News Trans character announced

[Guy Gardener]

Ive seem at least two legal dramas where Jewish people were trying to suppress medical science that was based on the vivisection of Jews during the war.

And there was that episode of Voyager where they used allegory to explore the same subject.

60 million people died trying to build a better human in the eugenics war.

The same rules apply.

 

[NCC-73515]

I don't think cis people think that way.

I do - but I'd want to be able to switch back

 

[Jayson1]

I think that it's ultimately damaging to the connection you have to an audience of twenty first century humans to go too far into the weeds of "what would the 23rd/24th century really look like?"
Star Trek doesn't even properly address the impact of its own technologies (eg the replicator, which led to the never ending post scarcity debate, or the transporter which as written can make you immortal with an army of clones).

If you start obsessing over the fictional future being "realistic", you'll quickly lose the real world relevance that connects you to your audience as well as the ability to tackle current issues from an accessible lens that is the biggest strength of the science fiction genre.

On this topic specifically, it's also a convenient way to erase people the 2020 audience deem "broken" in some way. Yes, a society as advanced as Starfleet would probably have the scientific ability to reprogram particular sexual or gender identities. They could probably eliminate races too, for that matter, or the male sex. But why would they and why would we want to see that?

"Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing"

I agree. Me the tech aspects never bother me. I think it would bother me though if humans were still facing the racisms from other humans in the future even though that can sometimes take away from some aspects of social commentary. In the way black characters never are hated by white characters because of racism I want these characters to be accepted by crew without even the hint that they might not accept them. Even in the mirror universe the humans have evolved beyond human on human bigotry. I know on Picard one issue I had was I think they were implying early on that Picard was a rich guy with privilege and Raffti was poor and thus had to live in a shack which to me got way to close to reality.

This is why aliens are in Trek. Humans have come together and moved beyond that stuff for the most part but you still talk about those issues through aliens. Of course this is why representation is also important because it shows that all humans no matter who you are have survived and made it to the future and will someday live in a utopia or mostly utopia. I think I prefer the more grounded ones of TOS and DS9 but I think TNG was popular as it was because it was maybe one of the most positive enforcing shows you can think of.


Jason

 

[cultcross]

This is why aliens are in Trek. Humans have come together and moved beyond that stuff for the most part but you still talk about those issues through aliens

I quite agree - aliens are us. Often the bits of us which we aren't sure about or want to confront.

 

[Mudd]

I don't get the concept of gender, truth be told. Not sure I want to, either. Sex is much simpler.

They're not identical categories.

 

[Mudd]

I think that it's ultimately damaging to the connection you have to an audience of twenty first century humans to go too far into the weeds of "what would the 23rd/24th century really look like?"
Star Trek doesn't even properly address the impact of its own technologies (eg the replicator, which led to the never ending post scarcity debate, or the transporter which as written can make you immortal with an army of clones).

If you start obsessing over the fictional future being "realistic", you'll quickly lose the real world relevance that connects you to your audience as well as the ability to tackle current issues from an accessible lens that is the biggest strength of the science fiction genre.

On this topic specifically, it's also a convenient way to erase people the 2020 audience deem "broken" in some way. Yes, a society as advanced as Starfleet would probably have the scientific ability to reprogram particular sexual or gender identities. They could probably eliminate races too, for that matter, or the male sex. But why would they and why would we want to see that?

"Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing"

This is observant and all absolutely true.

Can we just retire that whole line of rationalization, now? Maybe add something to the board FAQ under "To Avoid Being Incredibly Tiresome, Just Don't:?"

 

[Jayson1]

Sometimes with the tech I do think it can have some value though because Trek has inspired lots of people to want to go into science. I bet you somewhere their was some kid or kids for example that saw Geordi's visor and wanted to figure out how to make one for real. Much like how communicators inspired cell phones. That's always been part of Trek's charm as well. That ability to find balance in exploring the human condition while also providing feel goods of a positive future while also inspiring the imaginations of people as well.

Jason

 

[eschaton]

Speak for yourself.

As someone with just mild ASD I would jump at the chance to get rid of this curse. And most people with ASD I know would too as it is not the "fun" quirk that Hollywood makes out.

I'd love to edit out my severe ADHD as well. A different me could be a better me.

 

[eschaton]

I quite agree - aliens are us. Often the bits of us which we aren't sure about or want to confront.

I'd say this is mostly true. Aliens usually are human stand-ins, but if they're advanced/godlike or non-humanoid, they're typically more like plot devices.

Even something like the Children of Tamar from Darmok, despite being humanoid, was more like a stand-in for a concept than a character per-se.

 

[Oddish]

They're not identical categories.

My point. Sex used to be established at birth. The doc would ease your tiny, naked, gooey body out of your mom's birth canal, and announce "it's a boy" or "it's a girl".

But gender is nebulous... they call a boy trans because he enjoys playing with dolls, or a girl because she enjoys playing football and working on motorcycles. Can't people just like what they like, regardless of sex?

 

[cultcross]

That's not what trans means.

 

[BillJ]

I don't get the concept of gender, truth be told. Not sure I want to, either. Sex is much simpler.

Never hurts to do a bit of research, that way you don't end up with a post like the one below...

My point. Sex used to be established at birth. The doc would ease your tiny, naked, gooey body out of your mom's birth canal, and announce "it's a boy" or "it's a girl".

But gender is nebulous... they call a boy trans because he enjoys playing with dolls, or a girl because she enjoys playing football and working on motorcycles. Can't people just like what they like, regardless of sex?

The brain is a complicated organ.

I'd love to edit out my severe ADHD as well. A different me could be a better me.

A different you could also be a worse you.

 

[UssGlenn]

ashir's childhood condition was basically described as low-functioning autism - the Federation didn't allow his parents to 'correct' that, and rightly so. Autism is not an illness, nor is it a birth defect.

Many end up like Bashir or worse. Unable to communicate or even take care of themselves, some not developing beyond babies.

Indeed, if you think Bashir was low functioning you've never been around a kid who actually was low functioning.

There's a selection bias. Anyone who can tell others they want to stay autistic actually has the ability to communicate.

 

[Oddish]

I think it was a mistake on their part. I think they were referring to high functioning autism, previously known as Asperger's syndrome. That may be what Lt. Barclay suffered from, though social anxiety disorder seems more likely. Not to mention a few assorted phobias.

 

[Guy Gardener]

A more Conservative government given the choice of spending billions in therapy or trillions looking for a cure, would just remove you from the gene pool.

Kill the correct billion people, and you've cured cancer.

I wonder if Trans people were on Colonel Greens list?

 

[Mudd]

A different you could also be a worse you.

We overthink, and we are mislead by language.

A "different you..." is someone else.

 

[Oddish]

Ironically, the most efficient way to remove trans people from the gene pool is to allow them to transition. An inevitable side effect of gender reassignment is sterility. That's not transphobia talking, just biology.

 

[eschaton]

But gender is nebulous... they call a boy trans because he enjoys playing with dolls, or a girl because she enjoys playing football and working on motorcycles. Can't people just like what they like, regardless of sex?

My reading on the subject is there's basically two modern theories related to gender identity:

1. There's such a thing as "objective brain gender" which is formed during fetal development or soon thereafter. People are born with a sense they are male, female, something in between, or neither, and this is basically inflexible (similar to sexual orientation). It also only overlaps partially with external sexual characteristics, therefore trans people exist.
2. Biological sex is to some extent real, but gender is a social construct. This is a very common belief among feminists I have known, and many non-binary people. There are no such things as male or female brains in this understanding. However, since gender is a subjective matter, we can "take peoples word" (so to speak) on what they identify themselves as, since they have self-determination and it's wrong to not accept the self-appellation of people.

 

[cultcross]

A more Conservative government given the choice of spending billions in therapy or trillions looking for a cure, would just remove you from the gene pool.

Kill the correct billion people, and you've cured cancer.

I wonder if Trans people were on Colonel Greens list?

Ironically, the most efficient way to remove trans people from the gene pool is to allow them to transition. An inevitable side effect of gender reassignment is sterility. That's not transphobia talking, just biology.

How's about for this thread we leave everybody in the gene pool.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I do - but I'd want to be able to switch back

That's called gender fluid.

My point. Sex used to be established at birth. The doc would ease your tiny, naked, gooey body out of your mom's birth canal, and announce "it's a boy" or "it's a girl".

But gender is nebulous... they call a boy trans because he enjoys playing with dolls, or a girl because she enjoys playing football and working on motorcycles. Can't people just like what they like, regardless of sex?

That's not what it means to be trans at all.

Ironically, the most efficient way to remove trans people from the gene pool is to allow them to transition. An inevitable side effect of gender reassignment is sterility. That's not transphobia talking, just biology.

Trans people aren't made because of some trans gene or because they got it from a parent, a certain percentage of the population is always going to be trans. Just like a certain percentage of the population is always going to be gay. It's just part of being human. If every single trans person in the world were suddenly unable to have children, there would still be new trans people being born every single day. So you won't be getting rid of us.