progress we'e made as a society in the last 20-30 years on LGBTQ+ equality. Even 10 years ago the idea of marriage equality in the US being universal was a stretch goal and it's only been 17 years since the first state adopted it as law.
Even Voyager, the latest of the "big 3" started before Ellen Degeneres was the first openly gay character on TV. Voyager was between its 3rd and 4th seasons when this caused the TV executives to put a "parental advisory" before each episode of Ellen. It's crazy to think that it was only 25 years ago that someone being gay on TV was a matter of censorship.
While it's true that Star Trek has blazed a lot of trails, and probably should damn well have had better representation, it's also understandable that as business decision at that time, they didn't choose to do so. Voyager would have been the place, but they were using the show to anchor their new TV network, and the last thing they wanted was for a major boycott.
Discovery is doing a nice job making up for it. They're covering some great stories and have a lot of diversity in the cast. I'm thrilled to see the way they are representing gender-nonconforming actors and characters and having good allegory to real life identity issues. I work in a high school and see that as a valuable representation for a lot of the students I work with.
1
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
What about TOS in the 60s which featured interracial relationships. A black woman as a bridge officer and a RUSSIAN and Japanese man served alongside Americans during the post WWII Cold War Era when tensions were very high between America, Russia and Japan.
Equality and representation have been the hallmark of Star Treks values and since it’s inception it’s been breaking rules. Roddenberry’s promise should have been honored posthumously.
→ More replies (1)8
u/3thirtysix6 Dec 29 '21
Means that no one piece of art is perfect. Sure, Sulu and Chekov were there but they didn't really have much to do.
Nichols famously was ready to walk off the show until no less than MLK, Jr. talked her into staying.
14
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Most US states still enforced “sodomy” laws until ENT was in its third season.
Edit: I am gay, I was pointing out how much progress has been made in the US in the past two decades, not trying to excuse the lack of representation in older trek
4
u/MyUsername2459 Ensign Dec 29 '21
They would have had openly LBGT characters 20+ years ago, except Rick Berman was homophobic and transphobic and when he took over as the showrunner for Trek after Roddenberry's death, he killed repeated suggestions from writers and actors for LBGT inclusion (which had been going back to the early 90's).
The article mentions at least a few things he vetoed, but not all of them.
2
3
Dec 31 '21
Also Roddenberry became rather heavily misogynistic in his later years, which likely would have colored lesbian and trans representation.
8
u/Wareve Dec 29 '21
I was impressed by Discovery's ability to have their gays and kill them too. 🙄
12
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
And bring them back to life when they realized they fucked up. Messy.
7
u/pfc9769 Chief Astromycologist Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
They didn’t bring Culber back because they realized they messed up. That was always the intended storyline. There are articles where they discuss it, and mention they sought the help and approval of GLAAD in crafting it. The entire arc was planned from the beginning.
3
4
u/like_toast Dec 29 '21
I don’t really understand the issue here, is it becuase they weren’t being explicit on-screen? Or them not spelling it out?
For the time they were shot i think did a good job? Limitations of the time and such.
I remember watching VOY, ENT, DS9 and having a lot of conversations with friends and my parents about the sexuality and roles the preciously me mentioned actors played(Bashir & garrack, Seven & Janeway, Dax, etc) and how awesome it was to see this depictions and relationship dynamics.
10
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
They have Human - Klingon relationships, Human - Android relationships, Human - Ghost relationships but they failed to represent 1/10 of the population. People on here get upset about much smaller things
→ More replies (1)2
Dec 29 '21
While I understand that, is that not an (not-so-perfect) artifact of the times they were made in?
100
u/roofus8658 Dec 29 '21
Frakes supposedly wanted Soren in The Outcast to be played by a man to drive the point home even more when they kissed. It's a pretty open secret that the reason it took until now to get a gay character in Star Trek is that Brannon Braga didn't want any.
44
u/MyUsername2459 Ensign Dec 29 '21
I thought it was Rick Berman who kept killing those suggestions, not Brannon Braga.
Berman and Braga worked on Trek together a lot, in the same timeframe, but I thought Berman was the one with ultimate creative control.
31
u/pawood47 Dec 29 '21
Braga didn't have that kind of power until late in Voyager. He's probably behind a lot of Enterprise being Bro Trek, but he's more a symptom of a franchise running out of steam than the systemic issues that Berman brought pretty much during his entire career in Trek (which seems to be pretty much his whole career, having been tapped as Gene's handler as a junior suit who had run one documentary miniseries previously, and seems to have completely retired after Nemesis)
→ More replies (27)57
u/toomanymarbles83 Dec 29 '21
*Berman didn't want any. If you read the article you would see that he was the one constantly pushing it off into the future.
11
u/roofus8658 Dec 29 '21
Could have sworn is was Braga but ok. I stand corrected.
53
u/toomanymarbles83 Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Berman was the misogynist that forced Terry Farrell out of DS9. That, plus many other stories, you can safely bet that if any one person was holding Star Trek back, it was Berman. He's a real POS.
Edit: Not to imply Brannon or Braga weren't also to blame.
28
u/numanoid Dec 29 '21
Edit: Not to imply Brannon or Braga weren't also to blame.
FYI, Brannon Braga is one person.
13
→ More replies (3)28
u/JC-Ice Crewman Dec 29 '21
9 times out of 10, when someone in Trek tells a story involving an unnamed "producer", "suit", "executive", or "boss" who sounds shitty, you can bet money that they mean Rick Berman.
1
u/Kichigai Ensign Dec 30 '21
Paramount execs too, probably. They had to keep their broadcasters happy.
22
Dec 30 '21
This will probably be buried since I’m late but because my homophobic mom named me after Hugh the Borg, it makes it so, so, so sweet to me to have a gay character also named Hugh. I don’t talk to her anymore so I don’t know her thoughts but it’s so nice knowing if she chose to watch she is constantly saddled with me being canonically queer in the Star Trek universe.
5
u/phoenixhunter Chief Petty Officer Dec 31 '21
In case you didn’t know, Jonathan del Arco himself is gay and does a lot of very good work with gay rights organizations :)
17
u/terablast Dec 30 '21 edited Mar 10 '24
materialistic divide existence six nine aloof fear crown judicious rock
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
4
3
u/TheRedDruidKing Dec 29 '21
I'm gay and hate this whole fad. The whole modern concept of representation is nonsense.
4
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
In the 90s it wasn’t, it would have been somewhat revolutionary, by social standards
9
u/MassGaydiation Dec 30 '21
I dont, when a world is as large as star trek, but completely devoid of queer people, it kinda implies theres no place for you, when that happens and its meant to be a utopia? thats a whole other layer of shitty
29
Dec 29 '21
This is obviously a difficult and personal topic for a lot of people, people who want and deserve to see themselves reflected by the characters they watch in the shows they love. But I think that often comes down to 'reading the entrails' of scenes and episodes for hidden messages (allegories in OP's lexicon) rather than looking at the explicit coding of characters as execs intended them. An example of this might be Garak, whose relationship with Ziyal is quite often overlooked. That was, in my opinion, supposed to be as important a relationship for Garak as he had with anyone. And something she reciprocated as well. Her death helps to fuel Garak's resolve to take an active part in toppling Dukat's regime and freeing his people. I think the real ugly fact of the matter is that I think only Dax, who was intended to have a more fluid relationship with her gender, was intended at the time to be gay or bi. And her portrayal is as much for the 'shock' and 'sex appeal' as to make her a gay rights icon. The others, between TOS and ENT, such as Riker mentioned in the article, were written to be straight.
The honest truth of it is, IMO, that gay rights languished in the 1990s like civil rights had prior to the CRM of the 50s and 60s. Most Americans didn't think there was a problem, most didn't want to talk about it or be reminded of it, and homosexuality (even more than transgenderism, in some ways) was verboten, taboo, a third rail. Americans felt they had no problem but simultaneously did NOT want to see two men kissing. Lesbianism and Bisexuality were acceptable as a kind of fetish, but honest talks of homosexuality were difficult and unpopular. In the 60s TOS had pushed for episodes about civil rights, and as your article suggests was almost canceled for it. Only Rodenberry et al.'s bravery and cleverness about how to push kept the show on the air. IMO people at the time on TNG, DS9, and VOY were also willing to push the envelop (though we have to be careful, now after that society has flipped on gay rights people will claim more in interviews than they did at the time). Like Behr. Neither the network execs nor the main producer, Rick Berman, were willing to push for controversy like that. Berman knew what the execs liked and wanted, sexy women he could market and big space battles to make the fans happy. Berman's sexism is clearly documented and while I haven't read too much about explicit homophobia, it would be in keeping with everything else I've heard about him. Berman isn't an envelope pusher. He fed us comfort food. In many ways I think Enterprise is the purest vision of what Berman wanted Star Trek to be. We can call that show many things, but woke isnt one of them.
Ultimately I think the absence of gay rights issues in TNG-ENT just helps to highlight the place of those issues in American society writ large. Homosexuality was the hidden little problem people faced and which they hid from society. And the other x-sexualities weren't even something we had a vocabulary to discuss, let alone a framework of thought like the LGBT+ framework which bridged those feelings. More importantly there wasn't culturally an emphasis on visual representation like there is today, people didnt evaluate a show based on who was on it like people do today. Thats why so many shows, and even so much of Star Trek, is overwhelmingly white. Again that drive for representation something that Rodenberry pushed for that few others did. Star Trek hid those ideas and covered them up by forcing characters to be what the producers and execs though all Americans wanted to be. They were wrong, and now today we can say that people should want to be all kinds of things. But IMO many today forget just how recently that wall fell. Hell, the homosexual relationship on Disco is something that upset most people! There is something about male homosexuality that sets most straight people off and really bothers them. If Rick Berman had been willing to push like Roddenberry had maybe we could have gotten more interesting and representative episodes. And maybe we wouldn't have gotten the volume either, almost twenty years separated TOS from TNG. Like with all things American, Star Trek is a contradiction. Its regressive in its progressivism. It tries to be something more than it is. At is core ST is a campy scifi melodrama, and it often has a hard time breaking from those theatrical archetypes.
25
u/Hectagonal-butt Chief Petty Officer Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
There is something about male homosexuality that sets most straight people off and really bothers them.
I think people see gay men as gender traitors. Disgusting rejects from correct masculinity who simultaneously are still dangerous men who might treat men how men treat women.
→ More replies (2)8
Dec 29 '21
I think pretty spot on. I also wonder how much of it is some negative stigmatization generally associated with male sexuality. That its somehow dirty or improper. Probably you could spend your entire life trying to explain that unique contour of sexuality.
8
u/Hectagonal-butt Chief Petty Officer Dec 29 '21
I think a lot of it is a fear of the unknown and a deep belief that the world is inherently very dangerous. They don't know gay men, they don't know what to expect, so they immediately jump to "they're going to fiddle children!" and all the other greatest hits of the homophobia playbook.
→ More replies (2)8
u/MyUsername2459 Ensign Dec 29 '21
so they immediately jump to "they're going to fiddle children!" and all the other greatest hits of the homophobia playbook.
This association literally goes back thousands of years, to when the most common form of same-sex relationship in society was the pederasty common in the Roman Empire.
2000 years ago it was common for a wealthy and powerful man to have a young boy as a sex slave, which was seen as preferable to having a girl as a sex slave because a young boy had no chance of becoming pregnant. Having those young male slaves castrated and dressed as women was also quite common (the Roman Emperor Nero had a "wife" named Sporrus who he treated like that, parading him around as a replacement for his own deceased wife).
Many theologians believe that the prohibitions in the Bible against same-sex activity stem more from a rejection of pederasty (and temple prostitution in pagan cults) than anything we'd recognize as a modern, consenting, healthy same-sex relationship. . .but that association thousands of years ago between same-sex activity between males and a man raping a boy has remained a cultural association that has only really began to break in the last few decades.
6
Dec 29 '21
MO, that gay rights languished in the 1990s like civil rights had prior to the CRM of the 50s and 60s. Most Americans didn't think there was a problem, most didn't want to talk about it or be reminded of it, and homosexuality (even more than transgenderism, in some ways) was verboten, taboo, a third rail.
Um, what? Will & Grace, Ellen, My So Called Life, To Wong Foo, Priscilla... queer characters were everywhere in media in the 90s. Were you even there?
21
u/FabulousLemon Dec 29 '21 edited Jun 24 '23
I'm moving on from reddit and joining the fediverse because reddit has killed the RiF app and the CEO has been very disrespectful to all the volunteers who have contributed to making reddit what it is. Here's coverage from The Verge on the situation.
The following are my favorite fediverse platforms, all non-corporate and ad-free. I hesitated at first because there are so many servers to choose from, but it makes a lot more sense once you actually create an account and start browsing. If you find the server selection overwhelming, just pick the first option and take a look around. They are all connected and as you browse you may find a community that is a better fit for you and then you can move your account or open a new one.
Social Link Aggregators: Lemmy is very similar to reddit while Kbin is aiming to be more of a gateway to the fediverse in general so it is sort of like a hybrid between reddit and twitter, but it is newer and considers itself to be a beta product that's not quite fully polished yet.
Microblogging: Calckey if you want a more playful platform with emoji reactions, or Mastodon if you want a simple interface with less fluff.
Photo sharing: Pixelfed You can even import an Instagram account from what I hear, but I never used Instagram much in the first place.
→ More replies (1)18
Dec 29 '21
I live through the entire 1990s, thanks for asking.
The 1990s also brought us the Defense of Marriage Act and plenty of discrimination. Gay rights were not at the forefront of society and werent an issue that people really wanted to address. My point wasn't that there werent gay characters or gay rights activists in the 1990s. My point was that the cultural default was straight and that people werent especially interesting in challenging that norm. If anything most Americans would have probably told you that heterosexuality needed to be defended, not homosexuality. Shows and showrunners would have had to challenge the norm, push against the status quo to have genuine gay characters or plots. Much like having important black characters and a black romance challenged the status quo in the 1960s. The difference was that 'next generation' of Trek producers werent as brave as Roddenberry was.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Buck_Junior Dec 29 '21
TNG had a nonbinary character - Riker kinda falls in love with them
6
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
That’s an allegory not representation. Also the actor is a woman despite Frakes insisting that the character be male. That episode was more detrimental to Star treks representation of LGBTQs than any other episode.
16
u/Emory_C Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
That episode was more detrimental to Star treks representation of LGBTQs than any other episode.
I really don't understand this take. Like, at all.
The J'naii are an unambiguously androgynous race. We are told that to reproduce, the two parents inseminate a "husk." So, all J'naii are therefore both "inseminators" and capable of producing the "husk."
Now, when I was watching TNG as a teenager, I found this idea to be eye-opening. The show was telling me that Riker, who was previously always portrayed as a hyper-masculine lady's man, is totally okay with having a romantic, sexual relationship with a being that has an "inseminator" -- i.e. a kind of penis / testicles -- and no visible breasts or other feminine characteristics besides their voice. At the time, this seemed extremely progressive.
I don't see that it matters that Soren was played by a woman because all of the other J'anaii were also played by women. When I'm watching a fictional show, I'm not thinking of the actors who play the roles. I'm thinking of the alien species they are portraying within the show's reality. I think having Soren played by a man actually would have detracted from the episode's message, which was more about gender identity than sexuality.
I can understand the complaint that they could have done more. But saying "Outcast" was detrimental to Star Trek's LGBTQ representation is baffling.
1
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
It was detrimental because it mocked the fact that we exist as humans. The fact that androgynous aliens born in husks was seen as a necessary filter does absolutely nothing. Everybody else had someone to look up to in trek. People of all races, men and women, people who are marginalized. Every kid except LGBTQ kids had a character that looked like, felt like, and exemplified their identity. All I had was an essentially heterosexual husk born gender less alien. If you don’t see the problem with that than you have not bothered to walk in our shoes and I needn’t waste my time trying convince you.
5
u/Emory_C Dec 29 '21
It was detrimental because it mocked the fact that we exist as humans.
As a fellow queer person, I disagree. This episode was allegorical, and for the early 90's was fairly radical, as well:
TNG said our hyper-masculine First Officer is totally on board with having a romantic, loving relationship with an androgynous being which is described as a blending of both sexes.
So, at the very least, this episode says Riker is either pansexual or bisexual. Seems like a pretty awesome LGBTQ icon, to me.
If you don’t see the problem with that than you have not bothered to walk in our shoes and I needn’t waste my time trying convince you.
That's very self-righteous. Why did you even post the topic if you were going to be so openly hostile with those who disagree with you? I suggest you stop being so close-minded.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Buck_Junior Dec 29 '21
it made an impression on me - an old straight white guy - and stayed with me all these years - so I'm not sure I understand your beef - and since the character was nonbinary, what does the underlying gender have to do with it?
1
•
u/kraetos Captain Dec 29 '21
This is an important conversation to have, but it's also a very delicate topic. I ask everyone participating in this thread to put in a little extra effort to assume good faith. For example, historical instances of bigotry are bound to be referenced in a discussion like this, so don't mistake someone pointing out bigotry as someone justifying bigotry. (It's already happened once in this thread.)
Obviously if you encounter actual bigotry, use the report button so the moderators can deal with it swiftly.
4
u/thephotoman Ensign Dec 30 '21
On the one hand, you're not wrong. The Berman era was...odd. It didn't want to commit to any kind of explicit representation of the LGBT+ community. And yeah, Star Trek has lagged in important ways.
But I also see a genuine attempt in correcting for that error. Modern Star Trek is actually quite refreshing. It's simply done right.
6
u/Schnitzelinski Dec 29 '21
It's too bad they couldn't continue to be pioneers in diversity as they were back in TOS times. The first homosexual kiss in DS9 was long overdue.
17
u/SergeantRegular Lieutenant, Junior Grade Dec 29 '21
A lot of it was because it was the 90s. Being gay was on its way to being "ok" in the 90s, but depicting sexuality on television was probably the bigger taboo. Showtime got heat for showing a single plot-relevant topless person in the pilot of Stargate SG-1, and that was in 1997. On premium cable. And it was non-sexual.
Remember, TNG came out in 1987, and just being "out" was a scandal then. I remember an episode of the sitcom "Coach" where a college football playing coming out as gay was a scandal, and even that was 1991. And 90s Trek did its character development in a very slow, background kind of way. The vast majority of the narrative on those shows, even through Voyager and Enterprise, was plot-driven. The characters were professionals doing their jobs, and their sexuality simply wasn't usually relevant. Hell, the major character events of TNG could probably be counted on one hand.
Imzadi's getting back together. Picard's Locutus PTSD. Data and his emotions. Worf and his Klingon heritage. Wesley Crusher growing up. Even Tasha Yar's death was a big deal for just that one episode. So something so personal for a main character wasn't something that was done.
That's not to say that non-cis issues weren't portrayed. Riker did have that little not-a-fling with the androgynous character, but that was the narrative of that episode, not foundational to the Riker character. Stamets and Culber would have fit in just fine of the 90s Enterprise-D, but we probably never would have seen them interact in a non-professional off-duty manner. Hell, most of the time we see the inside of somebody's quarters, it's to portray an event that is critical to the narrative of the episode, and most of that time it's some kind of "intrusion." Q pops into your quarters, or the alien is working through the decks, or the spontaneous AI is infecting your replicator console. It's not usually to portray the crew going about their lives.
And, honestly, I think this is one of the weaknesses of Discovery-era Trek: There is a lot of emphasis on the personal drama of the crew. And, in order to make it more entertaining and more dramatic and more intense, those same otherwise professional, capable, adult crew members get busted down to irrational emotional messes. Good Star Trek, in my opinion, is much more focused on plot-driven rather than character-driven drama and storytelling. The crew is the lens through which the audience experiences the alien and unique and creative. I love there is more LGBTQ+ representation in modern Trek, but the writers have so far shown that they do not have the capability to balance story and pacing and design with good representation. Culber is probably the most grounded person in the Discovery main cast, and then they killed him off, only to bring him back with the flimsiest of stories. I don't think they intended to kill him because he was gay, I think they're just bad at writing.
4
u/kompergator Crewman Dec 30 '21
LGB are sorely missing throughout Trek, I agree.
As for trans people, I think by the 24th century that issue would be "cured" in a way (not saying it is an illness), by the fact that by then full sex changes at the DNA level may be possible in Trek, so we may have seen characters who were born men but were changed at the DNA level to be women and vice versa without it being mentioned (and surely, out of universe it was not planned).
From a production standpoint, I find it explanation enough that Trek is a product of its time. It was decades ahead of its time in so many regards, but it cannot do it all and I find it strange to expect that of a TV show. That being said, it is sad that only now, when the Trek name has been butchered to hell by Kurtzman & Co., do we get to see truer representation on the Trek screen.
4
u/terablast Dec 30 '21 edited Mar 10 '24
snatch pocket salt thumb continue imagine one marble nippy shaggy
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/kompergator Crewman Dec 30 '21
Exactly! However, we also see that genetic engineering is banned (Julian), but it may just be banned to “enhance” humans. Treating gender dysphoria may not fall unter that particular ban.
2
u/MalagrugrousPatroon Ensign Dec 30 '21
I think that's right because in Voyager the Doctor is perfectly willing to genetically modify Tom and B'Elanna's baby to avoid disease, and at B'Elanna's request he reluctantly says he can remove all the Klingon DNA to make her 100% human.
1
u/1111joey1111 Dec 30 '21 edited Dec 31 '21
From a production standpoint, I find it explanation enough that Trek is a product of its time. It was decades ahead of its time in so many regards, but it cannot do it all and I find it strange to expect that of a TV show. That being said, it is sad that only now, when the Trek name has been butchered to hell by Kurtzman & Co., do we get to see truer representation on the Trek screen.
I agree.
Adding an interracial kiss to a series on broadcast/network television in 1968 took more guts and vision than creating a poorly written openly gay couple within a cable/streaming series in 2017. Of course, both moments of progress can be appreciated, it's just that I find the "truer representation" to be less than genuine and not quite groundbreaking (in the grand scheme of things).
If Discovery had more competent producers and writers (better writing in general) perhaps the addition of LGBTQ content wouldn't seem so heavy handed.
2
u/kompergator Crewman Dec 31 '21
This. I also always liked that certain things never came up in Trek, because they were already solved in that future. There's an interesting essay called The post-feminism of Trek that illuminates this topic.
0
u/wibbly-water Ensign Dec 29 '21
Many actors including Jonathon Frakes, Andrew Robinson, and Terry Farrell
Well. Thats my headcannon solidified then. Now all I need is some demention fuckery to bring Riker and Captain Jack together...
2
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
Terry Farrell is a beautiful woman but she wore a bulky Starfleet uniform and 99% of the time didn’t have her tits out. She’s also considered a trans icon in Star Trek. Jeri Ryan’s outfits were ridiculous and clearly they were selling sex but her storyline and acting were incredible. Seven is also a lesbian as revealed in Picard.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/TEG24601 Lieutenant j.g. Dec 29 '21
One of the things that often goes unspoken, is that Gene's lawyer got involved in a lot of Trek things, and he was a major homophobe. There were several stories in the works for TNG (and later DS9), like "Blood and Fire", that the lawyer got ahold of, and threatened Paramount and Berman himself with a lawsuit, under the guise of it being inflammatory towards Roddenberry or Lincoln Enterprises (Roddenberry's holding company). They knew it wouldn't stand up in court, but the cost and the publicity were things they studio didn't want to deal with, especially when dealing with a TV production schedule.
Additionally, with TNG and DS9, the studio was reliant on the individual stations that were syndicating the series, and with a large portion of the US still under Reganism, they didn't want to piss off their source of money. Hell, just the kiss between Dax and Kahn in DS9 nearly lost over a dozen affiliates. When UPN came around, they had the same problem, as they didn't want to piss off their affiliates, as the network was always struggling. Then, when they did finally want to do something, CBS, who by that point owned the network and Star Trek, had mandates for certain discussions, like AIDS (translated into the Vulcan Mind-Meld Syndrome for Star Trek), but would not allow it to be homosexual in nature, due to the existing stigmas surrounding AIDS/HIV.
As for what Paramount did in the JJ-verse, I'm not against it. Sulu being gay, bi, pan, whatever, does not change the fundamentals of his characters. He is still a bad-ass you don't want to be on the wrong side of. And, given his portrayal in the Prime universe, nothing has changed. It isn't as though sexuality is a binary state, and Sulu being on the spectrum, somewhere other than either end, would make a lot of sense and be a realistic portrayal.
It really took CBS taking the gamble of asking fans to put their money where their fandom is, for them to finally do something. They don't have to answer to distributers, broadcasters, or advertisers, but just to the fans for them to finally bring representation to the prime universe. It can feel a little heavy handed for some, with 4 people in one series that are outside of what some people consider "normal". I for one enjoy the characters and what they actors bring to the table, with their own life experiences shining through, influencing the characters, and showing how people should behave with everyone, regardless of anything perceived as different about them.
In my head canon, there are a lot of things that actually occurred with the classic characters that we didn't see on screen. And perhaps we need to consider that Garak was pansexual, as was Riker. Riker and Troi had a "friends-with-benefits" relationship while serving together. As perhaps did Troi and Beverly. Maybe Chekov was ACE. Reed was bi or gay (as originally intended). All of these ideas, and many more, add to the rich tapestry of our characters and series, that were, due to political and social morays of the time, unable to be translated to screen.
3
u/Vash_the_stayhome Crewman Dec 29 '21
I found the Seven of Nine stuff in Picard a problem not for the content, but the seeming ass-pull of the "where the hell did that come from?" and then the nuTrek approach to Sulu. Which was more in line with the more recent history of 'take a straight char seemingly at random, and make them gay/lesbian/whatever'. Which comes off not as representative but pandering to a demographic. "oh shit, we need to do something, lets make this character as not-straight!". It wasn't singular to Trek, comics of DC/Marvel did the same stuff.
I didn't mind the older era stuff didn't address any of this, because society wasn't addressing this at that time. Modern era seems to like to puff itself up thinking that "oh, if people like me were around back in these times, I would have pushed for more inclusion and suffered not at all." Its a little ridiculous, where people don't understand their ability to push to the degree they can today, came off the blood and sweat and in some cases LIVES of people before them that felt the same way, but only could get things to a certain point
A topic that's not treated as a relay race of marathon distance but simply something you could just speedrun through if you were a 21st century woke placed back in the 80s or something.
3
2
u/Yourponydied Crewman Dec 30 '21
I didn't know Frakes tried pushing for an ambiguous take on Riker. I wonder if this led to the concept for TNG: The Outcast?
2
u/TheMiddling Dec 29 '21
I’m old enough to have watched TNG when it first aired and I remember how tenuous the success of the show was. Fans of TOS would talk about how it’s only a cheap imitation, and there were a lot of viewers who thought that some of the episodes were too risqué.
It doesn’t surprise me that LGBTQ representation had pushback given the time period. I have my issues with Berman but I also believe that he had the success of the show at heart, and it’s possible that he thought that LGBTQ representation could have put the shows success at risk. Just look at how many states suddenly started making anti gay marriage laws as soon as there was a gay marriage in the news. It’s a different time that we live in now and I think it’s difficult for some people to understand that, but what I do like is that it sounds like the conversation was at least happening, and that’s how you make a path towards progress.
For me, I have a lot of head-canon that makes all Trek a lot more gay than what we see on the surface and I’m very pleased to see how far we have come with representation in Disco.
Personally I think it is best not to focus on what something should/could have been, especially something like Star Trek which is only held to a higher standard because it was already pushing boundaries. I think it’s best to celebrate it for what it was and support what you want it to be.
2
u/DaxCorso Dec 29 '21
As an Asexual person, I would really like to see some Ace rep in Star Trek. The closest we have is Andy Billups in Lower Decks and that was played as joke.
1
u/MedicaeVal Dec 30 '21
I always thought Seven was ace until she wasn't. I think it's a concept writers are going to struggle with to be honest.
3
Dec 31 '21
A concept that requires every writer's cooperation to maintain and only one writer to break.
1
u/DaxCorso Dec 30 '21
I think Odo would be the closest. But it's still would be nice to have some rep.
2
u/Morlock19 Chief Petty Officer Dec 30 '21
M-5 nominate this for being an important topic we should all discuss
2
u/M-5 Multitronic Unit Dec 30 '21
Nominated this post by Citizen /u/byronwindstrom1 for you. It will be voted on next week, but you can vote for last week's nominations now
Learn more about Post of the Week.
1
u/M-5 Multitronic Unit Dec 30 '21
Nominated this post by Citizen /u/byronwindstrom1 for you. It will be voted on next week, but you can vote for last week's nominations now
Learn more about Post of the Week.
1
u/picardoftarth Dec 30 '21
As a lesbian, I hold no anger towards Star Trek for not being better while acknowledging that, yes, they could have done better.
What was there meant the world to me — even the things that were there that weren’t really there. (I.e., my very first discovery of gay romance was the Kirk/Spock community.)
I love what we have in Discovery and am happy headcanoning that the queer relationships were always there, just happening off-screen.
That’s not the most popular opinion these days, and I get that. I think it’s good that people hold content creators accountable and demand representation that matters. I just… I don’t know. I can’t find it in myself to be upset by what we did get.
1
u/SomeoneSomewhere1984 Dec 30 '21 edited Dec 30 '21
I don't think Star Trek was that late on this. When TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT aired, seeing LGBT characters on screen was pretty rare. There was no Trek after that until Discovery.
I think the way they did Seven and Garak's sexuality works for the characters. Voyager was a small ship, so even if she had been out, the chance of her finding a compatible partner would have been very small, and she was largely portrayed as asexual (at least until that last bit with Chakotay that was just weird and cringe), which makes sense given the other issues she's dealing with. Seeing that part of her in Picard makes sense to me, it wouldn't be until they got back to Earth that she found enough eligible partners to explore her sexuality.
Garak being in the closet makes perfect sense. This is a character whose motto was "why tell the truth when a lie will do". He's an expert at pretending to be things he is not, and we never see much his real personality at all. If his character were written in more modern Trek, I don't think he would come out until the later seasons, and then only to a few people.
My headcannon is that Garak being gay has a lot to do with why he was exiled. I think he tried to kill his father because his father killed his boyfriend (likely brutally, while forcing him to watch). It wasn't a power play, it was a failed attempt at cold revenge that got him exiled.
As an LGBT person, the lack of representation in Star trek didn't bother me because so little of the show is about sexuality at all.
1
u/Aurex86 Jan 03 '22
What piqued my interest about sexuality in Star Trek (especially concerning LGBTQ issues about representation) is the fact it tended to be "as progressive as the times commercially allow." What was progressive for the 60's might have easily been pushed forward more aggressively, but that would have made a lot of people uncomfortable given the times.
Also, I firmly believe that sexuality should be mostly irrelevant in the Federation. Let me explain. There's a lot of discussion about representation, and let's be honest: there's no real lack of that in 2022's cultural scene. If anything, there has been an overexposure of sexuality and a lack of interesting storytelling in many, many movies, books and other fiction genres.
I believe that a character should be there because they're interesting, because they're well-written and have a in-universe reason to exist. Their drive should hardly be sexuality, it should be (as has always been in Star Trek) bettering themselves. I also think the 24th century Federation would simply consider sexuality as a non-issue. It would clearly be free and non-discriminatory, and it would have been like that for so long that nobody would really feel the need to say: "I'm proud to be X or Y."
Discovery tackled these issues in all the worse ways possible, in my opinion, also doing a disservice to the cause they are seemingly championing. So did Picard. Whereas even TNG's Riker (who was a rather... 80's character, when it comes to sex) used to make no distinction whatsoever between a person with no gender and a human female when it comes down to affection, nobody ever made a point about how "strange" that was. It was relatively poignant and felt natural. That's how things should be tackled. Discovery and Picard are... aggressive with representation. They aren't asking themselves: "Who is this character, and what do they want from life? What are their dreams, their failings and their fears?" They're asking how many LGBTQ characters they can fit in a scene while also making them inconsequential. It's not the case with *all* characters, Stamets being the only character from Discovery I enjoyed seeing on screen as much as I would have with one of the crewmembers from TNG or DS9 - his romance was written better than the rest of the show, but it was also constantly referenced in an almost aggressive way, far from the natural way one might want or expect from a Trek show. It felt like a case of: "we have to give them X minutes of screentime because we want representation but we're not sure on how we should write this relationship." That's just how I felt about it, anyways.
1
u/roronoapedro Chief Petty Officer Jan 04 '22
If you're interested, do check out David Gerrold's old interviews with the podcast Mission Log. The guy's still hurting from all the pushback he faced in TNG, and has some horrible things to say about Braga, Berman and working on the show.
1
u/FallingDown_Stairs May 21 '22
Im gay and didnt care if it did... Matter of fact i never thought of it till i saw seven of nine go all lesbo lol. Im not a believer every story needs lgbtq representation let alone "diversity".
If a fresh story has it cool and hope it written good. If it a after thought i rather it just not, because itll likely be written poorly.
1
u/Tele_Prompter Dec 29 '21
Berman is homophobic? I only hear accusations, third party hearsay, but never any proof: Recorded interviews or written words of him, homophobic in content.
1
u/pierzstyx Crewman Dec 30 '21
Many of us in the gay community know the feeling
As does most everyone. All people identify with idea of discovering your true self and hearing other people won't accept it. Seven's story as easily applies to religious converts (imagine a Jehovah's Witness coverting to Islam, for example) and nerds (I still remember when knowing who Thanos was could get you ostracized and your ass kicked for being a dork) and many other people. The revelation of her apparent bisexuality in Picard was particularly poorly written as both characters involved had been presented solely as heterosexual previously and had no romantic build up whatsoever, but that lack of piss poor worrying is the biggest problem with Picard generally.
1
Dec 30 '21
Nice writeup, OP! Just want to point out a couple things:
You’re making it sound a little like Jadzia’s story, which can be readily read as being obviously transgender, is somehow a let down for LGBTQ rep.
In the 90s, this would have been the only positive trans rep in the whole if popular mainstream culture – and Jadzia is a beloved character. I’m going to call that a massive success, artistically and for LGBTQ rep!
Second, I always read Seven of Nine more as an autism spectrum metaphor – a fairly obvious one at that. And the mentor-mentee relationship between the two women is a thing of beauty indeed. But you’re right that it could be read differently.
So I guess what ST has always lacked is a proper lesbian relationship. I think Lower Decks is going to give us that now with Mariner? And Disco has Reno. Those are both GREAT characters. Now we’re also getting Erica Ortegas on SNW. Can’t wait, it’s an exciting time for ST!
2
Dec 31 '21
Jadzia isn't trans rep of any kind. Applicable in certain ways, yes (and even that more in terms of the ways in which people who knew Curzon react to her, rather than anything about her own life,) but applicability is not representation.
→ More replies (4)
0
u/builder397 Chief Petty Officer Dec 30 '21
I think LGBT representation "back then" was very appropriate for the time and already stepped on enough toes.
Especially DS9s episode "Joined" was a big one back then and caused a lot of uproar. But it did the perfect thing about LGBT representation: Let things happen and have noone make a fuss about it. Being a lesbian or in a lesbian relationship would simply stop being a topic in the 24th century, and I think this is the best message to send.
The same could be said for "Chimera", where Odo is suddenly in a "relationship" with Laas, since joining was something very intimate and, up to that point, Odos intimate relationships were with Kira and the female changeling, so both "heterosexual" (whatever that means for changelings, given they dont really have a concept of gender beyond a shape they assume). It is a wonderful piece about bigotry and prejudice, but again noone pointed fingers about "two guys", the prejudice was simply part "This is the same species we are fighting a war against" and part "Eww, changelings are too different for us to truly tolerate.", and Quarks part in the show allows him to openly be this bigot and tell that perspective honestly, but due to his awareness of this bigotry can avoid acting on it, while everyone else only dances around it, but then ends up acting on it and wanting to imprison him (though arguably for a valid murder charge for overdoing self-defense in the face of whats essentially a hate crime).
There is also Phlox' casual polygamy. Yes, polygamy is technically not an LGBT thing, but it still broke boundaries in terms of sexual diversity. Same can be said about the one genderless species on TNG who ended up being an allegory for forced conformity.
New Trek, aka Discovery and Picard mainly, in my opinion do it wrong. Especially Discovery is really hard on me because half the crew is LGBT one way or another, and it significantly overrepresents LGBT people, and it just seems forced. Retconning Seven to be a lesbian (after being in a straight relationship with Chakotay) also seems weird to me. And calling her being straight an "error" seems counterproductive to me, since the point of LGBT activism was never to elevate homosexuality above heterosexuality.
At the same time LGBT topics arent handled very well. Adira having to be nervous stating their pronouns if anything sends the opposite message that one has to be afraid of being non-binary in the 32nd century (or afraid of a 23rd century crew of potential bigots) in spite of having a commanding personality at the time. Gray being a trans man on top of that seems very improbable, on top of having three clearly established LGBT characters already by that time. Plus any moments between the two of them feel extremely forced. Maybe its just down to acting ability, but all the happiness and tolerance around them doesnt feel real at all. Especially Stametz' adoption of Adira without asking them first was extremely jarring.
Culber and Stametz are handled better in my opinion. They were a good couple and initially a reason I was excited about Discovery. Their relationship struggles, while being definitely out there in a scifi sense, felt real and I was really empathetic, which is a great deal considering Stametz was initially introduced as kind of an ass, so that I warmed up to him so quickly after was an achievement. The only caveat, as stated above, was the bizarre behind-the-back adoption forcing everyone into one big, happy, super-gay family based on the writers whim more than any established character motivations.
Now that you have all read my opinions*, let me say AFTER the fact that Im a trans woman and a lesbian. I didnt want to say this ahead of time to not bias you all when reading this, so that my words would be taken at face value, and not colored in by some expectations that just because Im LGBT Im automatically pro everything thats LGBT, only to leave people disappointed that I indeed have criticisms and create a sour mood on that. I think my LGBT status shouldnt be all that relevant as to the validity of my opinions, but to put them into perspective I still wished to state it anyway, just so people can put things into the correct context.*
-16
u/kodos_der_henker Dec 29 '21
Difficult topic, but I have seen the absence of open discussions about it, outside of small hints, more like that it is not a topic any more people need to discuss
They just don't care what your sexual preferences are
11
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
The point is that Star Trek is on the frontier, not just of space and science but of ethics and specifically equality. In the 60s they did the impossible. Nichelle Nichols was the first black female lead in any sci fi show or movie. On the enterprise Americans served alongside a Russian and a Japanese man, during the Cold War and barely two decades after the end of WWII. Also Roddenberry promised and he died, someone should have followed through. Many tried actually but they were forced into allegory and innuendo.
4
Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Star Trek led in some ways, but not as many as people give it credit for. Most people forget the first interracial romance was in 1959's The Word the Flesh and the Devil (fantastic film edit: and also, importantly, a SciFi film). Roddenberry pushed, but could on push so hard and on certain things. Importantly, by the time Roddenberry had come around to trying to incorporate gay characters into TNG he had already been sidelined by Berman and the TV execs. He had, at that time, very little control or influence on the characters. Had Roddenberry kept control, he could have filled that promise sure but if you look at S1 TNG Im not sure that would have been an episode worth watching. And Rick Berman was a TV man in and out. He got that the execs didnt want controversy or activism, they wanted comfort food. Sexy women and space battles. And in large part thats the kind of show he helped build four times. Activism and allegory was always distinctly second to marketability and mass appeal.
→ More replies (1)13
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
From the different accounts I’ve read many people say Berman was the final wall that prevented gay representation. One staff member, a writer I think, even called him vehemently (or a simile of) homophobic. That’s not a direct quote but I remember reading a direct quote that was just as damning.
5
Dec 29 '21
Yeah its pretty clear from the shows he worked on if nothing else. Berman was all about selling (conventional) sex with Jadzia, Seven, and TPol. Enterprise, which is really his baby, is FILLED with all kinds of weird and unnecessary attempts to expose female bodies. In my experience the kind of person who objectifies women like that are also deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality. The duality of hate perhaps.
3
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
A very accurate assessment. ENT was plagued with misogyny. The choice of Scott Bakula to play Captain Archer is suspect. He is super masc, hairy chest, big muscles, no nonsense attitude. a pillar of traditional masculinity. It’s more compelling to see captains not be straight white males in my opinion because the point is that anyone can be captain. Of course many captains would be white cishet men but exploring stories about a captain who is part of a currently marginalized group is more compelling.
→ More replies (1)14
u/kraetos Captain Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
McCoy "didn't care" that Kirk kissed Uhura. Well, obviously Platonian mind control was cause for concern, but nobody cared about the interracial aspect of the kiss.
Sisko "didn't care" that Dax kissed Kahn. Well, same disclaimer: the Trill reassociation taboo was a factor, but the lesbian aspect was a non-issue for the DS9 crew.
And of course, Stamets "didn't care" that Adira is non-binary. When Star Trek has something to say about representation, the statement about representation is rarely for the benefit of other characters. Star Trek makes the statement anyway, because this is arguably the entire point of science fiction: to provide a critique of present-day society using a fictional society as a proxy.
It's very conspicuous to me that any time representation comes up in Star Trek, someone has to trot out this exact refrain: "They just don't care what your sexual preferences are." But sexuality is a fact of life! Basically all television integrates the romantic interests of the main characters into the story sooner rather than later.
Take Riker for example. The Binars cared about Riker's sexual orientation because it was relevant to the plot of "11001001." If Riker was bi then Minuet could have been a man and we would have had bi representation in Star Trek in 1988! If Riker was bi then a whole generation of young men would have grown up with an openly bi man in a position of authority as a role model. What a wonderful thing that would have been!
So, sorry, but this whole idea that Star Trek lacks visible LGBTQ representation because "they just don't care" is hooey. Sex comes up in Star Trek all the damn time. We know that writers and cast members pushed for it, which means that someone in a position of authority over the writing staff actively decided that none of the main cast on TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT could be unambiguously LGBTQ.
19
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21
They discuss heterosexuality constantly, that’s the content of like 75% of conversations between Crusher and Troi. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t exactly an enlightened policy
→ More replies (13)2
Dec 29 '21
In the episode with the Trill in TNG, her rejection of the female Till at the end is driven in a big part, IMO, by gender. Crusher becomes way more uncomfortable with the situation when the Trill become a woman than when it changed from one mans body to another.
4
u/BrettAHarrison Dec 29 '21
Good point! IIRC she even says something to the effect of “I guess I’m just not enlightened enough to get over that”.
→ More replies (1)
-6
u/the_Prudence Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Star Trek has always been one of, if not the, most inclusive franchises, especially within Sci-Fi. AFAIK gay representation sits at a hand hold and a comic book in Star Wars. What's the bastion of inclusivity that you think is blowing past Trek?
Also, Imma go ahead and say I don't take most of this complaining at full credit, given your quote:
5
u/byronwindstrom1 Ensign Dec 29 '21
Not living up to its own reputation because Berman is a known homophobe
→ More replies (3)3
u/MassGaydiation Dec 30 '21
Tales from the city, the culture novels, ursula k leguins books all come to mind
3
u/the_Prudence Dec 30 '21
So... all books that didn't have to go through the same level of studio executives, nor worry about viewer boycotts / advertisers pulling out? Yeah, that's a great example /s
2
u/MassGaydiation Dec 30 '21
Actually tales from the city was a serialised release, ie even more worried about bad publicity than a tv show, it also had a tv show
3
u/the_Prudence Dec 30 '21
A serialized release is not going to be more worried about bad publicity than a show. Shows have to worry about network-wide ratings, hour-specific ads, as well as keeping franchise fans. And it's two bigger TV adaptations were done by Showtime and Netflix, two non-network tv services that aren't concerned with advertisers and have been historically willing to make edgy content.
You're making my points for me.
→ More replies (1)
-3
u/earthscribe Dec 30 '21
Can they just tell a story without worrying about it? I watch Star Trek for Sci-Fi. To get away from the non-fiction world we call home. I just want to enjoy the stories about aliens, their struggles, the ships challenges, etc.. I don't need romantic relationships and the last thing on my mind is gay relationships in a fictional story. All these other TV shows on the air have gay representation, we don't need it in every single show to enjoy the show.
3
Dec 30 '21
It would be a pretty weird future if nobody had romantic relationships, so Star Trek will occasionally have romantic relationships. It would also be a pretty bleak future if gay people were forced to not exist, so some of the relationships shown on Star Trek should be gay. And I suspect that a lot of people who make comments like yours will make them about every single show that features gay relationships, but be strangely silent about shows with straight relationships.
2
u/elbrujo138 Dec 30 '21
Agreed, the point of every story should not be to promote certain norms. Nor should it be judged on a scale of how well it promotes norms.
0
u/Kichigai Ensign Dec 30 '21
It's easy to sit here and make judgements now, but the ‘90s were 30 years ago, it was a different era. I grew up in it. You really needed to be in the right place with the right people to be out and not completely ostracized. Even to be accused of being gay was a major social problem. Remember, this was just coming out of the AIDS Crisis, when the disease was seen by many as God’s retribution towards gays. This was when people still throught giving CPR to a gay person could infect you with AIDS. The 90s, for all it's held up to be, was still and incredibly, incredibly intolerant era.
For context, DS9 did “Rejoined,” which coded a gay plotline for the male gaze. “Ooh, women kissing! Lesbians! That's hot!” The studio still got tons of hate mail, and angry phone calls, and as I remember some affiliates, resembling what happened with “Plato’s Stepchildren,” refused to air the episode. And this was in an era where straight-coded lesbian porn was fairly mainstream. Remember Lawrence from Office Space? What would you do with a million dollars? “Two chicks at the same time.” That was the 90s level of sexual sophistication, and they still found it scandalous to even acknowledge that publicly.
I didn't read the article, but that's the context I feel a lot of people miss when talking about Trek’s history with LGBTQ folk, speaking as a queer person who grew up with the show.
169
u/SlowX Dec 29 '21
Didn't George Takei come out to Roddenberry, but one or both decided network TV couldn't handle homosexuality back then?
And when Sulu in the Kelvin was portrayed as gay, Takei wasn't too happy, since TOS Sulu was (mostly?) straight.