Keeping Tasha

[Michael]

But... that's the point?

A business needs to attract customers. If customers do not give money to the business, they do no succeed. If a not-insignificant portion of the population decides they don't like the way a business conducts itself, they will not give money to that business.

That's... the point. Sure it can be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy but that is the core of it. Those people are using their wallets and the free market to influence what they want.

On the flip, a business, movie, or brand not caring about social issues is completely harmless... and yet, similar things occur. Having like, "too many white people" in a movie doesn't actually hurt anyone, but some use that as a pretense to boycott them because it is wrong...

Hm, I feel like you kind of look at it as if it’s some cold math equation happening in a vacuum, where one action leads to another and that’s all there ever is to say about it. Not all reasons for boycotting a business are equal and surely you’d agree that some boycotts are worth calling for. Saying a business doing something “woke” just leads to right-wing people boycotting the business and that’s just how it is feels like saying the “woke” something is to blame for the boycott. And this to me, sorry for crafting the analogy, feels like saying a victim of sexual assault is responsible for being attacked because they wore something too revealing. Or a person of color becoming the victim of a racist attack is to blame on them because they entered a predominantly white neighborhood. Of course we have to look at why in the grand schemes of things something like a business is doing something “woke” in the first place. And in terms of diversity, for example, the reason for that is of course the existence of racist people doing racist things, historically but also still today. Just saying “business doing something ‘woke’” = “right-wing people boycotting that business” is much too reductive and doesn't attempt to look at why that happens and if the boycott it justified. It’s more like “racist people creating a racist world” → “business says racism is bad” → “racist people boycotting business”.

They didn't want to.

That's a perfectly valid reason. They weren't interested in it.

I do writing projects here and there. I don't really have anything about LGBT issues in any of my writings. It's nothing against it. I'm just not interested in it. I DO have a trans woman character in a story, but the reader would probably never know. She's just written as a woman. I haven't found a need to dig into it. She doesn't run around with a "trans" badge on her clothes or anything. She just.. is, and I haven't found a reason to explore her sexual organs at any point.

The difference being that you didn’t spend years teasing that you’re just on the cusp of finally writing an LGBT character in your story. Also, these shows are written by whole writers’ rooms full of people, not just one guy; meaning that if they were genuinely interested in including an LGBT character but didn’t themselves feel capable of doing it for some reason, they could always have hired a writer who could do it. Of course they can just not be interested in writing about that, but it’s hardly surprising that fans of a franchise that likes to toot its own horn for how progressive it is find that disinterest questionable.

 

[Takeru]

Well, I think what’s clear though is that the episode takes a stance against a (fascist) society that forcefully imposes their dogma about a minority group’s way of gender self-identity. I think at its core it’s basically a story about personal freedom and the fact that only an individual themself can ever know and identify who they are and what they feel.

Sure, but Skipper is right that due to the writers doing it this way it really does open the doors to be read as anti LGBTQ. Non binary people and the "woke mob" wanting to erase gender entirely is a common rightwing talking point and the episode does show an oppressive government stomping on gender expression and doing conversion therapy on those who refuse to conform.

When writers try to be too smart it can easily backfire, sometimes just say "X is bad" instead of trying to find an allegory to tell the audience that x is bad without actually saying it.
It's like the age old example of doing a "reverse racism" story where white people are the oppressed minority in a black dominated america. The writer may think they're showing white people what it fells like but the story also allows white supremacists to say "See, they're just as bad, so we DO have to protect ourselves before we actually become a minority!!!". Don't make the oppressed the oppressors, it's not good storytelling and TNG jumped into it headfirst when it showed an oppressive sexless non binary regime.

 

[Michael]

Sure, but Skipper is right that due to the writers doing it this way it really does open the doors to be read as anti LGBTQ. Non binary people and the "woke mob" wanting to erase gender entirely is a common rightwing talking point and the episode does show an oppressive government stomping on gender expression and doing conversion therapy on those who refuse to conform.

I’ll agree that it’s probably not entirely impossible to read the episode that way. But for me personally that reading kinda stretches the imagination and I feel like one would almost have to purposely want to get a twisted message from the episode to read it that way. Mostly because there doesn't really seem to be a real world “woke” equivalent to forcing people into conversion therapy. But also because the power imbalance between the minority group that has to hide their true gender identity and the majority group imposing their mainstream gender norms that they are portraying in the “The Outcast” lends itself much more to be mapped directly onto the real world power imbalance of a LGBTQ+ minority and and a heteronormative majority including an anti-queer subgroup.

 

[Takeru]

I’ll agree that it’s probably not entirely impossible to read the episode that way. But for me personally that reading kinda stretches the imagination and I feel like one would almost have to purposely want to get a twisted message from the episode to read it that way. Mostly because there doesn't really seem to be a real world “woke” equivalent to forcing people into conversion therapy. But also because the power imbalance between the minority group that has to hide their true gender identity and the majority group imposing their mainstream gender norms that they are portraying in the “The Outcast” lends itself much more to be mapped directly onto the real world power imbalance of a LGBTQ+ minority and and a heteronormative majority including an anti-queer subgroup.

You're right, of course it would be an intentional misreading, the intention of the writers is really obvious but doing it this way makes it so easy to read it differently and that annoys me to no end.
They could have done proper representation that's way harder to to ignore, they chose not to and instead do the one "gay episode" and then don't even make it gay and have the source of conflict being a straight relationship ... really? I don't know if it was homophobia that made them not do it or indifference but at the end of the day TNG failed in that regard.

 

[Skipper]

I created a thread titled Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility? Please feel free to write your opinions there, because you have said very interesting things that in my opinion deserve a dedicated thread.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

She and Worf could collaborate on an investigation.

Back to Tasha...

 

[Skipper]

I just finished watching "Chaos on the Bridge" and I have to say I totally understand Denise Crosby's point. She was practically the only one in the cast who always had to stand. Even for 14 hours a day. With the infamous uniforms of the first season that had created all those back-related health problems for the actors. And what she usually had to do was "Open frequencies" (which I didn't understand why it was supposed to be the security chief's job). And the only episode "focused" (so to speak) on her was "Code of Honor". Which no one has ever accused of being a masterpiece. I know fans often scolded her for leaving, but a cardboard cutout could have taken over her role and it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Nyotarules]

Having like, "too many white people" in a movie doesn't actually never hurt anyone, but some use that as a pretense to boycott them because it is wrong...

Tell that to non white perfomers who under this type of entertaiment industry would never find work or just look at Hollywood from the 1900s to the 1960s or reword what you just said, a business that employs too many white people 'never hurt anyone'.
I do not know your ethnicity but if one wanted a definition of unconsicious racial bias, read the quote. Such attitudes when they legally and actively prevailed in society, was hell for people who look like me, its why legislation had to be introduced in society.
Look at it this way, three small examples, a show set in a diverse city like New York or London now why would a movie maker or tv producer deliberately make a show or movie where most or all of the characters are white and set it in modern day New York (Friends/Seinfield) or London (the movie Notting Hill)? Why deliberately do that?
Because society treats white people as 'the norm' and any change to this as 'diversity'.
If that ain't racism, then explain it to me as if I was a 7 year old.
What is it?

 

[Riley]

As pointed out more than once already, one benefit of keeping Yar is that Worf can go to DS9 and be with a group of characters that A) are actually interesting and fully-developed and B) respected more than he was on the E-D. I hated that Worf became a punchline not long after the Klingon Civil War. He was a much better fit for DS9 and should have transferred with O'Brien. On a related note, I hate that the Picard version of Worf was portrayed like a moron who "lost" the flagship of the Federation. It's one of many reasons I don't count the TNG films or Picard in my head canon.

 

[Riley]

Tell that to non white perfomers who under this type of entertaiment industry would never find work or just look at Hollywood from the 1900s to the 1960s or reword what you just said, a business that employs too many white people 'never hurt anyone'.
I do not know your ethnicity but if one wanted a definition of unconsicious racial bias, read the quote. Such attitudes when they legally and actively prevailed in society, was hell for people who look like me, its why legislation had to be introduced in society.
Look at it this way, three small examples, a show set in a diverse city like New York or London now why would a movie maker or tv producer deliberately make a show or movie where most or all of the characters are white and set it in modern day New York (Friends/Seinfield) or London (the movie Notting Hill)? Why deliberately do that?
Because society treats white people as 'the norm' and any change to this as 'diversity'.
If that ain't racism, then explain it to me as if I was a 7 year old.
What is it?

Are you suggesting Seinfeld wasn't diverse? Name another hugely-popular TV show in the late 80s/early 90s with positive depictions of homosexual characters. Not to mention that there were many people of various ethnicities in the show and that racism was addressed as well more than once.

 

[Michael]

Are you suggesting Seinfeld wasn't diverse? Name another hugely-popular TV show in the late 80s/early 90s with positive depictions of homosexual characters.

Off the top of my head I would name Golden Girls, Roseanne, The Nanny, ER … and a whole bunch more. You’ll find a lot of them here and especially here.

As much as I love Seinfeld (and it most certainly is very much a product of its era), one can’t ignore the latent homophobia that is portrayed (for laughs) through George and to some extent Jerry. Their “fear of being gay” or even just being perceived as gay is the punchline of many a joke. Add to that the general tendency of the writers to partake in Bisexual erasure with the way they portrayed Susan’s sexuality. Again, nothing all that uncommon in that era of television, but hardly the positive portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters one would like to have seen.

Not to mention that there were many people of various ethnicities in the show and that racism was addressed as well more than once.

As side characters, sure. But the main cast is all white people (as is 100% of the writers, by the way) and there’s lots of casual racism strewn throughout the show. Racial minorities are largely portrayed as caricatures and stereotypes.

Again, Seinfeld is one of my favorite shows, but looked at with modern eyes I don’t find it all that progressive or diverse. Not from today’s vantage point, but also not from that of the 90s TV landscape.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

I have made this suggestion before but I think Tasha might have turned out better if they'd had her at the helm and had Worf and Geordi in their traditional roles from the start. She would have fit as the hotshot pilot and having her next to Data on the bridge would have developed that relationship more. Plus everyone having a clearly defined role right away would have just made S1 a lot smoother.

I thought Worf was there because Gene wanted to have a Klingon in the show to show that old enemies can become friends.

While I am generally not a fan of the "perfect people" ethos on early TNG this was even specifically foreshadowed on TOS with the "in the future you'll be friends.......you'll work together" line from the Organians so I thought it was a nice touch.

 

[Skipper]

Guys, perhaps it's better to create a dedicated thread on the General Star Trek forum about the LGBTQ+ subject?

And it turns out it's impossible to talk about it without going off topic. Too bad because the discussion was getting interesting.