News Trans character announced

[Lord Garth]

I should've placed a bet.

 

[JulieYBM]

Yeah, the Trans Agenda© is real and we're coming for all of you. Prepare to be assimilated.

 

[Lord Garth]

Having milquetoast conversations with everyone who agrees with you doesn’t lead to anything new or exciting.

There's a ton I don't agree with @BillJ about and there's stuff I don't always agree with @TimeIsAPredator but we have some pretty good discussions.

I submit that you're the one who's against anything new. Anything that goes against what you think it "should" be causes you to go into overload.

 

[Mudd]

Mulan wasn't out yet.

Oh, did Disney invent that thousand+ year old trope? How did that work?

 

[BillJ]

I’m new to these forums and your position isn’t a retread to me.

You have been a member here for four years...

 

[RAMA]

Half thought about responding to these points, but with almost everything being wrong in your post, I yawned as it would be exhausting, and somebody else will probably take care of my light work.

RAMA

Absolutely. And there is no shortage of persons who will gas-light you into trying to believe that it isn’t virtue signaling or pushing an agenda. Just to add to your concerns let’s not forget the most recent Trek event interview with Alex Kurtzman. It’s not about Star Trek it’s about the platform.
It’s too obvious Trek is no longer about story first and neither is it about character development.
It’s now obvious that Trek is about agenda first and the story is just packaging. It was obvious to some of us that this has damaged the franchise, lowering viewership interests and destroying interest in licensing products (where long term franchises have capital value).

Now the evidence of the viewership is slipping through the cracks. The articles about viewership in Canada are out. American viewers aren’t that dissimilar to our Canadian cousins. The viewership of Short Treks and Lower Decks on YouTube are abysmal for a channel like CBSViacom with millions of followers.

And if the rebranded streaming service or All Access had any greater, iconic properties that could draw interest to a streaming service, Trek would have been cut loose years ago.

Now STD will be on broadcast. The numbers for that will be telling. And Kurtzman is public now that Trek is just a platform to push an agenda.

my point is that this will be tokenism. I’m a gay man and I felt Culber and and what’s-his-name were also token. Characters that felt like they were there to make a statement first. Burnham felt that way to me also, to a lesser degree. All of these “first for Trek” things that aren’t really and usually weren’t well researched when they took their cultural brownie points and ran with it to the press for the PR.
Frankly, it’s insulting for a show that purports to be the descendant of Gene Rodenberry’s Trek to continue on with the 2009 movie trends. That continues the trend from 2009 of replacing science fiction with science fantasy. For telling convoluted stories that are low IQ, vapid, vacuous, hyperkinetic, spasmodic, and manic with Louis sounds and explosions in the place of dramatic tension and character driven storytelling.

And now someone’s going to come here and try to pass the notion that this isn’t tokenism. That it isn’t to placate .02% of the population to grab a viewer who isn’t there and won’t spend money keeping Trek alive for the next 50 years.

It’s insulting. It’s disingenuous. It divides the fan base and creates the types of tensions that never were part of fan base debate and at times heated discussion. Our fandom has always been dynamic, diverse in opinion and in the various shades, shapes, creeds, and so on. It has been robust and often argumentative. We’ve have some ugly at times. But not like this.
This is a new level, brought about in an agenda that seems to exist just to push a boundary that most fans of Trek honestly don’t care about.

Trek- good Trek is a story that encompasses species that have more than two sexes. More than just a few shades of colors. More than just mammals or bi-peds. It should now still be about the story first as Trek has always been. There have always been morality plays and reflections of mores and ethics. But always through a good story and Trek of old tried hard to lead the audience to the point and let them decide, not beat the audience over the head.

But we can think less talented and less subtle writers from the CW and show runners who are more concerned with having a platform upon which they can stand and be tone deaf as they shout.

But hey, there will be those who will defend it tooth and nail. They will defend it to the detriment of the franchise. They will defend it while insisting that you are the nasty, evil person of their fantasmagoria. Those tolerant, liberal persons of social justice and virtue will defend the show and its bigotry of low expectations and tokenism. While simultaneously calling you all nasty things, declaring that you shouldn’t speak, and that this franchise isn’t for you obviously and that you should be the one to go.

I’ll bet anything dollars to latinum that you’ll see it here. Against all the evidence and logical reasoning. That’s what Trek is becoming and that’s what trying to debate with the ideologically possessed will bring you.

 

[JulieYBM]

If I wanted to blame someone for the decline in stories I would blame the marginalized people who have nothing to do with that decline instead of the people in charge of the capitalistic corporations involved in making commercial media.

Very smart am I.

 

[serabine]

Absolutely. And there is no shortage of persons who will gas-light you into trying to believe that it isn’t virtue signaling or pushing an agenda. Just to add to your concerns let’s not forget the most recent Trek event interview with Alex Kurtzman. It’s not about Star Trek it’s about the platform.
It’s too obvious Trek is no longer about story first and neither is it about character development.
It’s now obvious that Trek is about agenda first and the story is just packaging. It was obvious to some of us that this has damaged the franchise, lowering viewership interests and destroying interest in licensing products (where long term franchises have capital value).

Now the evidence of the viewership is slipping through the cracks. The articles about viewership in Canada are out. American viewers aren’t that dissimilar to our Canadian cousins. The viewership of Short Treks and Lower Decks on YouTube are abysmal for a channel like CBSViacom with millions of followers.

And if the rebranded streaming service or All Access had any greater, iconic properties that could draw interest to a streaming service, Trek would have been cut loose years ago.

Now STD will be on broadcast. The numbers for that will be telling. And Kurtzman is public now that Trek is just a platform to push an agenda.

my point is that this will be tokenism. I’m a gay man and I felt Culber and and what’s-his-name were also token. Characters that felt like they were there to make a statement first. Burnham felt that way to me also, to a lesser degree. All of these “first for Trek” things that aren’t really and usually weren’t well researched when they took their cultural brownie points and ran with it to the press for the PR.
Frankly, it’s insulting for a show that purports to be the descendant of Gene Rodenberry’s Trek to continue on with the 2009 movie trends. That continues the trend from 2009 of replacing science fiction with science fantasy. For telling convoluted stories that are low IQ, vapid, vacuous, hyperkinetic, spasmodic, and manic with Louis sounds and explosions in the place of dramatic tension and character driven storytelling.

And now someone’s going to come here and try to pass the notion that this isn’t tokenism. That it isn’t to placate .02% of the population to grab a viewer who isn’t there and won’t spend money keeping Trek alive for the next 50 years.

It’s insulting. It’s disingenuous. It divides the fan base and creates the types of tensions that never were part of fan base debate and at times heated discussion. Our fandom has always been dynamic, diverse in opinion and in the various shades, shapes, creeds, and so on. It has been robust and often argumentative. We’ve have some ugly at times. But not like this.
This is a new level, brought about in an agenda that seems to exist just to push a boundary that most fans of Trek honestly don’t care about.

Trek- good Trek is a story that encompasses species that have more than two sexes. More than just a few shades of colors. More than just mammals or bi-peds. It should now still be about the story first as Trek has always been. There have always been morality plays and reflections of mores and ethics. But always through a good story and Trek of old tried hard to lead the audience to the point and let them decide, not beat the audience over the head.

But we can think less talented and less subtle writers from the CW and show runners who are more concerned with having a platform upon which they can stand and be tone deaf as they shout.

But hey, there will be those who will defend it tooth and nail. They will defend it to the detriment of the franchise. They will defend it while insisting that you are the nasty, evil person of their fantasmagoria. Those tolerant, liberal persons of social justice and virtue will defend the show and its bigotry of low expectations and tokenism. While simultaneously calling you all nasty things, declaring that you shouldn’t speak, and that this franchise isn’t for you obviously and that you should be the one to go.

I’ll bet anything dollars to latinum that you’ll see it here. Against all the evidence and logical reasoning. That’s what Trek is becoming and that’s what trying to debate with the ideologically possessed will bring you.

I see you were threatened with a ban because you’ve been warned before not to reiterate your opinions about something you see in Trek that you don’t like.

To be constructive for the sake of the moderator team here. I’m new to these forums and your position isn’t a retread to me. I want to see opinions from those fans with whom I agree AND disagree. It’s the only way to hash out anything meaningful.

Having milquetoast conversations with everyone who agrees with you doesn’t lead to anything new or exciting.

Is this performance art?

 

[JulieYBM]

See, this is why every character ever should just be queer.

 

[Lord Garth]

You have been a member here for four years...

Just not four Earth years.

 

[Guy Gardener]

[QUOTE="The Realist, post: 13512257, member: 354”]

Because that’s not good storytelling and needing to see yourself “represented” in your entertainment is narcissism in the extreme. If that’s what you’re asking when you’re watching something then you really should seek a counselor or a psychologist to speak to.

How many Gays were on the Love Boat?

Wow.

https://sdlgbtn.com/entertainment/2017/08/11/time-love-boat-featured-trans-character

They had a trans episode.

Or they tried to have a trans episode.

McKenzie Phillips.

She's on the one Day at a Time remake as a recurring character.

 

[JulieYBM]

Y'know Discovery, a fun way to have your first trans woman as a character would be a captaincy. Just sayin'.

Oh, by the way: make her Michael's girlfriend. Thanks!

Love,
Julie

 

[Awesome Possum]

Ever noticed how all these guys claim they just want good stories over representation as if this is a huge problem. But I can’t think of a single example of how adding a LGBTQ character or plot ruined a show. Unless you just hate LGBTQ people and just seeing one on a show you watched ruined it for you because you can’t stand to even think about them existing. You want an escape to a fantasy world where everyone is straight and cis, no one who isn’t “normal”. But I’m sure they have countless examples of this happening or it isn’t a real problem.

 

[gazomg]

they can add trans, non binary, gay, straight, male , female, short, tall, fat skinny, cross dressers, transvestites, nudists, dwarves, giants, republicans, democrats, religious nuts, and atheists, but wont matter cos the writing sucks
Burnham sucks and completely dominates the show....and until they fix that, no amount of pc flag waving will solve that.

 

[JulieYBM]

Ever noticed how all these guys claim they just want good stories over representation as if this is a huge problem. But I can’t think of a single example of how adding a LGBTQ character or plot ruined a show. Unless you just hate LGBTQ people and just seeing one on a show you watched ruined it for you because you can’t stand to even think about them existing. You want an escape to a fantasy world where everyone is straight and cis, no one who isn’t “normal”. But I’m sure they have countless examples of this happening or it isn’t a real problem.

Cis (even those who are gay, pansexual or bisexual) people fear trans people because we 'break' the rules that they have spent generations trying to enforce upon society. It's really sad, because it just goes to show that cis and cishet people don't go to media to learn new things, they go to media to be told their worldviews matter. They need that echo chamber.

Like, gosh, I just want to see a trans woman out wit fascists and then smash their teeth in like cis people get to do.

 

[JulieYBM]

they can add trans, non binary, gay, straight, male , female, short, tall, fat skinny, cross dressers, transvestites, nudists, dwarves, giants, republicans, democrats, religious nuts, and atheists, but wont matter cos the writing sucks
Burnham sucks and completely dominates the show....and until they fix that, no amount of pc flag waving will solve that.

Yeaaaaaaaaah, we don't use 'transvestites', that's a slur.

Also, LOL at calling us politically correct while acting like your opinions on a stupid fucking commercial web series is somehow an objective fact.

 

[Anthony60]

Pretty soon, it'll be a big deal when Star Trek has a new character that is just plain, vanilla, LOL!

 

[JulieYBM]

Pretty soon, it'll be a big deal when Star Trek has a new character that is just plain, vanilla, LOL!

Cisgender and heterosexual people are neither plain nor vanilla, because gay, bisexual, pansexual, non-binary, transgender, aromantic and asexual people are not something to be othered.

 

[Lord Garth]

Ever noticed how all these guys claim they just want good stories over representation as if this is a huge problem. But I can’t think of a single example of how adding a LGBTQ character or plot ruined a show. Unless you just hate LGBTQ people and just seeing one on a show you watched ruined it for you because you can’t stand to even think about them existing. You want an escape to a fantasy world where everyone is straight and cis, no one who isn’t “normal”. But I’m sure they have countless examples of this happening or it isn’t a real problem.

They wouldn't know a good story if it smacked them upside the head. Or they'll find a way to move goalposts. "Oh! It's a good story! So why do you need LGBTQ?"

The Fandom Menace in general might as well have "Make Trek Great Again" as their mantra, but these people in particular should just say "Make Trek Straight Again" and get it over with. Goes nice with them complaining about "SJWs" and "virtue signalling".

 

[gazomg]

Yeaaaaaaaaah, we don't use 'transvestites', that's a slur.

Also, LOL at calling us politically correct while acting like your opinions on a stupid fucking commercial web series is somehow an objective fact.

It was tongue in cheek comment, get a sense of humour. It was blatantly obvious my criticism were aimed at the writing and not people in general.
At my age its a struggle to keep up with what every the correct terms are these days they change so often. I never knew that was a slur,