Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?

[The Wormhole]

Did Berman in anyway have his hands tied? Curious?

I mean, if he had wanted to include a gay character could he have done? Or was he forbidden?

By the time Enterprise came around, he definitely could have included a gay character had he wanted to. The first two season aired at the same time as the final two seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which also aired on UPN for those two seasons and had an openly gay character in its main cast.

 

[Skipper]

It would have been super akward dialouge to have her saying something like, "I personally am not attracted to women, although you might find it of interest that slightly less than 10% of the human population is attracted to the same sex, it's unfortunate that in this situation I do not fall in that percentage of people"...

"You know, I've scored a perfect 0 on the Kinley scale. I would bang a horta if they assured me he was male. But it is absolutely inconceivable to me to have sex with a being of the female sex/gender. Sorry. But feel free to call me when you find a male host. Bye!"

Now that would have been honest!

 

[Michael]

I would generally say "homophobia" is a poor word, often overused and incorrectly used.

Is that so? Man, you’re full of some of the wildest hot takes I’ve seen in a while, I must admit. At the risk of sending us down another side discussion, how is it overused and incorrectly used?

It would have been super akward dialouge to have her saying something like, "I personally am not attracted to women, although you might find it of interest that slightly less than 10% of the human population is attracted to the same sex, it's unfortunate that in this situation I do not fall in that percentage of people"...

That’s a straw man, because I don’t see anyone who would have seriously wanted her to say something as weirdly specific as that. However, what’s so wrong about starting off with “I personally am not attracted to women”? That would make so much more sense than trying to say that it is something humans just don't do.

… she generalized "humans", because that's her experience and a majority of people are similar to her.

Yeah, but you know, it’s kinda weird that that’s her experience. I mean, she is a middle-aged woman traveling the galaxy together with a 1.000 other people. You’d think her experience would be less similar to that of a typical 90s housewife, no?

 

[evilchumlee]

To some? Yes.

That kind of thought is bigoted, to me. We are supposed to celebrate and respect orientations. I would never call a gay man bigoted for not wanting to date a woman.

I take a huge issue with "celebrate LGBT pride! Respect everyone's orientations!"... "except straight people. Be gay, you not-gay bigots."

It's ACTUALLY ok to be attracted to who you are attracted to, and not be attracted to who you are not. Whatever combination that is is actually entirely irrelevant.

"You know, I've scored a perfect 0 on the Kinley scale. I would bang a horta if they assured me he was male. But it is absolutely inconceivable to me to have sex with a being of the female sex/gender. Sorry. But feel free to call me when you find a male host. Bye!"

Now that would have been honest!

Now do this, but make Crusher a lesbian who rejects a cis man host.

Does that still read as acceptable?

Now... there's a slightly more philosophical question in there that is interesting and happens in real life already but could be exacerbated by sci-fi. I'll use my example. I'm a straight male. I have absolutely no romantic or sexual interest in men, or to be particularly specific, "people of any gender that have a penis". It's just not for me. I might be attracted to like, 95% of someone who does, but the 5% is a deal breaker for me. Not interested. There's nothing wrong with that person in any way, I just am not personally interested. Now if this person had surgery done? Possibly. I don't really care about chromosomes. I have to admit that i've never actually seen what that might look like. I would guess that if it's essentially indistinguishable... sure? That would probably be ok?

The more interesting are the sci-fi questions. I love my fiance very much. If some kind of transporter accident occurred and put her consciousness into Danny Devito, things are certainly going to change. There is still love. I still love that person, but the love would certainly be a different kind of love. This is exactly the kind of thing Crusher felt in this episode. It is a human thing, spoken as people speak and not necessarily meaning "literally every single member of the human race", but humans as a generalization.

Is that so? Man, you’re full of some of the wildest hot takes I’ve seen in a while, I must admit. At the risk of sending us down another side discussion, how is it overused and incorrectly used?

Exactly as discussed. A phobia is being afraid of something.

Not liking something isn't being afraid of it. It could be. Sometimes it is. Not always. Saying something so incredibly shocking and controversial as "i'm straight and wouldn't date a man" isn't homophobic. It's not even, like, wrong in any way. There ARE people who say it's homophobic. Even if you want to say it's bigoted (it's not), it's not a phobia. I'm not afraid of dating men. I'm not interested in it.

The real tl;dr of it all is Homophobia and bigotry against homosexuals is not the same thing. They can sometimes go hand in hand, but not always. One can be bigoted against LGBT people and not be afraid of them. One can also not be bigoted or afraid at all, and be labelled homophobic.

That’s a straw man, because I don’t see anyone who would have seriously wanted her to say something as weirdly specific as that. However, what’s so wrong about starting off with “I personally am not attracted to women”? That would make so much more sense than trying to say that it is something humans just don't do.

Because it was more than that, at least from my perspective. I don't see anything that happened there as strictly an LGBT thing. She was already having trouble accepting that Odan was now in Riker's body. A male, who she was presumably attracted to. That was already causing her distress. Odan getting a new host that was a woman, now yet another change and also an incompatible one, was too much. Yeah, it's very human to not be able to handle to that.

Yeah, but you know, it’s kinda weird that that’s her experience. I mean, she is a middle-aged woman traveling the galaxy together with a 1.000 other people. You’d think her experience would be less similar to that of a typical 90s housewife, no?

That's her experience because that's her orientation... it has literally nothing to do anyone else but her.

But even so, she's flying around on a ship with a thousand people, so statistically there would be like... potentially 6 or 7 people who identify as LGBT. Perhaps actually lower, given that I would suspect people who identify as trans would be lower in the 24th century. While I understand not everyone would want surgery and the like and are comfortable existing as they are, anyone who did want to fully transition to another sex could do so almost effortlessly. We're talking like an afternoon, outpatient procedure.

Given a generally progressive sensibility and "live your life" mentality, I think there's a good chance that "trans" is a rare identity. Someone who has changed their gender is just that now.

I'm going into wild speculation land here, so just want to preface it with that. Gender dysphoria may have different treatments by then as well. This isn't a huge topic of interest of me so I only get what I know from cultural osmosis. From what I understand I don't believe it is considered a mental illness, but it is certainly that requires treatment... that treatment seems to be transitioning. Which, I feel the need to sprinkle in constant disclaimers, is perfectly ok and great and I fully support everyone and their rights to live how they feel. But... is it possible that by the 24th century, there are other treatments? That facet of LGBT may just be less common. That is said with zero editorial on any sort of ethical considerations... I am not versed enough to comment. Merely a speculation. If it's out of line I apologize in advanced and am prepared to remove this section if requested.

I also just want to advertise that like, i'm mostly on your side. I'm American center-left. I believe in equal rights for all. Love who you want. Be who you need to be. Don't feel guilty, or let others make you feel guilty, about that any of that. Gay, straight, bi, pan, things I don't even know about. Everything is completely ok. Live and let live!

 

[BillJ]

That kind of thought is bigoted, to me. We are supposed to celebrate and respect orientations. I would never call a gay man bigoted for not wanting to date a woman.

Any position you can come up with, there will be people out there who will defend it. Just the way people are.

 

[Skipper]

Now do this, but make Crusher a lesbian who rejects a cis man host.

Does that still read as acceptable?

Look, maybe I wasn't clear. I have nothing against the fact that Crusher decided to break up with Oran because the current host body was female and she is heterosexual. This is obviously not bigotry or anything. She considers sexuality an indispensable part of a relationship and without it there can be no relationship. And that's PERFECTLY OK. My problem is that instead of explaining that it's about HER, she says that it's something that concerns WHOLE HUMANITY, as if non-cisgender human beings don't exist.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

By the time Enterprise came around, he definitely could have included a gay character had he wanted to. The first two season aired at the same time as the final two seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which also aired on UPN for those two seasons and had an openly gay character in its main cast.

Buffy didn’t have 7-12 year olds within its audience though. Star Trek has a very broad range. Buffy was aimed at the 18-35s. Star Trek goes from kids all the way to grandparents. So it had to please a lot of masters.

 

[Michael]

Exactly as discussed. A phobia is being afraid of something.

Not liking something isn't being afraid of it. It could be. Sometimes it is. Not always. Saying something so incredibly shocking and controversial as "i'm straight and wouldn't date a man" isn't homophobic. It's not even, like, wrong in any way. There ARE people who say it's homophobic. Even if you want to say it's bigoted (it's not), it's not a phobia. I'm not afraid of dating men. I'm not interested in it.

The real tl;dr of it all is Homophobia and bigotry against homosexuals is not the same thing. They can sometimes go hand in hand, but not always. One can be bigoted against LGBT people and not be afraid of them. One can also not be bigoted or afraid at all, and be labelled homophobic.

Well, that might be its original meaning, but that’s certainly not how the word is used and hasn’t been for the longest time. Every definition of the word “homophobia” I can find includes some version of it also referring to “an aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality”. So just as a matter of fact you are incorrect in saying people are using the word wrong and it does almost always mean “bigotry against homosexuals” instead of “being afraid of homosexuals”.

Because it was more than that, at least from my perspective. I don't see anything that happened there as strictly an LGBT thing. She was already having trouble accepting that Odan was now in Riker's body. A male, who she was presumably attracted to. That was already causing her distress. Odan getting a new host that was a woman, now yet another change and also an incompatible one, was too much. Yeah, it's very human to not be able to handle to that.

That’s all well and good, but why doesn't she say that? I know, you want to say she was just generalizing and that’s what people do. That might be so, but Crusher is not a real human being, she is a character in a TV show written for an audience. The way she says something matters, because you’re writing it to convey a meaning to a group of viewers. Having her saying it like she was telling Odan something about all human beings wasn't an accidental thing, but a choice by an author. An author that could have used that opportunity to say to an early 90s audience that no, there’s nothing wrong with being gay, even though she, Beverly, wasn't.

That's her experience because that's her orientation... it has literally nothing to do anyone else but her.

But even so, she's flying around on a ship with a thousand people, so statistically there would be like... potentially 6 or 7 people who identify as LGBT. Perhaps actually lower, given that I would suspect people who identify as trans would be lower in the 24th century. While I understand not everyone would want surgery and the like and are comfortable existing as they are, anyone who did want to fully transition to another sex could do so almost effortlessly. We're talking like an afternoon, outpatient procedure.

How do you arrive at the 6/7 number of crewmembers identifying as LGBTQ+? According to these numbers from 2021 for example there should be 70+ people identifying as LGBTQ+ in a group of a thousand.

But again, we’re not talking about a real starship here or a real space doctor, but a sci-fi future with a TV character. Why not use the power of storytelling to have Beverly express something a little more though-provoking and progressive?

 

[Oddish]

It is on a spectrum and reducing it to only its most obvious manifestations does a disservice to all the LBGTQI+ people who suffer countless microaggressions every day. Being a gatekeeper on what is true "homophobia" I think is not the best thing to do.

I have no desire to be the gatekeeper (or the keymaster) of anything. But the way I see it, if I respect people's right to make their own relationship choices while expecting them to respect my own, I have done all that is required of me.

I thought Beverly just didn't want to date a girl.

Yes, but she didn't want to say it openly so as not to make herself look like a bigot and closed-minded and therefore she placed the responsibility on all of humanity.

I think that by and large, we understand the simple matter of Beverly's personal preferences, and her right to them. Possibly, the writers were afraid that some in the audience might not.

Since when saying "i'm not gay" become bigoted and closed minded?

I am a male. I am not attracted to men, I would not date a man.

Am I bigoted and closed-minded?

To some? Yes.

And that is ridiculous. The right of a person to refuse a relationship or sexual encounter, regardless of their motivation, should not be questioned.

Tell that to all the asexual people who are in romantic relationships.

Didn't know that was a thing. But since I consider myself aromatic, I will not admit to being an expert.

 

[The Wormhole]

Buffy didn’t have 7-12 year olds within its audience though. Star Trek has a very broad range. Buffy was aimed at the 18-35s. Star Trek goes from kids all the way to grandparents. So it had to please a lot of masters.

Still, the UPN executives were trying to appeal to a teenage audience, that was the whole logic behind the shipboard boy band breaking out into musical numbers each week that they wanted. Had Berman wanted a gay character on Enterprise, they would not have objected, as that could have helped with the teenage demographic, as many other teenage-aimed shows of the time had gay characters.

 

[evilchumlee]

My problem is that instead of explaining that it's about HER, she says that it's something that concerns WHOLE HUMANITY, as if non-cisgender human beings don't exist.

And her saying "it's human" in absolutely no way suggests that. She does not say "LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY". She has human, and again, by an overwhelming percentage, that's the human experience.

So just as a matter of fact you are incorrect in saying people are using the word wrong and it does almost always mean “bigotry against homosexuals” instead of “being afraid of homosexuals”.

That is literally an example of "not using the word properly".

That’s all well and good, but why doesn't she say that? I know, you want to say she was just generalizing and that’s what people do. That might be so, but Crusher is not a real human being, she is a character in a TV show written for an audience.

This is a somewhat bizarre argument, since by and large writers are praised for making their characters act and sound like real people... I know I much prefer that.

An author that could have used that opportunity to say to an early 90s audience that no, there’s nothing wrong with being gay, even though she, Beverly, wasn't.

She didn't need to say it. At no point was it ever implied that it is not ok to be gay. She is very clearly speaking about herself, her experiences, and the situation well beyond just Odan now being a female. There is just absolutely no reason to add something like that in, and would only hurt the emotional tone of the scene by pulling the audience out of the emotional moment to make a point about it being ok to be gay.

How do you arrive at the 6/7 number of crewmembers identifying as LGBTQ+? According to these numbers from 2021 for example there should be 70+ people identifying as LGBTQ+ in a group of a thousand.

I was going by US data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...ncluding,adult population identifying as LGBT.

Somewhere from 1.2% to 6.9% depending on the study.

But again, we’re not talking about a real starship here or a real space doctor, but a sci-fi future with a TV character. Why not use the power of storytelling to have Beverly express something a little more though-provoking and progressive?

Because that wasn't the story being told and the writers were not interested in telling that story.

I think her actually saying "humanity" is even better, rather than adding in the pro-LGBT message, the episode is telling us that while we have come very far, we still have a long way to go.

That's so much more powerful than "Oh sorry, i'm not gay but it's ok to be if someone else is."

 

[1001001]

But since I consider myself aromatic, I will not admit to being an expert.

A good shower will clear that right up.

 

[Skipper]

Buffy didn’t have 7-12 year olds within its audience though. Star Trek has a very broad range. Buffy was aimed at the 18-35s. Star Trek goes from kids all the way to grandparents. So it had to please a lot of masters.

I remember an anecdote about "Rejoining" (I don't if it's true but it is absolutely plausible, given Americans' attitude towards sex and violence).
Some assistant answered the phone to a high-ranking producer who complained that kissing between two women had made it impossible for his 11-year-old son to watch Star Trek. The assistant asked him if there would have been the same problem if it had been a woman killing another woman. The producer replied that obviously there was no problem in this case. The assistant then replied that perhaps the problem was not the kiss between the two women, but the education his children were receiving.

 

[Skipper]

And her saying "it's human" in absolutely no way suggests that. She does not say "LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY". She has human, and again, by an overwhelming percentage, that's the human experience.

So what, people who remain with their partner after the transition are inhuman?

 

[Skipper]

Just googled about the Host I've just found this interesting review by DeCandido

Finally, there’s the most controversial element of the show, which is the ending. Several have accused the ending of being homophobic at worst, insensitive to a non-heterosexual point of view at best. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth watching it is the way Crusher universalizes it: it’s a “human” problem, and maybe some day humans won’t be so “limited” in love. If she’d kept it to her own individual preferences, I doubt there would have been an issue. In fact, it would have made the ending stronger, with Crusher admitting to a personal, rather than human, failing, and Odan being genuinely confused by it. Instead, Crusher generalized, thus causing the character to marginalize a segment of the human population (both homosexuals and bisexuals) by omission.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

A good shower will clear that right up.

 

[Nenya]

Which is why they keep trying to make TWOK over and over.

So true. I'd even call TWOK the First Sundering. You have 1966-1979 then 1982-2005, this is the Second Sundering. But to answer OP's question, it is all about money. Every aspect of human identity has been commodified so it can be sold. LBGTQWERTY is the latest thing to be commodified. It's been turned into a brand. I don't understand how more people don't see it.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

While you make some good points I'm not sure this is one of them because how is this different from casting british Patrick Stewart as french Picard or Irish-canadian James Doohan as Scottish Scotty? Or an austrian actor and british actress as Worf's ukranian adoptive parents?
Asians and europeans are pretty interchangeable when it comes to playing different nationalities, that's not a big concern in my opinion primarily because ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing.

While it might not matter to you, it does matter to other folk who do care about accurate representation of Ethnicity & Nationality from modern day Earth, especially on screen.

We don't like to be "Interchange-able" because it's "Convenient for Hollywood".

 

[1001001]

LBGTQWERTY is the latest thing to be commodified. It's been turned into a brand.

This comes across as mocking LGBT people with that “acronym”.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

This comes across as mocking LGBT people with that “acronym”.

There's also the easier to remember term:
QUILTBAG

Adding the term allies to the initialism has sparked controversy, with some seeing the inclusion of ally in place of asexual/aromantic/agender as a form of LGBT erasure. There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, unsure, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and aromantic, and gay and genderqueer). Similarly LGBTIQA+ stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual and many other terms (such as non-binary and pansexual)".

Or go for QUILTBAG+

Q (queer and questioning)
U (unsure)
I (intersex)
L (lesbian)
T (transgender & two-spirit)
B (bisexual)
A (asexual and aromantic)
G (gay and genderqueer)
+ (many other terms)