News Martin-Green Confirmed For Discovery

[Awesome Possum]

I understand; it's difficult to accurately have such discussions outside of verbal discussions. I am not doing a great job at conveying my feelings on this topic. I apologize for that. I am personally good with all of those lifestyles. Where I get annoyed is in television portrayals, where I feel the writers are heavy handed with their approach to introducing this types of character traits. I don't know how to explain other than liken it to when the writers do the same thing with issues such as climate change, gun control, race relations, and other similar, polarizing issues.

What you are describing as "heavy-handed" is having the writer's having to show the characters are LGBTQ+ as not being straight. This because for most people, a person is just assumed to be straight and cisgendered by default.

There is a way to acknowledge all of these things in story, whether it be a belief in global warming/cooling, guns saves lives/guns take lives, someone is gay, lesbian, transgender, heterosexual, etc tastefully and with some level of respect.

Given that they are human beings and not the subjects of debates (or at least they shouldn't be), I would hope so.

The way I don't like to see it done, and where I feel some of my other examples have fallen into the habit, is when a character that perhaps we've known for 2, 3 or more seasons "suddenly" is presented as <insert variable here> without any lead up or prior implication, particularly when it is out of line with how that character has behaved or been described in the past. It's like a hard left turn... you don't care that you've made a course correction, but it's jarring when it comes about unexpectedly. When it does come about, whether it be making a character homosexual, transgender, whatever - the writers/producers then seem to feel it is necessary to remind you about every chance they get, anytime the character is on screen, and then dedicate half of an episode about it. I don't want to see half an episode dedicated to "more traditional" gender roles, relationships, either.

That's because you assume that everyone is straight and cisgendered by default, it's a bias and one that all of us have due to how we were raised. Even when I see a character, I just automatically assume they're straight because that's what I usually see.

Plus people in real life can just come out. No one is born automatically saying they're gay or trans, it can take years to accept. Part of this is due to society just assuming that everyone is straight and cisgendered by default. This happens to LGBTQ+, we can just think we're like the majority because everyone else is that way and we rarely see people like ourselves on television. I'm trans and the only representation I saw growing up were people being mocked on the Jerry Springer show and the punchlines to jokes. I didn't see a person like me (who wasn't a joke, hooker, criminal or victim) until I was nearly 30. I'm assuming you're straight and cisgendered given your reactions to this, so you've had representation your entire life. You take it for granted, so anything different seems "off" to you.

While I personally am more accepting, it is difficult at times to adjust to what is becoming a "new normal" in society. The assumptions we could make about people, characters, and tv even 10 or 15 years ago, which would have been a safe bet, aren't so anymore.

That's a good thing. We need to grow as a society because the old way is killing people.

Again, I know I haven't done an amazing job explaining myself here; and I don't intend to be insensitive (quite the opposite) nor to offend anyone. But I feel about these issues as presenting in entertainment the same as I do in real life about things like race: If we are to accept each other for who we are, blind to ethic race, blind to gender identity, and to accept it as completely normal (as we should), then it needs less talking about, not more. The more we point out just how different we are, the more isolated and separate we become. This is not the same as refusing to discuss inequality or discrimination in any form; those are wrong and need to be corrected.

Accepting them as normal includes not erasing them. LGBTQ+ have different struggles and experiences than you and these need to be shown in entertainment, just like your struggles and experiences have been shown since entertainment began. Showing that is not isolating anyone, LGBTQ+ people are already isolated because they aren't being shown. Nearly all of us are raised by straight and cisgendered parents with straight and cisgendered siblings, cousins and friends. All the shows we see are about straight and cisgendered people. Even at an early age, we know we're somehow different, so we think something is wrong with us. But if we see someone like us, being treated as an equal and accepted, then we know what we are and that it's perfectly normal. Saying that "we're all the same" and that's why we shouldn't tell LGBTQ+ stories is erasing us. You can't just have a gay character acting exactly like a straight character, not having any romantic experiences. That's just having someone wear a shirt saying they're gay but otherwise is just like the straight people.

We can acknowledge that someone is a certain way, feels a certain way, loves a certain way, but we don't need to be reminded after every commercial break. At some point, you yell at the tv screen saying "OK! I get it! She likes girls/He likes other guys! Can we please move on?! " So that's where I'm at. The "shove it down our throats" part is where the writers and producers keep bringing it up as if to condition us to it as being normal, which feels abnormal. It would be more natural and feel as if it's truly a part of a character if it's stated or demonstrated and then treat it as we have always treated anything else on tv, with regards to gender, sex, relationships and personal identities.

Except that you aren't seeing your own bias. You seem to want LGBTQ+ characters as window dressing and nothing else. For me seeing straight and cisgendered people being straight and cisgendered is shoving it down my throat because I can't relate to that experience. I don't know what it's like to just accept the gender I was born with. LGBTQ+ people stories to tell and they are equally valid and deserve to be told. Maybe if you're exposed to more of them, you might actually begin to understand us better. That's not going to happen by just having LGBTQ+ people acting like "everyone else", that's erasing our identities and lives to make you more comfortable.

 

[GabyBee]

If people had no problem with Sisko calling Jadzia "Old Man", then they shouldn't have any problem with a character played by a female actress having the name "Michael". The character's name and the actress is almost all we know about at this point, and I think anyone already making some sort of fuss over it has an axe to grind on the "issue" of LGBT visibility in the media, and probably needs to step away from Star Trek and re-evaluate their priorities in life.

 

[JasonJ]

What you are describing as "heavy-handed" is having the writer's having to show the characters are LGBTQ+ as not being straight. This because for most people, a person is just assumed to be straight and cisgendered by default.


Given that they are human beings and not the subjects of debates (or at least they shouldn't be), I would hope so.

That's because you assume that everyone is straight and cisgendered by default, it's a bias and one that all of us have due to how we were raised. Even when I see a character, I just automatically assume they're straight because that's what I usually see.

Plus people in real life can just come out. No one is born automatically saying they're gay or trans, it can take years to accept. Part of this is due to society just assuming that everyone is straight and cisgendered by default. This happens to LGBTQ+, we can just think we're like the majority because everyone else is that way and we rarely see people like ourselves on television. I'm trans and the only representation I saw growing up were people being mocked on the Jerry Springer show and the punchlines to jokes. I didn't see a person like me (who wasn't a joke, hooker, criminal or victim) until I was nearly 30. I'm assuming you're straight and cisgendered given your reactions to this, so you've had representation your entire life. You take it for granted, so anything different seems "off" to you.

That's a good thing. We need to grow as a society because the old way is killing people.

Accepting them as normal includes not erasing them. LGBTQ+ have different struggles and experiences than you and these need to be shown in entertainment, just like your struggles and experiences have been shown since entertainment began. Showing that is not isolating anyone, LGBTQ+ people are already isolated because they aren't being shown. Nearly all of us are raised by straight and cisgendered parents with straight and cisgendered siblings, cousins and friends. All the shows we see are about straight and cisgendered people. Even at an early age, we know we're somehow different, so we think something is wrong with us. But if we see someone like us, being treated as an equal and accepted, then we know what we are and that it's perfectly normal. Saying that "we're all the same" and that's why we shouldn't tell LGBTQ+ stories is erasing us. You can't just have a gay character acting exactly like a straight character, not having any romantic experiences. That's just having someone wear a shirt saying they're gay but otherwise is just like the straight people.

Except that you aren't seeing your own bias. You seem to want LGBTQ+ characters as window dressing and nothing else. For me seeing straight and cisgendered people being straight and cisgendered is shoving it down my throat because I can't relate to that experience. I don't know what it's like to just accept the gender I was born with. LGBTQ+ people stories to tell and they are equally valid and deserve to be told. Maybe if you're exposed to more of them, you might actually begin to understand us better. That's not going to happen by just having LGBTQ+ people acting like "everyone else", that's erasing our identities and lives to make you more comfortable.

I think I see what you're saying. I appreciate the input. I don't know any trans people, while my wife, an alternative education teacher, has a couple transgendered students. I admit my experience is extremely limited.

I certainly don't want everyone to act the same, on tv or off. We aren't that way in actuality.

And perhaps you're right, I must have some bias or misunderstanding... Even if subconscious, maybe because of when and where and how I grew up... If that's the case, I'd sure like to think that I'm working on overcoming that.

I think I see your point about the "heavy handed" writing and portrayal of people on tv... From the other perspective... I hadn't thought of it that way before.

I may have typed myself into a hole on this one, despite good intentions; but if anything, I suppose it goes to show that we Can at least have the conversation.

I'm got to go think on this for a while and try to look at it from another person's perspective. Thanks Awesome Possum.

 

[JasonJ]

If people had no problem with Sisko calling Jadzia "Old Man", then they shouldn't have any problem with a character played by a female actress having the name "Michael". The character's name and the actress is almost all we know about at this point, and I think anyone already making some sort of fuss over it has an axe to grind on the "issue" of LGBT visibility in the media, and probably needs to step away from Star Trek and re-evaluate their priorities in life.

That's a hell of an assumption. If the last two pages demonstrate anything, it's that we shouldn't be doing that.

The issue with how Sisko referred to Jadzia is that it's disrespectful. I never liked that he did that.

I never meant to make a fuss, and tried to come at this from the angle that I get TV and media was doing the LGBTQ+ community a disservice in the way they were being portrayed. I thought that I was offended FOR THEM.

What I learned is that the way I thought would be better really was just the opposite of what I saw on tv, and was in fact minimizing an already quiet voice of an entire community of people, instead of making them just as Important as anyone else, it brings them to the stage but keeps them behind the curtain. That's not ok either.

Half of this discussion was about how people aren't what they may appear to be, and how they can change or grow as a human being. Don't think that I am any different in that respect.

 

[tenmei]

I think I see what you're saying. I appreciate the input. I don't know any trans people, while my wife, an alternative education teacher, has a couple transgendered students. I admit my experience is extremely limited.

You may not - but you may also have transgender acquaintances who aren't comfortable revealing this fact about themselves to you. When I came out as gay in 2001, it surprised me the number of people who were adamant they'd never met a gay person before - and I wanted to point out that as, statistically, approximately one in ten men identified as homosexual that they probably had but the individual probably just didn't feel comfortable bringing it up.

And that's another reason why focus has to be given on LGBTQIA relationships and characters in programmes when possible.

 

[Tesophius]

Michael is a very strange name for a girl.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Michael is a very strange name for a girl.

We'll get over it.

 

[Kor]

Michael is a very strange name for a girl.

A little late to the discussion there...

Kor

 

[JasonJ]

We'll get over it.

Agreed. I am now. It's not any kind of deal at all, let alone a big one.

 

[Tesophius]

I don't know... this could be a deal breaker.

 

[JasonJ]

You may not - but you may also have transgender acquaintances who aren't comfortable revealing this fact about themselves to you. When I came out as gay in 2001, it surprised me the number of people who were adamant they'd never met a gay person before - and I wanted to point out that as, statistically, approximately one in ten men identified as homosexual that they probably had but the individual probably just didn't feel comfortable bringing it up.

And that's another reason why focus has to be given on LGBTQIA relationships and characters in programmes when possible.

I have a number of gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances.. Most were friends since childhood. Many of which didn't come out h til we were adults. I suppose I just never noticed or thought about it beyond that.

I think you're right, more discussion and exposure needs to happen regarding all of those characters and their relationships... I think we have proven that a lack of that has lead to some misunderstanding and confusion about how they really feel.

I feel slightly enlightened by this conversation and also really foolish for seeing something as an issue that really wasn't. We should probably happy when LGBTQ, etc characters and even real people are on tv, film and other media... Clearly they are an especially underrepresented part of our society. And clearly that presents additional concerns because of it.

 

[JasonJ]

I don't know... this could be a deal breaker.

Wow.. And people thought I was being insensitive and rushing to judgements.

A character's name is not going to be a deal breaker for me, or probably for most. Even IF this character is transgender, which we still don't know, that still shouldn't detract from anything.

As I said, if that is the case, it's good that they are included too. We shouldn't be turning a blind eye to any segment of our population; ESPECIALLY because of how they feel or who they love.

 

[jamestyler]

And perhaps you're right, I must have some bias or misunderstanding... Even if subconscious, maybe because of when and where and how I grew up... If that's the case, I'd sure like to think that I'm working on overcoming that.

For all the back and forth on various threads, this one actually struck me as quite a nice comment.

Star Trek taught me a lot (not sure what that says about me or my upbringing ) so, even through discussions about it, it's nice to see someone opening their mind a little further.

Lovely to see that

 

[Tesophius]

I will only accept DSC if Michael is a transgender person who identifies as an effeminate gay male.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Michael is a very strange name for a girl.

Tiberius is a weird middle name.

I will only accept DSC if Michael is a transgender person who identifies as an effeminate gay male.

Gay trans men exist, I know a few.

 

[jamestyler]

Gay trans men exist, I know a few.

One of my oldest friends started off as a lesbian who was aroused by male-male 'entertainment', and is not transitioning into what I'd presume is a straight male.

I say presume as he made me realise... we like what we like. Shrug and move on!

 

[JediMindMeld]

Thank you for your reply, it made me think deeply on this... although I didn't have to do it for very long to realize you are correct. I again apologize if anything I've conveyed has been taken as insulting, as that is not my intent.

Thank you in return for a very honest answer. I don't think it's insulting or offensive.

I think when I said "make it mean something..." that was taken incorrectly. I don't mean to say that it in and of itself is meaningless, but rather that I don't think that a character should be added for the sake of just having a token gay guy... or just so the producers can say, "see, we have the first transgendered main character on tv! Praise us for it!". Do it for the same reasons you mentioned, that these people haven't had a voice in tv and film. Because their lifestyles are normal to us now (or should be). Because they need to be portrayed on tv and film the same as anyone else.

I don't think it matters whether the reason is articulated or not though. The main point is that these characters get to be seen.

I don't know if you've heard Bryan Fuller speak about his experiences in the industry, but he has a few good points to make about inclusion and openness. He wrote scripts for Enterprise, and this is, what, 10-12 years ago? Well into the 00s. And he used to get hundreds of death threats from people who thought he would wreck the show with some 'hidden gay agenda', on account of himself being gay. He said that that's the moment when he decided he was going to include a gay character if he ever got his own Star Trek show. Just because he could. Just because there doesn't have to be a reason for one to be there in a truly tolerant world. It's not that hard to see what appealed to a young Fuller about Star Trek, which has always been the ultimate Social Justice Warrior show. It has prided itself on painting a better and more tolerant future for humanity where different people are accepted and included. This is exactly why Uhura, Zulu, Chekov and Kahn were included in TOS. It wasn't to benefit storytelling and it wasn't because Walter Koenig was a genius actor. Gene Roddenberry did it because he could. Because those people deserved to be there every bit as much as those who didn't share their ethnicity, nationality or skin colour. And even if Koenig wasn't actually Russian and Ricardo Montalban was Mexican rather than Sikh the symbolic value of those characters mattered just as much as their personalities.

There was someone in a different thread yesterday who threw a hissy fit over Anthony Rapp and his statement that he "was honored" to play a gay man on Discovery, and this poster seemed completely incapable of understanding where people were coming from when they pointed out that there are thousands of episodes of Trek out there and at no point has there been a gay actor portraying a gay character. The closest we've ever gotten was a single kiss between Jadzia and a fellow trill (and you could feel how uncomfortable they both were on screen; it genuinely looked like two straight girls making out).

We've made progress as a society when it comes to equality and human rights, but every single time we take a small step forward the people whose lives aren't directly affected by it seem to immediately forget how long the road still is that lies ahead of us. We have gay, lesbian, bi and even transgender characters in leading roles on tv nowadays. There aren't a lot of them but they're there. It's still pretty insulting to these people though when straight people pretend that everything is right in the world just because we don't outright kill LGBT+ people or omit them to mental institutions anymore.

As I said in my other post before I saw your reply, I just feel that we don't need an LGBTQ+ whatever else you'd like to add type of character just so they can say they have one on screen... I want that to be an integral part of the character, just as it is integral to the real life people that it represents.

At the same time it's not like being gay is a visual representation. Even a lot of transgender people are hard to distinguish. I've worked and studied with people who didn't mention their sexual orientation for years because it's not something you naturally just bring up, or indeed should feel pressured to inform your straight mates/audience about.

When it comes to gay characters on tv it seems to me like they're always caught between a rock and a hard place. If the show does address it right away people will think it's preachy or too heavy-handed. If it's not really addressed until a romance blossoms up people will complain that "it came out of nowhere; why did they have to turn a straight character gay or bi just to drive this ridiculous agenda?!" Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The bottom line, I think, is that it's not down to us as straight people to decide what is fair and reasonable in these cases. We need to listen to what the people who are concerned think and feel about it. People like Fuller and Rapp. And if we're really lucky we get to learn something valuable about other human beings meanwhile.

 

[Noname Given]

[QUOTE="JediMindMeld, post: 11973276, member: 72779"This is exactly why Uhura, Zulu, Chekov and Kahn were included in TOS. It wasn't to benefit storytelling and it wasn't because Walter Koenig was a genius actor. Gene Roddenberry did it because he could. Because those people deserved to be there every bit as much as those who didn't share their ethnicity, nationality or skin colour. And even if Koenig wasn't actually Russian and Ricardo Montalban was Mexican rather than Sikh the symbolic value of those characters mattered just as much as their personalities..[/QUOTE]
^^
I hate to burst your bubble, but if you want to see what GR really proposed - see "The Cage" (and BTW Majel Barret was only cast in the role of "Number One" in it because she was GR's mistress at the time.)

The 'diverse casting' for the second pilot and subsequent series was more the result of an NBC memo (as well as Herbert F. Solo's suggestion for the second pilot) requesting show runners to include more minorities - not because NBC was pushing a 'tolerance' agenda; but more because data showed more minorities were getting TV sets and watching; and the advertisers wanted to tap into that new market.

Now, GR didn't have a problem with Herb's suggestion or the NBC memo; but a 'mixed race cast' (beyond 'Mr. Spock' as an alien/human hybrid) was not really in GR origonal pitch, or pilot.

[Oh, and BTW 'Star Trek' wasn't the first show with minority characters - 'I SPY" with Robert Culp and Bill Cosby had been on the air a year prior the Star Trek debuting on NBC.]

 

[JasonJ]

Thank you in return for a very honest answer. I don't think it's insulting or offensive.



I don't think it matters whether the reason is articulated or not though. The main point is that these characters get to be seen.

I don't know if you've heard Bryan Fuller speak about his experiences in the industry, but he has a few good points to make about inclusion and openness. He wrote scripts for Enterprise, and this is, what, 10-12 years ago? Well into the 00s. And he used to get hundreds of death threats from people who thought he would wreck the show with some 'hidden gay agenda', on account of himself being gay. He said that that's the moment when he decided he was going to include a gay character if he ever got his own Star Trek show. Just because he could. Just because there doesn't have to be a reason for one to be there in a truly tolerant world. It's not that hard to see what appealed to a young Fuller about Star Trek, which has always been the ultimate Social Justice Warrior show. It has prided itself on painting a better and more tolerant future for humanity where different people are accepted and included. This is exactly why Uhura, Zulu, Chekov and Kahn were included in TOS. It wasn't to benefit storytelling and it wasn't because Walter Koenig was a genius actor. Gene Roddenberry did it because he could. Because those people deserved to be there every bit as much as those who didn't share their ethnicity, nationality or skin colour. And even if Koenig wasn't actually Russian and Ricardo Montalban was Mexican rather than Sikh the symbolic value of those characters mattered just as much as their personalities.

There was someone in a different thread yesterday who threw a hissy fit over Anthony Rapp and his statement that he "was honored" to play a gay man on Discovery, and this poster seemed completely incapable of understanding where people were coming from when they pointed out that there are thousands of episodes of Trek out there and at no point has there been a gay actor portraying a gay character. The closest we've ever gotten was a single kiss between Jadzia and a fellow trill (and you could feel how uncomfortable they both were on screen; it genuinely looked like two straight girls making out).

We've made progress as a society when it comes to equality and human rights, but every single time we take a small step forward the people whose lives aren't directly affected by it seem to immediately forget how long the road still is that lies ahead of us. We have gay, lesbian, bi and even transgender characters in leading roles on tv nowadays. There aren't a lot of them but they're there. It's still pretty insulting to these people though when straight people pretend that everything is right in the world just because we don't outright kill LGBT+ people or omit them to mental institutions anymore.



At the same time it's not like being gay is a visual representation. Even a lot of transgender people are hard to distinguish. I've worked and studied with people who didn't mention their sexual orientation for years because it's not something you naturally just bring up, or indeed should feel pressured to inform your straight mates/audience about.

When it comes to gay characters on tv it seems to me like they're always caught between a rock and a hard place. If the show does address it right away people will think it's preachy or too heavy-handed. If it's not really addressed until a romance blossoms up people will complain that "it came out of nowhere; why did they have to turn a straight character gay or bi just to drive this ridiculous agenda?!" Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The bottom line, I think, is that it's not down to us as straight people to decide what is fair and reasonable in these cases. We need to listen to what the people who are concerned think and feel about it. People like Fuller and Rapp. And if we're really lucky we get to learn something valuable about other human beings meanwhile.

Absolutely agree. I hadn't seen it this way before late this afternoon... But now that I do, it's striking just how different goings appear.

We're all here (on this forum) for a mutual love of a TV show... We would be remiss if we lost sight of what that show tries to teach us about ourselves. That we can grow and learn and become better than we are today.

Why wait to start?

 

[{ Emilia }]

It's refreshing to see an open conversation led by people with open minds who are willing to change their stances when faced with new information.