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

[Jayson1]

Allegorical probably only by accident. It’s not really about a “third gender”, but it’s interesting how it challenges the audiences notions of the male/female dichotomy. And I appreciate that they were able to avoid any huge blunders in that portrayal. It’s a good thing, for example, that they didn’t write it as Trip and Charles falling in love. Because that would have been a little weird in a story about what’s essentially the victim of sexual exploitation and slavery.

And yes, Archer doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the end of the episode. As often with 90s/00s TV Trek they bit off more than they could chew with that topic and a 42 minute runtime.

Archer did have a right to be mad at Trip in the end. His actions led to the death of the person he was trying to help and damaged potential relations with that society. It's a prime example of a American getting involved in alien culture situation he doesn't fully understand and expecting them to change and accept his American values.

 

[BillJ]

It's a prime example of a American getting involved in alien culture situation he doesn't fully understand and expecting them to change and accept his American values.

NSFW...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Damian]

I've debated whether I should step into this debate or not. By and large, though it seems respectful enough. Though like most discussions here it has gone off into different tangents, LOL.

One can argue whether Star Trek under the Berman regime could have been more at the forefront of homosexuality, transgenderism and so forth. Some have put forth arguments about how some other shows were doing just that during that time. But I think it's also important to remember that those shows during the Berman years were more the exception than the rule. There were few shows depicting homosexual characters, esp. main characters, during that time, and almost no transgender characters. So Star Trek was no better or worse than most of its contemporaries. Again, we can argue whether Star Trek could have done more, but they didn't really. They pushed some other boundaries, just not those.

I think it's too simplistic to say Berman was a homophobe. I don't know much about the man personally. I can't say I've ever heard him discuss the topic at all honestly. Perhaps it didn't register to him. The few times we did see something like this come up during his reign it was mostly treated as a non-issue. For instance in DS9 when Dax considered getting back together with a former spouse, who happened to be a woman now, there was absolutely no issue brought up about her being another female. The issues had to due with Trill laws regarding getting together with a former host's spouse. Some, like Major Kira, even encouraged her to pursue it. And any time it came up, however rarely, usually it was treated as a non-issue, like it was perfectly natural.

I'd agree that there was probably some studio interference. As long as the money was coming in I'm sure Paramount had no desire to rock the boat. And Berman was not a rock the boat kind of guy to begin with. He usually had to be encouraged to push the envelope with other things (i.e., an extended war on DS9).

So at the end of the day, to answer the overall question...I can't say there was hostility. I can't say there were ever any episodes that said homosexuality was a bad thing, that it was bad for society and people who were homosexuals were bad people. Disinterest? Yes. That you can certainly argue. I'm not even sure Berman and Paramount actually made a conscious decision not to address it. It may be even simpler than that. It may not even have registered to them at all to cover it.

 

[Michael]

Archer did have a right to be mad at Trip in the end. His actions led to the death of the person he was trying to help and damaged potential relations with that society. It's a prime example of a American getting involved in alien culture situation he doesn't fully understand and expecting them to change and accept his American values.

No, you’re confusing who are the folks doing something morally wrong in the episode: It’s not Trip’s actions that lead to Charles suicide, it’s that of the Vissian society and Vissian couple that enslaved them as livestock. Trip trying to do something about it was the right thing, while Archer arguing that doing nothing would have been right is actually wrong. What about the Vissians enslaving the Cogenitors and sexually abusing them as livestock didn’t Trip fully understand? Archer has a victim of systematic oppression, slavery and sexual assault in front of him basically asking for asylum and being saved from their tormentors, but he just tells them to go away. Charles kills themself because they are sent back to an oppressive society.

At least that’s how *I* view the situation. Your mileage obviously varies. As I suspect does that of others.

 

[fireproof78]

So at the end of the day, to answer the overall question...I can't say there was hostility. I can't say there were ever any episodes that said homosexuality was a bad thing, that it was bad for society and people who were homosexuals were bad people. Disinterest? Yes. That you can certainly argue. I'm not even sure Berman and Paramount actually made a conscious decision not to address it. It may be even simpler than that. It may not even have registered to them at all to cover it.

I tend to agree. There is just this disinterest or ambivalence, even when prompted. It didn't register as important to explore.

 

[BillJ]

I'd agree that there was probably some studio interference. As long as the money was coming in I'm sure Paramount had no desire to rock the boat. And Berman was not a rock the boat kind of guy to begin with. He usually had to be encouraged to push the envelope with other things (i.e., an extended war on DS9).

If the show's featuring these folks had been major hits back then, then Paramount would've been right there inserting them into the various Trek shows. It wouldn't have been an altruistic move by them.

This is a money business and companies are going to go where they think the money is at. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But then in Star Trek, there are apparently only three naming conventions, the traditional western style of individual name first, family name last, the supposedly "unique Bajoran style" of family name first, individual name last, or only having one name that everyone else does.

It's weird how no shown/known species has Middle name first, and some variation of (First/Last Name) afterwards.

 

[Jayson1]

No, you’re confusing who are the folks doing something morally wrong in the episode: It’s not Trip’s actions that lead to Charles suicide, it’s that of the Vissian society and Vissian couple that enslaved them as livestock. Trip trying to do something about it was the right thing, while Archer arguing that doing nothing would have been right is actually wrong. What about the Vissians enslaving the Cogenitors and sexually abusing them as livestock didn’t Trip fully understand? Archer has a victim of systematic oppression, slavery and sexual assault in front of him basically asking for asylum and being saved from their tormentors, but he just tells them to go away. Charles kills themself because they are sent back to an oppressive society.

At least that’s how *I* view the situation. Your mileage obviously varies. As I suspect does that of others.

I don't think Archer disagreed with Trip on their customs being immoral. More along the idea that to interfere in it while not fully understanding all of the ramifications was not being responsible. In a matter of a few days he felt he could tackle a issue in that society that has been with them for decades if not longer. Sort like America trying to force Democracy on some countries after a war thinking it would be better for them. It actually would probably be better for them but changes to a culture like that has to come from within. It's not something you can force on others. If he didn't get involved the Cogenitor would still be alive. Then their is the bigger pragmatic issue between Earth and the Vissians. The Enterprise could have easily provoked a possible war or attack on the ship where then more people could end up being killed. A prime example of the road to hell is filled with good intentions idea.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I'm not offended, I just think it looks stupid to see a Frenchman played by an Englishman shocked to see someone lives their life different than the American norm.

Especially given many Hollywood/Vancouver based Writers for Trek have a heavily influenced Asian Diaspora living within LA or Vancouver counties.

 

[Michael]

One can argue whether Star Trek under the Berman regime could have been more at the forefront of homosexuality, transgenderism and so forth.

Yes, and I think a lot of people are in fact arguing exactly that. I don’t see people overlooking the fact that television episodes about LGBTQ+ issues were still a rarity at this time (even if there were certainly more than many people seem to realize, if you look at the lists @Skipper linked to at beginning of the thread). It’s just that many people — although obviously not everyone — were expecting more from a franchise that likes to congratulate itself for how forward-thinking, progressive and groundbreaking it is. Just in general I see that many people express a desire in the franchise having done more when they could and disappointment because they didn’t. They didn’t have to do anything (other than satisfying the studios, the advertisers and the audience — as has been repeatedly pointed out), but it would have been really nice if they did. And I don’t see why it should be wrong to voice this disappointment.

Also, your assessment that the little representation they did manage to have on the show didn’t portray LGBTQ+ people in a bad light is actually disputed a number of times in this thread. The way they use lesbianism as a shorthand for evil deviants in the Mirror Universe or the episode “Warlord” we discussed earlier is certainly problematic. A scene in “The Host” can be read as implying that they are not supposed to even exist in the future. All of that is of course debatable stuff (as we’ve been doing a lot in this very thread), but I’m personally convinced that some of the ways in which they have presented LGBTQ+ people had the unfortunate (if probably not deliberate) effect of portraying them in a bad light.

I think it's too simplistic to say Berman was a homophobe. I don't know much about the man personally. I can't say I've ever heard him discuss the topic at all honestly. Perhaps it didn't register to him.

This came up earlier in the thread, but it’s probably easy to overlook. While Berman never seems to have said anything publicly that must be seen as homophobic, writer David Gerrold, himself a gay man who has intimate knowledge about how Berman conducts himself in the writers’ room, labels him a “raging homophobe”. Doesn’t mean Gerrold is necessarily right, but I just wanted to throw this out to underline that this is not just some wild speculation by people who don’t really know the man.

Also, I’d like to point out that even though it might not have “registered to him”, he could still harbor homophobic biases and thoughts. I would argue the majority of people who say or do something homophobic don’t necessarily realize that that’s what they are doing.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I don't think Archer disagreed with Trip on their customs being immoral. More along the idea that to interfere in it while not fully understanding all of the ramifications was not being responsible. In a matter of a few days he felt he could tackle a issue in that society that has been with them for decades if not longer. Sort like America trying to force Democracy on some countries after a war thinking it would be better for them. It actually would probably be better for them but changes to a culture like that has to come from within. It's not something you can force on others. If he didn't get involved the Cogenitor would still be alive. Then their is the bigger pragmatic issue between Earth and the Vissians. The Enterprise could have easily provoked a possible war or attack on the ship where then more people could end up being killed. A prime example of the road to hell is filled with good intentions idea.

IRL example, the US trying to "instill democracy" on one of the most corrupt nations where the people aren't united like in Afghanistan was a collosal failure.

Yet a country like Japan, South Korea, the former territories of Yugoslavia, & Ukraine all accepted it and have moved towards Western Liberal Democracy.

There are alot of factors to consider, and if you don't understand them, it could cause a lot of issues or failure outright.

Thinking you're going to change things with a species you barely met was incredibly naive of Trip. While noble & well intentioned, expecting societal change or personal change when you met them a few days ago is crazy.

 

[Jayson1]

Yes, and I think a lot of people are in fact arguing exactly that. I don’t see people overlooking the fact that television episodes about LGBTQ+ issues were still a rarity at this time (even if there were certainly more than many people seem to realize, if you look at the lists @Skipper linked to at beginning of the thread). It’s just that many people — although obviously not everyone — were expecting more from a franchise that likes to congratulate itself for how forward-thinking, progressive and groundbreaking it is. Just in general I see that many people express a desire in the franchise having done more when they could and disappointment because they didn’t. They didn’t have to do anything (other than satisfying the studios, the advertisers and the audience — as has been repeatedly pointed out), but it would have been really nice if they did. And I don’t see why it should be wrong to voice this disappointment.

Also, your assessment that the little representation they did manage to have on the show didn’t portray LGBTQ+ people in a bad light is actually disputed a number of times in this thread. The way they use lesbianism as a shorthand for evil deviants in the Mirror Universe or the episode “Warlord” we discussed earlier is certainly problematic. A scene in “The Host” can be read as implying that they are not supposed to even exist in the future. All of that is of course debatable stuff (as we’ve been doing a lot in this very thread), but I’m personally convinced that some of the ways in which they have presented LGBTQ+ people had the unfortunate (if probably not deliberate) effect of portraying them in a bad light.


This came up earlier in the thread, but it’s probably easy to overlook. While Berman never seems to have said anything publicly that must be seen as homophobic, writer David Gerrold, himself a gay man who has intimate knowledge about how Berman conducts himself in the writers’ room, labels him a “raging homophobe”. Doesn’t mean Gerrold is necessarily right, but I just wanted to throw this out to underline that this is not just some wild speculation by people who don’t really know the man.

Also, I’d like to point out that even though it might not have “registered to him”, he could still harbor homophobic biases and thoughts. I would argue the majority of people who say or do something homophobic don’t necessarily realize that that’s what they are doing.

They weren't saying Lesbians are evil in the mirror universe stories. For one thing the first episode was more about exploring the kind of unique idea of basically finding another version of yourself kind of attractive. Plus it's the only episode that even comes close to taking a serious approach to the mirror universe.

The other episodes were basically popcorn escapism and the idea was Kira being a lesbian is sexy and kinky. The episodes were not serious enough to take any evil on her part seriously. It was all over the top and campy. Also to be fair they played that angle with Worf and Garak as well and this was at a time when doing even kinky sexy stuff with gay people would only be reserved for women and they would never show gay men in any kind of sexual light because their was a double standard. You can be gay and sexy on tv but only if your a women and never a man.

 

[Michael]

I don't think Archer disagreed with Trip on their customs being immoral. More along the idea that to interfere in it while not fully understanding all of the ramifications was not being responsible. In a matter of a few days he felt he could tackle a issue in that society that has been with them for decades if not longer. Sort like America trying to force Democracy on some countries after a war thinking it would be better for them. It actually would probably be better for them but changes to a culture like that has to come from within. It's not something you can force on others. If he didn't get involved the Cogenitor would still be alive. Then their is the bigger pragmatic issue between Earth and the Vissians. The Enterprise could have easily provoked a possible war or attack on the ship where then more people could end up being killed. A prime example of the road to hell is filled with good intentions idea.

I can absolutely follow your logic, but I believe this is one of these cases where it doesn’t make much sense to map a relatively small, isolated incidence like one person asking for asylum on a large-scale attempt at changing their whole society. I get that this is probably what they were going for with the episode, but to me it just doesn’t make sense. Charles clearly is someone in need and a legitimate claim to being helped in this episode. Just flatly refusing to help them, even if reluctantly, seems so wrong to me, especially since they wrote it in a way that makes Archer seem like he considers himself morally superior because if his denial to help.

 

[Michael]

They weren't saying Lesbians are evil in the mirror universe stories. For one thing the first episode was more about exploring the kind of unique idea of basically finding another version of yourself kind of attractive. Plus it's the only episode that even comes close to taking a serious approach to the mirror universe.

The other episodes were basically popcorn escapism and the idea was Kira being a lesbian is sexy and kinky. The episodes were not serious enough to take any evil on her part seriously. It was all over the top and campy. Also to be fair they played that angle with Worf and Garak as well and this was at a time when doing even kinky sexy stuff with gay people would only be reserved for women and they would never show gay men in any kind of sexual light because their was a double standard. You can be gay and sexy on tv but only if your a women and never a man.

I get all that. But again, some of the ways in which they have presented LGBTQ+ people had the unfortunate (if probably not deliberate) effect of portraying them in a bad light. Just because it wasn’t their stated intention to say “lesbians are evil”, doesn’t mean that the way they did in fact portray them — as only ever the deviant baddies from the bizarro universe — wasn’t highly problematic. You can want to do one thing and end up having an effect you didn’t intend. And in my estimation that’s certainly what happened here.

 

[BillJ]

I can absolutely follow your logic, but I believe this is one of these cases where it doesn’t make much sense to map a relatively small, isolated incidence like one person asking for asylum on a large-scale attempt at changing their whole society. I get that this is probably what they were going for with the episode, but to me it just doesn’t make sense. Charles clearly is someone in need and a legitimate claim to being helped in this episode. Just flatly refusing to help them, even if reluctantly, seems so wrong to me, especially since they wrote it in a way that makes Archer seem like he considers himself morally superior because if his denial to help.

Same character who ended up being okay if a race died due to some not even invented yet directive.

 

[Michael]

Same character who ended up being okay if a race died due to some not even invented yet directive.

Yup, please don’t remind me of that massive failure.

 

[BillJ]

I get all that. But again, some of the ways in which they have presented LGBTQ+ people had the unfortunate (if probably not deliberate) effect of portraying them in a bad light. Just because it wasn’t their stated intention to say “lesbians are evil”, doesn’t mean that the way they did in fact portray them — as only ever the deviant baddies from the bizarro universe — wasn’t highly problematic. You can want to do one thing and end up having an effect you didn’t intend. And in my estimation that’s certainly what happened here.

Well, Star Trek may have done a number on itself without ever realizing. These are essentially the same characters with just different circumstances. Whose to say Kira herself doesn't have things that she doesn't share with friends.

 

[Jayson1]

I'm not sure if that was what they were going for with Archer. I think it was more about Archer just being angry and having to sort of let Trip know he fucked up. Which also works in the sense that they are both good friends and they tend to normally have a friendly repartee with each other. Archer having to go into military mode was not something he was really about most of the time. Except in season 3 when the ship became less about exploration and all about saving Earth from the Xindi attack.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not sure if that was what they were going for with Archer.

I don't think anyone, even the writers, knew what they were going for with Archer.

 

[BK613]

Well, Star Trek may have done a number on itself without ever realizing. These are essentially the same characters with just different circumstances. Whose to say Kira herself doesn't have things that she doesn't share with friends.

Exactly. Mirror-Kira was a hedonistic whirlwind whereas Kira was not. I could easily see Mirror-Kira licensing her image to Quark for use in the holosuites and only killing him when he tried to cheat her out of her share of the profits.