Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[wildcolonialboy]

@wildcolonialboyI have read about Clause 28 in the 90s and visited people there in GB and have spoken to them. They lived in those times. The 90s were still the time of the AIDS catastrophe. But yes, wikipedia knows better always, I know.

I did read through your comment too quckly and thought you mentioned Jimmy Saville not Somerville (hence thinking you were linking homosexuality to child molestation etc)

On the other hand, it's still not entirely clear what you're getting at re Section 28. The actual legal reach of the act was strictly limited to local authorities (directly quoting here, nothing to do with wikipedia)

(1)A local authority shall not—

(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

In its limitation to local authorities (i.e. local government, and by extension schools) it didn't have any influence over television or the arts. In the late 80s and 1990s there were quite a few depictions of homosexuality on TV and in film.

 

[ihno]

I did read through your comment too quckly and thought you mentioned Jimmy Saville not Somerville (hence thinking you were linking homosexuality to child molestation etc).

Then the offensivness is fully on your side.

On the other hand, it's still not entirely clear what you're getting at re Section 28.

I can try to explain, in case you really don't know.
There is always a climate/mentality in society. A law like Clause 28 can a) follow the mentality (as a present to voters) or b) influence the mentality by creating a pro or anti mood or c) have no influence at all because it's ignored because it's against the climate. So it's a very complex thing.
And there is also the dimension of space: People in big metropoles react differently than people in cow villages. But there are gay and lesbian babies too, you know.

And what is this "strictly limited" to school thing? Which btw. is not true, there was much more attempted.

But let's "limit" it to schools and colleges:
"Oh, as long as the television is not concerned, it's okay to limit it to school, where we teach the next generation of citizens. Teach them only bad things and the gay pupils will commit suicide."

I was a pupil at that time, I would have broken that law every single day of my life. I have friends who have killed themselves in the 1990s because of their homosexuality and that was in a country without a clause 28. Not to mention the high amount of violence against gays at that time. And yes, it's "better" than the current russian laws but that doesn't make it good.

A single wikipedia article might not be sufficient as a proper source of information. People may still probably agree to me so far that a law like that is not helpful.

 

[hux]

Not me. If people turn out gay in the heterocentral / centered world we live in, do you think they become bisexual after a "we give shit" socialisation? Gay people from today prove that sexuality is not fully dependent on socialisation.

edit: And I would not really approve it if they imply "there are no gay people anymore in the 24. century" because that's regressive.

What?

There is a spectrum of sexuality and representing only two ends of it would be a backwards step. This isn't the 90's. Having a gay character now would be about as progressive as having a black character. A promiscuous bisexual character or transgender character would be a bigger statement.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if the idea of some kind of defined cultural identity of "gay" no longer exists in the 24th century, I'm sure there would still be people who are exclusively orientated towards the same-sex just as there will always be people exclusively orientated toward the opposite sex. It should be an optimistic vision of the future, but it also has to reflect current society in some ways and I think Star Trek has an unpaid debt in terms of representation of a male homosexual character who is part of the regular crew.

The horse has bolted. A gay character now would essentially be nothing more than a belated apology for not having one when they should have (90's Trek). A bolder move is required.

"Oh, as long as the television is not concerned, it's okay to limit it to school, where we teach the next generation of citizens. Teach them only bad things and the gay pupils will commit suicide."

I was a pupil at that time, I would have broken that law every single day of my life..

No you wouldn't. You clearly don't understand what clause 28 was. As a student you would not be remotely affected by it.

 

[ihno]

What?

There is a spectrum of sexuality and representing only two ends of it would be a backwards step. This isn't the 90's. Having a gay character now would be about as progressive as having a blksck character. A bisexual or transgender character would be a bigger statement.

I don't want a "statement", I want real characters.
As said if I have to endure a cliché (which I'm sure of) than I prefer the old clichés.

And a sarcastic sidenote about "progress":
Yes. it's 2016. If you look a little deeper you might find that the world is still as heterocentered as it was. Straight people don't say "sexual minority" any more, they say "LGBT people". It sounds better.
In 1990 heterosexual men said to a gay man in drag on a gay parade "you should not wear that, not all gay people are like that, what kind of picture do you create?"
In 2016 heterosexual women say to a gay man in drag on a gay parade "you should not weart that, you're discriminating transgender people, what kind of picture do you create?"

 

[hux]

I don't want a "statement", I want real characters.

Having real characters... is a statement.

In 1990 heterosexual men said to a gay man in drag on a gay parade "you should not wear that, not all gay people are like that, what kind of picture do you create?"
In 2016 heterosexual women say to a gay man in drag on a gay parade "you should not weart that, you're discriminating transgender people, what kind of picture do you create?"

Again, what?! Who are these people? What are you saying?

 

[ihno]

No you wouldn't. You clearly don't understand what clause 28 was. As a student you would not be remotely affected by it.

You forgot to mention that as a pupil I would not be remotely affected by it on Sundays or holidays or if I was ill.
Really, where do you get your expertise about gay life in Britain (or Europe) twenty years ago? And Clause 28 in detail? From life experience or wikipedia?

Having real characters... is a statement.

To me Mr. Kurtzman should better prove first that he can create real characters and then we can talk about it. I don't see real characters often on TV.
If this show was made by Joss Whedon, no problem. If this show was made in Britain, no problem. Or swedish.
But it is an US american show. Do you know Queer as folk? The original channel 4 (or whatever) show by RTD, not the US remake? Watch both and then you will understand my lack in trust, even if those shows are older.

Again, what?! Who are these people? What are you saying?

They live among us, they are well meaning, they vote green and they like stuff like Gestalt therapy and buy Bio products. But I normally don't ask those people for their names or remember them. Some will understand what I am talking about.
Tip for googling: Glasgow Gay Pride 2015.

 

[T'Girl]

The horse has bolted.

It terms of being "ground breaking" and up front in a social movement by having a gay main character, that opportunity has passed. But having a gay character isn't just a matter of being trendy and making a statement, it's an acknowledgement of the fullness of Human diversity.

A gay character now would essentially be nothing more than a belated apology for not having one when they should have (90's Trek).

Not even close.

The inclusion of a gay character in Star Trek wouldn't exist primarily as a form of compensation for past absence. It would simply be recognition that gays are a part of future society, a component of the whole.

A bolder move is required.

Nahhhh.

My preference would be a unattached, somewhat sexual active, male homosexual. Not a hot lesbian female slut. Nothing bolder than that.

If we were going to have a transgender character, then I would like to see the character being one gender for a couple of seasons, show them discussing the matter with friends occasionally, then transition for a season (no one time injection), then have them be the "new" gender from that point on.

.

 

[ihno]

For the wikipedia lovers one last thing:
http://lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1384014531S28Background.pdf

Quote: "For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexualstudent support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act"

 

[hux]

You forgot to mention that as a pupil I would not be remotely affected by it on Sundays or holidays or if I was ill.

No, you wouldn't. You're conflating homophobia with a piece of legislation that was utterly ineffectual.

Really, where do you get your expertise about gay life in Britain (or Europe) twenty years ago? And Clause 28 in detail? From life experience or wikipedia?

Being British? Spending my entire life in Britain? Gay friends, family, colleagues... who are all British. Studying British law. Reading books. Being British. Carry on films.?

What is your obsession with Wikipedia? Is that your go-to retort?

To me Mr. Kurtzman should better prove first that he can create real characters and then we can talk about it. I don't see real characters often on TV.
If this show was made by Joss Whedon, no problem. If this show was made in Britain, no problem. Or swedish.
But it is an US american show. Do you know Queer as folk? The original channel 4 (or whatever) show by RTD, not the US remake? Watch both and then you will understand my lack in trust, even if those shows are older

America has caught up but it will still be a statement. And it should be.

but having a gay character isn't just a matter of being trendy and making a statement, it's an acknowledgement of the fullness of Human diversity.

Again. That would be a statement. One which they haven't made before (hence this thread). For a show that has dined out on its progressive outlook, not ever having a solitary gay character in any show was a disgrace. Remedying that now is old news. I would prefer a bigger commitment but I doubt we'll get it. I suspect it will be some secondary character.

The inclusion of a gay character in Star Trek wouldn't exist primarily as a form of compensation for past absence. It would simply be recognition that gays are a part of future society, a component of the whole.

The new show doesnt exist in a vacuum. It will reference itself and that must include acknowledging the utter lack of any gay characters in previous shows. Saying that homosexuals exist in the future is slightly (and negatively) tinged with... so where the fuck were they before?

My preference would be a unattached, somewhat sexual active, male homosexual. Not a hot lesbian female slut. Nothing bolder than that.

If we were going to have a transgender character, then I would like to see the character being one gender for a couple of seasons, show them discussing the matter with friends occasionally, then transition for a season (no one time injection), then have them be the "new" gender from that point on..

The former is probably closer to what we'll get but I would prefer the latter. It would be difficult to show transition without using a non-trans person though so I'd skip the transition in order to hire a trans actor.

For the wikipedia lovers one last thing:
http://lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1384014531S28Background.pdf

Quote: "For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexualstudent support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act"

Read page 8

 

[ihno]

@hux: I have already posted an article in #428, which supports my point. If you have more questions about clause 28, I'm sure they are willing to enlighten you, why else would they have a website?

 

[hux]

@hux: I have already posted an article in #428, which supports my point. If you have more questions about clause 28, I'm sure they are willing to enlighten you, why else would they have a website?

You know nothing of clause 28 or Britain. Read page 8 of your own link and reflect.

 

[ihno]

Yes, I know where Aberdeen is. So you are not gay yourself I assume but you still tell me as a gay man about gay history. Okay, fine, if your friends are studying history, they know better I'm sure than those who publish about it.
I have another source for you: 100 Jahre Schwulengeschichte, Katalog des Schwulen Museums Berlin, 1997, p. 275-279 (100 years of gay liberation movement, Katalog of the Gay Museum Belrin, 1997). Done by historians and lawyers who have finished their studies.

I read page 8. It's not necessary, what you said is on page one already too. Two sentences above of what I have quoted. Both doesn't contradict each other. Sometimes things a little more complicated, ask your friends.

I'm out of this discussion.

Tough forum to use irony and satire here.

 

[hux]

Yes, I know where Aberdeen is. So you are not gay yourself I assume but you still tell me as a gay man about gay history. Okay, fine, if your friends are studying history, they know better I'm sure than those who publish about it.
I have another source for you: 100 Jahre Schwulengeschichte, Katalog des Schwulen Museums Berlin, 1997, p. 275-279 (100 years of gay liberation movement, Katalog of the Gay Museum Belrin, 1997). Done by historians and lawyers who have finished their studies.

You seem to assume a lot. And now you seem to be having a discussion with yourself. I'm not telling you about gay history, I'm telling you about British law. Attempting to move the goalposts only makes you look silly. If you're not British and know nothing about the impact of clause 28 then it's probably best not to comment.

I read page 8. It's not necessary, what you said is on page one already too. Two sentences above of what I have quoted. Both doesn't contradict each other. Sometimes things a little more complicated, ask your friends.

Sometimes people who are ignorant about something feel the need to comment on it regardless, ask you mum. Your own link explains the inadequacies of the legislation and its inability to be upheld. It's impact as tangible law was entirely negligible but its impact culturally - as a focus point for the British LGBT community - was huge and ultimately positive.

I'm out of this discussion.

No, please come back. I want to learn more about Britain.

Tough forum to use irony and satire here.

Ah, you were being ironic and satirical. Well that explains... wait, what?

 

[borgboy]

Since Fuller is openly gay himself, with a history of LGBT inclusiveness in his previous series, I think there's a very good chance we'll finally get LGBT characters, and as Fuller's work has overall been very good, I think this also bodes well for the quality of the series. I hope we actually get a gay main character, at this point it would be disappointing if we didn't.
I'm even hopeful that Lee Pace would play this gay man, maybe as first officer to a black female captain.

 

[maneth]

They should have done so years ago. If they'd had an LGBT character in ENT, it might have been seen as boldly going... somewhere. But these days when gay and lesbian characters are almost a dime a dozen in non-genre shows, it's a little late for boldness I'm afraid. Better late than never, I suppose. Rather than having someone simply be gay or lesbian, I think it would be better if there was a transgender human character on board. Transgender people are pretty much non-existent on TV even today, at least partly due to casting problems.

 

[borgboy]

I don't see any reason there couldn't be a gay character and a trans character - or even a character who is gay and trans.
Gay characters are still rare enough in Sci Fi that I think it would still be groundbreaking to have a gay main character - especially a gay man as they're much rarer in sci fi than lesbians. But having a trans character actually played by a trans actor would be groundbreaking, absolutely.
But gay characters don't need to be included only as a groundbreaking event, but because we're part of the diversity of humanity and should be included. To continue forward with an all straight crew would be insulting at this point.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If Roddenberry's foot note in the first movie's novelization is respected and everyone in the 23rd century is bisexual... And that inclusiveness carry's on to whenever this will be set... We could be dealing with a totally new form of sexual oppression.

If in the future boring vanilla orientation is Bisexual to the point that it's not even called bisexuality anymore, it's just "sexuality" then Homosexuality and heterosexuality both become surprising dinosaur outliers equally, where it's not the desire for same sex that is frowned on, but the exclusion of one of the sexes that is unthinkably perverse.

 

[hux]

If in the future boring vanilla orientation is Bisexual to the point that it's not even called bisexuality anymore, it's just "sexuality" then Homosexuality and heterosexuality both become surprising dinosaur outliers equally, where it's not the desire for same sex that is frowned on, but the exclusion of one of the sexes that is unthinkably perverse.

Isn't that roughly the plot to "The Outcast."

People would complain about it not being optimistic and inclusive (real Trek values) but I'd be happy to see some kind of prejudice in the new show such as the above.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The Outcast lot were neutral/genderless? Either "her" situation was unique, or the protocol (mindwiping) for dealing with gender assignations were so swift and effective that quelling these "deviants" was on par with a game of wack-a-mole set to an elementary level.

Outcast isn't a very good title to explain what happened to this alien person. They were not allowed to live reviled as an outcast, they were immediately located and destroyed for the good of the community. This is not a joke, but what do you call Ethic Cleansing for sexual orientation? Sexual Cleansing or Oriental Cleansing both sound like something else entirely. Meh?

Hey! "Soren" from Outcast was the reporter lady from a couple seasons of the A-Team, Amy Allen. I used to be really sweat on her when I was a 7 year old, she was on my very long list of women I wanted to marry as soon as I was tall enough.

Soren didn't have the genitalia to back up her interest in being female "with" Riker.

So either they were just going to "wing it" or Beverly was going to build her compatible, but not necessarily human junk, to source a healthy sex life with Riker, or gender assignment surgery was unnecessary since just because she wanted to be female, it doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex like a female, or to ever have sex.

Sorrin could have been after a PG13 relationship with Riker.

Hand holding and poetry for the rest of his life.

Seriously, after all that, if they had gotten off planet safely, there's no way he could dump her, and after all she sacrificed there was no way that she could dump him. It'd turn out like either one of those marriages where the couple seem like brother and sister, or something toxic like in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. WTF!? This is one of my favourite movies, but the last time I saw it (10 years ago? More?) I didn't realize that George Segal is George Segal. HE'S IN EVERYTHING!!!!

This is why the Prime Directive is your guiding light Riker.

 

[borgboy]

I've never given it much thought, but just because Soren wasn't gendered doesn't mean she wasn't capable of pleasing Riker in the sack. I'm pretty sure we see them after they've had sex and Riker seemed happy and wanted a relationship with her.
It did seem out of character to me that Riker would get emotionally involved so quickly and seemed ready to commit to a serious relationship.
We've seen so many characters living and acting heterosexual, they'll never say that everybody is living as bisexual. Just have a fair diversity of different orientations, and have some non hetero people be regulars. At this point I'd be pretty bitter if we don't get a main gay character even if we do get a one episode gay.
But hopefully after this comes out at the least people won't be able to go around saying that gays were wiped out in Trek's utopian future, something I run into now and then that is really not cool.