MemoryAlpha editor refuses to change Adira's Gender to "Non-Binary"

[SJGardner]

I think this thread is seriously getting derailed from its original topic, and I'll have to admit I didn't feel the need to comment as others have expressed my feelings at Memory Alpha's conduct much more eloquently than I could've, but now that we're talking about this other, tangentially related thing...

Why would it be the job of an encyclopedia to arouse me? There's a medium for material whose purpose is to cause sexual arousal, it's called pornography, and let's not delve into the morality of that. Memory Alpha includes character portraits for every single race but the Orions, end of story. It's nothing but a blatant invocation of the green-skinned sex babe trope, and putting a picture of a bare-chested male under her doesn't make it even or okay. One would need to be blind to believe the two things are the same. Arnie didn't go without a shirt in Conan so that he could titillate the ladies. But when a woman on screen is dressed in a swimsuit or lingerie, it's almost invariably eye candy. Gratuitous fanservice that doesn't serve any purpose in a story other than titillation is almost always centered on female characters. If that's not objectification, I don't know what is. I've never felt that treating women with the same respect we so easily give to men would be an attack on my sexuality. And quite frankly, their right to be treated as people is a million times more important than my arousal or sexual gratification.

 

[Court_Vince]

To Court Vince and any other non-binary people on this thread, I invite you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Adira Tal. If listing Adira's biological sex distresses you, please explain why. We've had lots of comments from allies, but I don't think we've had one from an actual non-binary person yet (yes, I know now that some of them posted on twitter, I'm referring to the actual discussion page).
I go by the username NetSpiker on Memory Alpha.

I've made an account but rn it seems the discussion slowed down, I'll probably make post some time tomorrow
ETA: Well I couldn't resist and made post a few seconds ago, lets see what Will4205 will say in response

 

[Extrocomp]

Why would it be the job of an encyclopedia to arouse me? There's a medium for material whose purpose is to cause sexual arousal, it's called pornography, and let's not delve into the morality of that. Memory Alpha includes character portraits for every single race but the Orions, end of story. It's nothing but a blatant invocation of the green-skinned sex babe trope, and putting a picture of a bare-chested male under her doesn't make it even or okay. One would need to be blind to believe the two things are the same. Arnie didn't go without a shirt in Conan so that he could titillate the ladies. But when a woman on screen is dressed in a swimsuit or lingerie, it's almost invariably eye candy. Gratuitous fanservice that doesn't serve any purpose in a story other than titillation is almost always centered on female characters. If that's not objectification, I don't know what is. I've never felt that treating women with the same respect we so easily give to men would be an attack on my sexuality. And quite frankly, their right to be treated as people is a million times more important than my arousal or sexual gratification.

Why do you think Arnold going shirtless wasn't done to titillate the ladies? I'm pretty sure lots of women are attracted to young muscular shirtless men. And why do you think showing a woman in a bikini is somehow not treating her as a person? Every woman that has appeared in a bikini or naked in a movie was paid good money for the role and was a legally consenting adult, so I don't see what the problem is. I think fanservice should exist for both men and women.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Social justice is a good thing. It's about achieving justice for individuals in or through society. Fighting for it (being a "warrior") has been the core of Star Trek's ethos since they first decided to focus on military officers in space.

It's a perversion of etymology that SJW transformed into a negative somehow in the last ten years. I have no doubt that many who use it don't realize this, and they are just mimicking others (that's kind of how language works), but just like attacking feminism or attacking anti-facism, being anti-social justice makes no sense at face value.

I think you can also apply it to that other slur "wokeness" which I find annoying and it seems to crop up in many fandoms to brush off other people or put a slur on discussion.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Going back on topic, I don't think it matters, overall, who posts on Memory Alpha, as long as they are fulfilling the encyclopedic nature of that site. Most people (not me) hide behind usernames and could be anything under the sun.

The Talk:Adira Tal page is veering way off topic, as it's supposed to be about the page's contents alone and not about the righteousness or not of the admins or "SJWs" or society-at-large. This site (within reason) and Twitter and other places are where more free-flowing discussion should be had. Unlike other administrators, I don't feel the need to go on a twelve-point rant on what's wrong with the world and Twitter and whatever else. I made my changes, explained them, and that was that.

ETA: I would suggest future posters keep this in mind before posting on that page. You should only post to suggest changes to the protected Adira Tal page and not to respond to misinformed or incorrect people.

Although, perhaps I'm not the best example because I replied to the person (my old friend Alan) who said I was "duped into being a tool".

 

[SJGardner]

Why do you think Arnold going shirtless wasn't done to titillate the ladies? I'm pretty sure lots of women are attracted to young muscular shirtless men. And why do you think showing a woman in a bikini is somehow not treating her as a person? Every woman that has appeared in a bikini or naked in a movie was paid good money for the role and was a legally consenting adult, so I don't see what the problem is. I think fanservice should exist for both men and women.

The first thing you think of about Conan isn't that he's shirtless or attractively muscular. He's an uncouth barbarian who kicks ass and is the protagonist of his story. But the Orion slave girls and other similar characters were placed in the story with the explicit intent to titillate, and there's often nothing to their characters other than being there and looking attractive. When an actress has a nude scene in a movie, more often than not that's the only one people remember. Conan doesn't cease to be a hero just because he doesn't wear a tunic. A shirtless male still has agency, and the focus is still not on how he looks but what he does. But a scantily clad female is explicitly placed there so that she could draw the (usually) male gaze. That's why she's objectified and a male isn't.

And by the way, male actors are usually paid a negotiated hefty extra sum for nude scenes. For actresses, it's usually included as a requirement in their contract and doesn't incur further payments.

 

[Court_Vince]

Why do you think Arnold going shirtless wasn't done to titillate the ladies? I'm pretty sure lots of women are attracted to young muscular shirtless men. And why do you think showing a woman in a bikini is somehow not treating her as a person? Every woman that has appeared in a bikini or naked in a movie was paid good money for the role and was a legally consenting adult, so I don't see what the problem is. I think fanservice should exist for both men and women.

This still doesn't answer the question of why every other race has character portraits on their pages, except for the Orions, why are their pictures two shirtless Orion characters? It's esp questionable given the fact we have Orion characters that arent sexualized.

 

[Extrocomp]

The first thing you think of about Conan isn't that he's shirtless or attractively muscular. He's an uncouth barbarian who kicks ass and is the protagonist of his story. But the Orion slave girls and other similar characters were placed in the story with the explicit intent to titillate, and there's often nothing to their characters other than being there and looking attractive. When an actress has a nude scene in a movie, more often than not that's the only one people remember. Conan doesn't cease to be a hero just because he doesn't wear a tunic. A shirtless male still has agency, and the focus is still not on how he looks but what he does. But a scantily clad female is explicitly placed there so that she could draw the (usually) male gaze. That's why she's objectified and a male isn't.

So does that mean you'd be okay with a woman in a bikini as long as she's a fleshed out character who can kick ass? How do you feel about Red Sonja?

And by the way, male actors are usually paid a negotiated hefty extra sum for nude scenes. For actresses, it's usually included as a requirement in their contract and doesn't incur further payments.

If that's true, then it's unfair and I'm completely against that. But the answer is to pay women the same amount as men for nude scenes, not eliminate female nude scenes entirely.

 

[Extrocomp]

This still doesn't answer the questions of why every other race has character portraits on their pages, except for the Orions, why are their pictures two shirtless Orion characters? It's esp questionable given the fact we have Orion characters that arent sexualized.

Because the majority of Orions that have appeared on Star Trek were shirtless, especially prior to Discovery. Even Devna who appeared in a cartoon was wearing a bikini.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I don't think it's transphobic to accept the fact that biological sex is real or to think that biological sex should be noted in a character's infobox. People have a variety of opinions on the subject, but when you call someone transphobic and they know they aren't, they'll just think you're a crazy SJW and stop listening to anything you have to say.


To Court Vince and any other non-binary people on this thread, I invite you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Adira Tal. If listing Adira's biological sex distresses you, please explain why. We've had lots of comments from allies, but I don't think we've had one from an actual non-binary person yet (yes, I know now that some of them posted on twitter, I'm referring to the actual discussion page).
I go by the username NetSpiker on Memory Alpha.

By the way, I did try to get Archduk3 removed as an admin for reasons that had nothing to do with the current issue. You can read about it here.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's nothing wrong with an image of a woman in a bikini. It doesn't hurt women any more than an image of a shirtless man would hurt men. It's called sexual attraction, not sexual objectification and it's a natural process that leads to the propagation of the human species. As a heterosexual male, it makes me very angry when people like you vilify my sexual orientation by trying to push for censorship of sexy images with this "objectification" nonsense.

wow. just....wow. if this whole post was meant unironically that's...man, it just makes me ashamed to share the same fandom

 

[Court_Vince]

Because the majority of Orions that have appeared on Star Trek were shirtless, especially prior to Discovery. Even Devna who appeared in a cartoon was wearing a bikini.

So can't we change them since we're getting Orion characters who aren't shirtless, since as SJGarnder said do we really need those on a encyclopedia-based Star Trek website?

 

[Extrocomp]

wow. just....wow. if this whole post was meant unironically that's...man, it just makes me ashamed to share the same fandom

Rather than insulting me, how about you explain which part of my post you disagree with so we can discuss it?

 

[Extrocomp]

So can't we change them since we're getting Orion characters who aren't shirtless, since as SJGarnder said do we really need those on a encyclopedia-based Star Trek website?

To change them implies that there's something wrong with the current images, which there isn't. I don't particularly care which images are included in an infobox, but since these images are already there, removing them would qualify as censorship, which I oppose on principle, especially if it's for a ridiculous reason like "objectification".

Speaking of censorship, there was also a discussion on Memory Alpha to remove the image of the dying Icheb from the infobox in his article because it was too violent. I wonder how you feel about that.

 

[mdtauk]

Accepting that not everyone's gender or gender identity, matches the biological body parts they were born with - how does accepting that is possible in what is a small percentage of the general population, affect those who's gender identity, matches the biological sex they were born as.

A vast majority of the population is Cisgendered (Cis meaning same, so Gender and Sex are the same as each other) and plenty of Heterosexual people are still having children and the population is not plummeting. So where is the problem with accepting not everyone is the same as you?

No-one who is Transitioning, or identifies as Non-binary wants to force cisgendered people to change. All they want is to not be treated as different or less than other people, nor fear for their lives. They also do not want those in power and those who "control" what gets put on TV, Online, or In Literature and culture - to hide the fact that trans people exist.

This is what is referred to as "erasure" - the fact that Star Trek Discovery has decided to give representation to a diverse group of people, and to not make them an "oddity" or different from the rest of the crew - is there to help those who feel unable to be themselves, and show its ok.

----

Rather than insulting me, how about you explain which part of my post you disagree with so we can discuss it?

Terms like SJW and Woke have been created by vested interests and political groups, to make it easy for their supporters to not engage in these discussions, so they and their views and issues can be dismissed or ignored.

Sadly some things which aught not to have become political points, have become so. And until people start listening to others, it will be hard to move forward.

 

[mdtauk]

... I don't particularly care which images are included in an infobox, but since these images are already there, removing them would qualify as censorship, which I oppose on principle, especially if it's for a ridiculous reason like "objectification" ...

Are you really saying you do not think there is something wrong with treating any person as an "object"?

Edit: I would say this brings up a broader issue of what is the intent behind Memory Alpha. Does it want more people to visit and enjoy reading the content of the site, or is it happy to have a less broad and open userbase?

If you believe in expanding who may want to visit the page, then it means you should consider how you present the content. The choice of images should represent the subject and species being discussed. One problem with an Orion page, is that the shows have done a poor job at adding depth to them, beyond slave women, and brutish men. Newer shows have tried to alter that, with Orions no longer dealing in slavery as of Star Trek Lower Decks, and Osyraa in Star Trek Discovery.

As the shows do better at representing their races, I would hope a site like Memory Alpha would be open to also respecting the broadened portrayals and adding more depth to these entries.

 

[Extrocomp]

Accepting that not everyone's gender or gender identity, matches the biological body parts they were born with - how does accepting that is possible in what is a small percentage of the general population, affect those who's gender identity, matches the biological sex they were born as.

A vast majority of the population is Cisgendered (Cis meaning same, so Gender and Sex are the same as each other) and plenty of Heterosexual people are still having children and the population is not plummeting. So where is the problem with accepting not everyone is the same as you?

No-one who is Transitioning, or identifies as Non-binary wants to force cisgendered people to change. All they want is to not be treated as different or less than other people, nor fear for their lives. They also do not want those in power and those who "control" what gets put on TV, Online, or In Literature and culture - to hide the fact that trans people exist.

When did I ever say that I don't accept transgender or non-binary people?

Are you really saying you do not think there is something wrong with treating any person as an "object"?

I'm saying that sexual objectification doesn't exist. Just because a woman is in a bikini or naked doesn't mean she's being treated like an object. Sexual objectification is nothing more than a negative connotation for male sexual attraction.

 

[Court_Vince]

I'm saying that sexual objectification doesn't exist. Just because a woman is in a bikini or naked doesn't mean she's being treated like an object. Sexual objectification is nothing more than a negative connotation for male sexual attraction.

Seriously?

 

[Court_Vince]

And to address this

To change them implies that there's something wrong with the current images, which there isn't. I don't particularly care which images are included in an infobox, but since these images are already there, removing them would qualify as censorship, which I oppose on principle, especially if it's for a ridiculous reason like "objectification".

Speaking of censorship, there was also a discussion on Memory Alpha to remove the image of the dying Icheb from the infobox in his article because it was too violent. I wonder how you feel about that.

From what I've read there were other reasons for why dying Icheb's picture shouldn't be used mainly relating to spoilers. As for the Orions, what's the harm in moving away from all sexual nature associated with the Orions? Does that really qualify as censorship when there's process to go through AND when other people change them back?
Oh and P.S. I'm pretty sure censorship is only applicable in cases regarding the government. Not a Fandom wiki.

 

[mdtauk]

When did I ever say that I don't accept transgender or non-binary people?

I was making the broader point, as that is what this whole forum post was about, not directing it to you - as part of the discussion you say we should have, over insults and calling out people.

I'm saying that sexual objectification doesn't exist. Just because a woman is in a bikini or naked doesn't mean she's being treated like an object. Sexual objectification is nothing more than a negative connotation for male sexual attraction.

Unwanted sexual attraction or attention is a problem for many. You call it out as male sexual attraction, but there are cases on both sides. Wolf whistling is one of the clearest manifestations of it. People being touched inappropriately on public transport. People receiving direct messages, or text messages commenting on the person's appearance without a request for such comments or opinions.

An example of a woman who gives a lecture on science or technology, having to go through responses or messages talking about how attractive they are, without any engagement in what was discussed.

These are unwanted, demeaning, and happen all the time are what is meant by objectification. And plays a big part in the inequalities that exist in the workplace, and in society.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Rather than insulting me, how about you explain which part of my post you disagree with so we can discuss it?

just with the misogyny, the sexism, the blatant transphobia and the exposing usage of the slur SJW. The post is disgusting. Sorry.