RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,168
Posts: 5,435,158
Members: 24,938
Currently online: 507
Newest member: TrekFacePalms

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 31 2013, 01:54 AM   #316
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Umm, folks, let's remember the plea in the thread title: "no flames Please." Let's not make this about each other.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 02:02 AM   #317
Sho
Fleet Captain
 
Sho's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Reacting to a later edit.

Cara007 wrote: View Post
Sho what is naive is you not accepting my veiws on why I feel marriage should not be redefined. it is my veiws , views that many or more people share with me. SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE. gays are and should be alowed to enter into a legal and recognisied relationship. However the standard definition of marriage thathas existed for more then 5000 years does not need to be changed or redefined.
* This is a discussion forum. We're having a debate. I'm not required to leave your statements unchallenged. Tolerance is about recognizing and respecting that you have a different opinion and have a right to that opinion, which I do. It doesn't mean I need to find your opinion to be of quality, however, or that I can't openly say that I consider your opinion to be misguided and harmful, which I do as well.

We don't live in a vacuum. The opinions we hold affect the lives of others, by way of the decisions we make and the way we act. "This is true for me and that's good enough" doesn't cut it. One needs to make an effort to have informed, balanced opinions.

* In the last 5000 years, a multitude of different cultures around the globe have used a multitude of definitions of marriage that vary quite significantly in their specifics, both legally and culturally. We've abandoned or changed many of those specifics because we found them to be unfair and harmful. I hope that process will continue.

* Even if you don't think it "needs to be changed", that doesn't mean it can't be if it improves the happyness of some folks. You've failed to make any convincing case for the negative ramifications of it, at least.

Let's be clear: I really like marriage! I think getting married is a wonderful statement two people can make about their commitment to one another, and a very useful, broadly understood social contract to signal that commitment to your peers. Now, I'm quite happy that I learned the lesson that the real price is to spend time with people from my own folks, who never got around to marrying - but I nevertheless consider myself to be quite the fan of the concept.

And I can't see any way in which allowing homosexual folks to get married impacts that at all.

Last edited by Sho; October 31 2013 at 02:41 AM.
Sho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 02:54 AM   #318
Cara007
Lieutenant
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Sho wrote: View Post
Reacting to a later edit.

Cara007 wrote: View Post
Sho what is naive is you not accepting my veiws on why I feel marriage should not be redefined. it is my veiws , views that many or more people share with me. SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE. gays are and should be alowed to enter into a legal and recognisied relationship. However the standard definition of marriage thathas existed for more then 5000 years does not need to be changed or redefined.
* This is a discussion forum. We're having a debate. I'm not required to leave your statements unchallenged. Tolerance is about recognizing and respecting that you have a different opinion and have a right to that opinion, which I do. It doesn't mean I need to find your opinion to be of quality, however, or that I can't openly say that I consider your opinion to be misguided and harmful, which I do as well.

We don't live in a vacuum. The opinions we hold affect the lives of others, by way of the decisions we make and the way we act. "This is true for me and that's good enough" doesn't cut it. One needs to make an effort to have informed, balanced opinions.

* In the last 5000 years, a multitude of different cultures around the globe has used a multitude of definitions of marriage that vary quite significantly in their specifics, both legally and culturally. We've abandoned or changed many of those specifics because we found them to be unfair and harmful. I hope that process will continue.

* Even if you don't think it "needs to be changed", that doesn't mean it can't be if it improves the happyness of some folks. You've failed to make any convincing case for the negative ramifications of it, at least.

Let's be clear: I really like marriage! I think getting married is a wonderful statement two people can make about their commitment to one another, and a very useful, broadly understood social contract to signal that commitment to your peers. Now, I'm quite happy that I learned the lesson that the real price is to spend time with people from my own folks, who never got around to marrying - but I nevertheless consider myself to be quite the fan of the concept.

And I can't see any way in which allowing homosexual folks to get married impacts that at all.

We differ on our veiws. marriage was never a civil rights issue. USA has never redefined marriage despite the media propaganda unleashed on us. The Loving vs Virgina case that struck down an interracial couple from not getting married never redefined marriage.

What the US law said was the a man and a woman regardless of their color should not be stopped from getting married. As long as they are one man and one woman they have equal protection under the law.

Please that is not the same as saying a marriage is a union between two people.


Please answer me honestly, with this scenario. Would I be bridging your civil rights. if as gay man you wanted to use the women's dressing room to try on some cloths and I who is working in the clothing store insist you use men's dressing room only or leave the store would I be discriminating against you?

If you were in a court of law will you win the case by saying all that mattered is that you wanted to use a dressing room and it did not matter if it was the men's or women's dressing room.

would you win the case? of course not.

You can't compare race to gender with just two people. there is no difference between a white female and a black female or a white male and an Asian male. there are major differences between a man and a woman.

We have boy scouts and girls scouts is that equal or the same as white scouts and black scouts?

please race and gender cannot be compared. We are all equal but we are not the same.


the concept of marriage was never intended to be between just two people. it was intended for one man and one woman. the two living organism that life and human nature itself depends on to survive.

Them coming together to function as one unit was what marriage solely was created for. Additionally 90% of the time children are born and the child is loved equally by his mother and father raising the child together as husband and wife and even in divorce, the child would still forever have the love of his mum and dad. this is the standard structure of our civilization. marriage defined that. this is why I believe it does not need to be redefined.

I do sympathize with many gay people on this issue. Many of them are loving, nice and kind. I would not stop them in their fight for what they view as equality. they have every right and freedom to fight for what they believe in. However I can't personally change the purpose of what marriage was created for. am sorry.

Last edited by Cara007; October 31 2013 at 03:04 AM.
Cara007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 03:17 AM   #319
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

^Please, please stop. This is not a thread for debating definitions of marriage. This is a thread for discussing characters in Star Trek literature. If you want to argue about something other than that topic, then please do it in a different forum.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 03:17 AM   #320
Sho
Fleet Captain
 
Sho's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Cara007 wrote: View Post
We differ on our veiws. marriage was never a civil rights issue. USA has never redefined marriage despite the media propaganda unleashed on us. The Loving vs Virgina case that struck down an interracial couple from not getting married never redefined marriage.

What the US law said was the a man and a woman regardless of their color should not be stopped from getting married. As long as they are one man and one woman they have equal protection under the law.

Please that is not the same as saying a marriage is a union between two people.
I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not likely to make arguments based on the history of the legal definition of marriage in the United States. However, to my knowledge, marriage status confers economic benefits in many states of the union, and even after weighing many of the factors involved (including e.g. child-rearing vectors, etc etc.) it still seems to me that those should be available to all. (Though this is complex and really requires discussion of individual tax and subsidy schemes and their structures, goals and legal basis.)


Cara007 wrote: View Post
Please answer me honestly, with this scenario. Would I be bridging your civil rights. if as gay man you want to use the women's dressing room to try on some cloths and I who is working in the clothing store insist you use men's dressing room or leave the store would I be discriminating against you?
This hypothetical seems a bit weird to me. Cross-dressing and homosexuality are not the same thing. Gay men don't implicitly want to wear women's clothing or even to be women, usually they just want to be gay men and use the men's dressing room like any other man.

I also have a co-worker who is a MTF transsexual, however, and this is actually an on-going debate that is still evolving. Questions like "at which point are transsexuals allowed to use which public restroom" can have widely different answers depending on the country you ask them in, and important legal decisions continue to be made on a yearly basis.

But back to your hypothetical: If I were a gay man, I wouldn't insist on using the woman's dressing room, and if I did and you asked me not to, no, I don't think you'd be discriminating against my rights. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the discussion, though ...



Cara007 wrote: View Post
the concept of marriage was never intended to be between two people. it was intended for one man and one woman. the two living organism that life and human nature itself depends on to survive.
* Who intended it to be so, and why does their authority override the decisions we could be making today?

* There are many forms of reproduction in nature. Not all of them rely on gender.

* Why does allowing homosexuals to marry prevent heterosexuals from producing offspring? I don't understand.


Cara007 wrote: View Post
Them coming together to function as one unit was what marriage was created for.
You don't need to marry to become pregnant or even to successfully raise a child. My parents never married. Of course, getting married doesn't harm proceedings either (see earlier for my personal views on marriage).


Cara007 wrote: View Post
Additionally 90% of the time children are born and the child is loved equally by his mother and father raising the child together as husband and wife. this is the standard structure of our civilization. marriage defined that. this is why I believe it does not need to be redefined.
* How does allowing homosexuals to marry prevent heterosexuals from getting married?

* How does allowing homosexuals to marry cause mothers and fathers to love their children less?

* Civilization seems to have counted homosexuals among its members for all of recorded human history. They seem to be no less or more productive members of society than heterosexuals. Why are they not part of its standard structure then?

Edit:

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Please, please stop. This is not a thread for debating definitions of marriage. This is a thread for discussing characters in Star Trek literature. If you want to argue about something other than that topic, then please do it in a different forum.
Yeah, you have a point. Cara: Let's continue this via private message or elsewhere if you want to.

Last edited by Sho; October 31 2013 at 04:28 AM.
Sho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 09:22 AM   #321
lvsxy808
Rear Admiral
 
lvsxy808's Avatar
 
Location: London
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

So, how's about them gays in Star Trek, eh?

*crickets*

*tumbleweed*

On the topic of fan-fiction, I've done a spot of my own as my sig says. It is NOT slashy in even the vaguest sense. I think there's even so much as a hint of a sex scene in any of the 22 episodes. Nevertheless, I have designated two established TrekLit characters as gay and in a relationship.

In neither case was it established prior in the Lit that they were gay, but neither was it established that they were straight. So that left me free to define their relationships however I chose. And I'm quite gratified that later books mentioning the two characters have done nothing to contradict my choices, which leaves me free to believe they are in a relationship in the books, just 'off screen'.

I have no problem with saying an existing character might be gay. Characters shouldn't necessarily be assumed to be straight by default. And in this case, I'm not 'changing the character' or making them act out of character because nothing addressed that side of the character in the first place. In fact, in one case I'm actually taking a tiny off-hand reference in the official Lit canon and extrapolating it. If it worked for the Andorians, it can work for me.

.
__________________
DS9-R fans! Want to know what happened after The Soul Key?

Read Deep Space Nine, Season 10
All 22 eps available to read on-screen or download and keep!
lvsxy808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2013, 02:47 PM   #322
The Elephant's Graveyard
Clone
 
The Elephant's Graveyard's Avatar
 
Location: trampledamage has mysteriously disappeared...
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Please, please stop. This is not a thread for debating definitions of marriage. This is a thread for discussing characters in Star Trek literature. If you want to argue about something other than that topic, then please do it in a different forum.
Thank you, Christopher.

Back to the Trek Lit please. Discussions of marriage can go in Miscellaneous, heated discussion of marriage can go in TNZ.
__________________
Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence - Dr. McCoy

And he says that like it's a bad thing...
The Elephant's Graveyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2013, 11:06 PM   #323
chrinFinity
Commander
 
chrinFinity's Avatar
 
Location: Scmocation
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

BrotherBenny wrote: View Post
I remember hearing about The L Word, a television show about lesbians and the relationship issues they have. Where was The G Word? It appears to be a double standard.
It was called "Queer as Folk" and there was a brit version followed by an American version.
__________________
i hate everything
chrinFinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2013, 11:44 PM   #324
Dimesdan
Rear Admiral
 
Dimesdan's Avatar
 
Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Dimesdan
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

chrinFinity wrote: View Post
BrotherBenny wrote: View Post
I remember hearing about The L Word, a television show about lesbians and the relationship issues they have. Where was The G Word? It appears to be a double standard.
It was called "Queer as Folk" and there was a brit version followed by an American version.
Wow, that's a blast from the past, he hasn't posted in here in quiet sometime.
__________________
People in third world countries are so lucky they don't have to deal with these problems. - TheGodBen

I'm on twitter now. @DimesDaniel
Dimesdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2013, 11:56 PM   #325
chrinFinity
Commander
 
chrinFinity's Avatar
 
Location: Scmocation
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

Dimesdan wrote: View Post
Wow, that's a blast from the past, he hasn't posted in here in quiet sometime.
I also bring beloved relatives back from the dead and repair popped balloons.

Sorry.
__________________
i hate everything
chrinFinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2013, 02:41 AM   #326
BrentMc
Lieutenant Commander
 
BrentMc's Avatar
 
Location: California U.S.A.
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

I am sad that you feel you need to ask not be flamed. I think a Star Trek message board should be a place everyone feels welcome. If someone flames you for being who you are then they missed one of the primary points of Star Trek. The hope of a future where the Human race has outgrown racism, sexism, and Homophobia. (Even though there were contradictions like the scantily clad women who contradicted the image of a powerful, proud, capable, intelligent African woman being Chief Communications officer.)

Furthermore; without gay people we wouldn't have the Original Mr. Sulu: George Takei.

We wouldn't have the new Mr. Spock: Zachary Quinto.

We wouldn't have Dr. Sheldon Cooper: Jim Parson's. (How is he related you ask? How about "Rock paper scissors lizard Spock?)

Welcome LGBT friends and Live Long and Prosper :-)
BrentMc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2013, 05:14 AM   #327
borgboy
Fleet Captain
 
borgboy's Avatar
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

It's veering OT a little bit, but I do find it hard to justify the mini dresses and go go boots as a military uniform. That especially was driven home to me years ago when I saw a drawing of a Vulcan female officer in the traditional mini dress and go go boots in a Trek RPG book. I could almost see human military officers wearing such impractical clothes at work, as humans will do strange things, but a Vulcan woman? It's hard to imagine that. TNG's pilot episode interestingly enough featured the mini skirt on a few men and women, making it an optional uniform for both genders, but it was quickly dropped. I had a friend who was a massive Trekkie but had somehow never noticed the guy in the mini skirt. He did suggest that was proof of a gay character on tv Trek.
On a similar subject, the body/gender switch ep in TOS, which was based around female officers not being allowed to captain a ship, that continues to be very jarring. Have any of the books ever touched on that subject, or contradicted it? I'm pretty sure we see female captains in TOS follow up movies, maybe as early as TMP. I'd be interested to see a book do something with that, explain why that aspect of sexism survived to the 23rd century. If I remember correctly, wasn't there a female captain in Enterprise? I'm pretty sure she's in the novels at least, but I think it's both. Have we seen a female captain in the JJ movies?I have a terrible memory.
I'm glad to see this thread returning to a more friendly tone. As a gay Trekkie this thread is the only true safe space for being both gay and a Trekkie that I'm aware of, and I hate how the issue of "teh gay" having to be debated instead of accepted as a natural and equal variation of being human.
__________________
Resistance is futile
borgboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2013, 05:32 AM   #328
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

We did have Captain Erica Hernandez in the last season of Enterprise, the Enterprise Relaunch novels, and Destiny.
We had two female Captains in Vanguard, which takes place concurrently with TOS.
Captain Hallie Gannon of the USS Bomaby, and Captain Atish Khatami of the USS Endevour. The Endevour will be one of two featured ships in the new Vanguard spin-off series, Seekers.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2013, 05:38 AM   #329
borgboy
Fleet Captain
 
borgboy's Avatar
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

JD wrote: View Post
We did have Captain Erica Hernandez in the last season of Enterprise, the Enterprise Relaunch novels, and Destiny.
We had two female Captains in Vanguard, which takes place concurrently with TOS.
Captain Hallie Gannon of the USS Bomaby, and Captain Atish Khatami of the USS Endevour. The Endevour will be one of two featured ships in the new Vanguard spin-off series, Seekers.
Thank you. Yes, Erika Hernandez, that's who I was thinking of.
That's the way it should be. I'm assuming there's not discussion on why there are female captains now though. I think it would be pretty challenging to justify why there ever weren't.
__________________
Resistance is futile
borgboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2013, 05:47 AM   #330
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

borgboy wrote: View Post
I had a friend who was a massive Trekkie but had somehow never noticed the guy in the mini skirt. He did suggest that was proof of a gay character on tv Trek.
That makes no more sense than assuming a woman who wears pants is a lesbian. For one thing, it's only a cultural convention what gender is associated with a given type of clothing and conventions can change over time. The skant uniforms were meant to be unisex. If pants can be unisex, why can't skirtlike garments? Is it truly unisex if it doesn't go both ways?

For another thing, being gay is about who you sleep with/love, not what you wear. I gather that most transvestite men are heterosexual.


On a similar subject, the body/gender switch ep in TOS, which was based around female officers not being allowed to captain a ship, that continues to be very jarring. Have any of the books ever touched on that subject, or contradicted it? I'm pretty sure we see female captains in TOS follow up movies, maybe as early as TMP. I'd be interested to see a book do something with that, explain why that aspect of sexism survived to the 23rd century.
Fortunately the line in "Turnabout Intruder" about how "your world of starship captains doesn't admit women" is ambiguous enough that it allows for multiple readings. The preferred reading is that Janice Lester was a paranoid schizophrenic who held the delusional belief that she was rejected as a command candidate because of her sex rather than because she was unstable and incompetent.

So there's no need to "explain" an illogical assertion from a badly written episode when it can be so easily dismissed. The speaker was an unreliable narrator -- it's as simple as that.

I believe the first canonical depiction of a female Starfleet captain was Madge Sinclair's Saratoga captain in The Voyage Home. Although Saavik's presence in the command chair in the Kobayashi Maru simulation in The Wrath of Khan clearly implies that she was training for an eventual captaincy.


If I remember correctly, wasn't there a female captain in Enterprise?
Yes, ENT did feature Captain Erika Hernandez, commander of NX-02 Columbia, the second Warp 5 starship. Not to mention T'Pol being captain in an alternate timeline or two.


Have we seen a female captain in the JJ movies?I have a terrible memory.
We've seen at least one female admiral, Gretchen Lui, who was at Kirk's Academy hearing in the first movie.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.