Some might. Some might not. It's not a term that everyone will use or think fits them. But personally I haven't seen any1 use it.
MemoryAlpha editor refuses to change Adira's Gender to "Non-Binary"
- Thread starter nafeasonto
- Start date
Agender people would probably not use the term “neuter” (I’ve seen “gender neutral” tho), but yes, I would say they’re pretty fine with not feeling particularly drawn to either gender. This is why representation matters, and this is why Data’s insistence on Lal having to choose a gender irks me. One single small sentence like the one I mentioned where he says Lal can also stay the way they are and that it isn’t “inadequate” to not have a gender would have gone a VERY long way towards representation. With just one single little line. It matters, believe me.
I find one reference for "neutrois" in 1995 (someone called Burnham!), a 1997 paper about "ungendered" persons, and that "agender" first appeared on UseNet in 2000.
How much awareness did people have in 1990 about agender people compared to LGBTs? Gays were probably the most visible group because of AIDS and a lot of political discussion about them over decades. Isn't it possible that agender wasn't widely enough known back then? A lot has changed with the internet, but that didn't exist back then.
How much awareness did people have in 1990 about agender people compared to LGBTs? Gays were probably the most visible group because of AIDS and a lot of political discussion about them over decades. Isn't it possible that agender wasn't widely enough known back then? A lot has changed with the internet, but that didn't exist back then.
We people under the “T” umbrella of LGBT have always existed. People just didn’t want to notice us. And we were often forced to hide. However, I do feel the need to point out that even back in the 90s our voices popped up. We didn’t magically snap into existence at some point.
That being said, I get the “TNG is a product of its time” argument. However, I feel it necessary to point out that Trek is supposed to be different from other shows. It’s set in the future - they managed to come up with a lot of things that have supposedly changed in the future for humanity, so why not gender norms as well? It’s incredibly jarring to watch a show where money has basically been eliminated in at least some way, there’s no hunger, humans have supposedly “evolved beyond” whatever issues we had, etc etc - but according to TNG, society is apparently still strictly heteronormative and everyone is strictly male or female and always attracted to the opposite gender only.
And besides, Trek COULD be inclusive. There’s a little scene on DS9 where Jadzia Dax meets one of the three old Klingons (forgot which one, I’m not a Niner, forgive me), and he basically greets her with “Hi Curzon” and she corrects him and says “it’s Jadzia now” and he immediately switches to “hi Jadzia!”. THIS is the kind of scene I very much approve of, and it is very beloved in the trans part of the Trek fandom because it shows a tiny glimpse of what Old Trek could have done. So yeah. They could do this stuff. The fact is that they just didn’t have it on their radar most of the time because it didn’t concern them. I remember reading a quote from Braga (I think) who basically said that the TNG writers “never thought of” lgbt themes and issues and that “it never really came up”. With that kind of “lgbt stuff doesn’t concern me, so I don’t care about it” mindset it’s no wonder the show was the way it was about this subject, and therefore I’m not about to forgive anything because “ah they simply didn’t know”. It seems more like “we didn’t know because we didn’t bother to have a look”.
That being said, I get the “TNG is a product of its time” argument. However, I feel it necessary to point out that Trek is supposed to be different from other shows. It’s set in the future - they managed to come up with a lot of things that have supposedly changed in the future for humanity, so why not gender norms as well? It’s incredibly jarring to watch a show where money has basically been eliminated in at least some way, there’s no hunger, humans have supposedly “evolved beyond” whatever issues we had, etc etc - but according to TNG, society is apparently still strictly heteronormative and everyone is strictly male or female and always attracted to the opposite gender only.
And besides, Trek COULD be inclusive. There’s a little scene on DS9 where Jadzia Dax meets one of the three old Klingons (forgot which one, I’m not a Niner, forgive me), and he basically greets her with “Hi Curzon” and she corrects him and says “it’s Jadzia now” and he immediately switches to “hi Jadzia!”. THIS is the kind of scene I very much approve of, and it is very beloved in the trans part of the Trek fandom because it shows a tiny glimpse of what Old Trek could have done. So yeah. They could do this stuff. The fact is that they just didn’t have it on their radar most of the time because it didn’t concern them. I remember reading a quote from Braga (I think) who basically said that the TNG writers “never thought of” lgbt themes and issues and that “it never really came up”. With that kind of “lgbt stuff doesn’t concern me, so I don’t care about it” mindset it’s no wonder the show was the way it was about this subject, and therefore I’m not about to forgive anything because “ah they simply didn’t know”. It seems more like “we didn’t know because we didn’t bother to have a look”.
It could be that folks simply saw themselves as asexual, and didn’t focus as much on identity. Just call me a citizen of the cosmos
Asexuality and agender are completely different things. Asexual means that one doesn‘t experience sexual attraction, agender means one does not experience gender.
Weren't people much more aware of the trans part of the T, than of agender/asexuality? Trans awareness probably started with crossdressing and drag, cause that was visible. There were movies in the 80s or so. But when did agender enter the general public's awareness? I suppose that was after TNG.
Why is that scene not part of the no-real-representation, half-baked, unfinished, mini and easily missed scenes? It's similar to the ones I've mentioned before. Blink and you miss it - pay attention and you'll notice.
I’ve already said that some of the mini scenes were done okay, others not so much. The ones that were done okay are beloved and treasured, but they’re still nowhere near being enough just BECAUSE they’re “blink and you’ll miss it”. They’re treasured in “well at least we got SOME bread crumbs along the way” style. I don’t see what’s difficult to grasp about this concept. You can treasure some of those small scenes while still remaining critical towards representation as a whole because there wasn’t enough of it.
On a side note: It’s rather telling that I have to justify wanting proper representation and am being questioned about miniscule details and bread crumb scenes instead of simply getting a “I hear you, they should have done better” response. Which is why I’m pulling out of this thread now. I’ve tried.
On a side note: It’s rather telling that I have to justify wanting proper representation and am being questioned about miniscule details and bread crumb scenes instead of simply getting a “I hear you, they should have done better” response. Which is why I’m pulling out of this thread now. I’ve tried.
And you can be one and not the other. I have a friend who identifies as agender and they’re pansexual.
I’ve already said that some of the mini scenes were done okay, others not so much. The ones that were done okay are beloved and treasured, but they’re still nowhere near being enough just BECAUSE they’re “blink and you’ll miss it”. They’re treasured in “well at least we got SOME bread crumbs along the way” style. I don’t see what’s difficult to grasp about this concept. You can treasure some of those small scenes while still remaining critical towards representation as a whole because there wasn’t enough of it.
On a side note: It’s rather telling that I have to justify wanting proper representation and am being questioned about miniscule details and bread crumb scenes instead of simply getting a “I hear you, they should have done better” response. Which is why I’m pulling out of this thread now. I’ve tried.
I'm sorry you feel you need to leave, but as someone who hasn't had a lot of exposure to these concepts myself, I don't think anyone's asking questions out of a deliberate desire to offend, or to be obtuse...they simply don't have the level of education they'd like to have and are attempting to get there. To me, it's preferable to smiling-and-nodding or considering these issues so sensitive that they can't even be discussed, but clearly YMMV. I also realize that trying to educate others can be exhausting/frustrating, though. Either way, again, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm also unsure what differentiates a mini-scene that was done okay from one that wasn't. I would imagine we're talking in terms of personal opinion rather than objective fact here, but because statements haven't been worded in ways that always clearly differentiate between the two, I simply don't know.
If you have to end up answering a lot of questions about who and what you are, you need to be able to spot those who are asking out of genuine curiosity and a desire to do the right thing and those doing it in bad faith because they want to derail things. It’s sometimes takes a while, but eventually you can tell. Usually after they wear you down to the point you want to give up, which is their actual goal.
I'm trying to see the logic in dismissing some well-intentioned scenes as huge steps backwards, while praising others as really great that went just as far or were just as small and vague. That makes little sense to me. You praise one breadcrumb and condemn the others, that's why I logically ask you about that.I don’t see what’s difficult to grasp about this concept. You can treasure some of those small scenes while still remaining critical towards representation as a whole because there wasn’t enough of it.
On a side note: It’s rather telling that I have to justify wanting proper representation and am being questioned about miniscule details and bread crumb scenes instead of simply getting a “I hear you, they should have done better” response. Which is why I’m pulling out of this thread now. I’ve tried.
Exactly - it seems its easier to leave the discussion than to clarify this.
Show us one of these lot of questions about who and what you are.
My questions are about awareness of specific groups while the shows were made, representation in the context of time, and how Trek addressed the known groups before. None of them are about you.
Doesnt really come across great to be questioning someones life experience
I dont see NCC anywhere in Possums quote so why get so defensive.
I have, personally (and being gay myself), always fallen under the following belief:
Being LGBTQ (presuming HIV is eradicated hundreds of years in the future so no +) is a NON-ISSUE in the future. There is no need to address an issue if that issue isn't an issue. In the future, they literally don't care.
If Trek is meant to represent our future, then to say it's an issue in Trek would be to literally say that society hasn't advanced at all in several hundred years; let alone in nearly 1000 years by the time of DSC S3.
Being LGBTQ (presuming HIV is eradicated hundreds of years in the future so no +) is a NON-ISSUE in the future. There is no need to address an issue if that issue isn't an issue. In the future, they literally don't care.
If Trek is meant to represent our future, then to say it's an issue in Trek would be to literally say that society hasn't advanced at all in several hundred years; let alone in nearly 1000 years by the time of DSC S3.
I agree mostly with this. But the lack of representation and visibility of gay couples is the issue. Producers, and Studios shied away from it, for fear of alienating the conservative fan base, and religious groups.
Now we are in a modern era, showing gay couples or non-traditional relationship structures - should be lauded and encouraged - where it is not part of a storyline or not a problem that needs solving.
Star Trek has always tackled current day issues though.
Well, if it should be a non-issue like you say, then it should be a non-issue romance between a LGBT+ couple is shown. Or are you prepared to apply this standard to heterosexual relationships as well and say we don't need to show them either?
I interpreted their post as they shouldn’t show LGBT+ issues as still being an issue in the future. I.E. no one in the federation should be shown as a bigot towards LGBT+
Not that they shouldn’t show LGBT+ relationships or people. No where in their post did they say that.
Apologies to @Arvis Taljik then. We had someone around not too long ago who was -- nah, let's not get into it -- but I thought you were someone else going under another username. So, again, sorry about that.