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

[Damian]

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.

I think @BillJ sort of hits it on the head. Paramount is most interested in making money. If they thought homosexuality would have sold more shows, it would have been featured more. It may have sold more Star Trek back then, we'll never truly know in retrospect. But if they thought it would have, you would have seen it. It wouldn't have been to promote rights. It would have been to make money. Just as it is today. Perhaps a bit cynical, but true.

Perhaps we as fans put Star Trek on too high a pedestal. That it's selling a message. But the reality is probably much more basic than that. They are selling a show for profit. If a message makes them more money, you'll see more of it. If not, you won't. And if a message would lose them money, they'll avoid it like a plague (that would be for any issue BTW).

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.

I'm not sure that I agree with all of that. I saw homosexuality in those instances as being more incidental. Many characters were 'evil' in the mirror universe. Straight and homosexual. I never came away feeling they were saying homosexuality itself was evil. Bashir was a bad guy in the mirror universe and he was straight. Ditto for Sisko. They may have been guilty of overplaying the lesbian part for the benefit of horny guys watching it. But I'm not sold that they were saying homosexuality was a reason the mirror universe was bad.

I certainly didn't feel that way about "Warlord." The character was a bad guy (now girl). While in Kes I believed he still thought of himself as a guy so it probably never even registered that there was anything homosexual going on. Kes was just a vessel, a useful vessel for his desire to conquer. And what's the issue with "The Host?" I think they barely touched on homosexuality there. Beverly had trouble adjusting to all the changes in Odan. And when Odan was now a woman that was a bridge too far for her....I always believed partly because she is a heterosexual. Partly also because of the frequent host changes. Her comment about being more open to the changes I interpreted to mean the host changes, the first host, Riker, now a woman. That would be a lot for anybody to take. Physical attraction is still an important aspect for most people, not the only one, but a factor yes. And there's nothing wrong with Beverly not being attracted to other females in a romantic/sexual way. Any more than a homosexual would start a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, a heterosexual is not likely to be in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. So I think it's perfectly natural for her not to want to continue a romantic relationship with Odan.

 

[BillJ]

And what's the issue with "The Host?" I think they barely touched on homosexuality there. Beverly had trouble adjusting to all the changes in Odan. And when Odan was now a woman that was a bridge too far for her....I always believed partly because she is a heterosexual. Partly also because of the frequent host changes. Her comment about being more open to the changes I interpreted to mean the host changes, the first host, Riker, now a woman. That would be a lot for anybody to take. Physical attraction is still an important aspect for most people, not the only one, but a factor yes. And there's nothing wrong with Beverly not being attracted to other females in a romantic/sexual way. Any more than a homosexual would start a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, a heterosexual is not likely to be in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. So I think it's perfectly natural for her not to want to continue a romantic relationship with Odan.

I think of everything mentioned, with hindsight being 20/20, that "The Host" is the one where you have to stop and think about what is being said. They could've probably rewrote Beverly's lines at the end to better encapsulate that it was she who had the problem.

 

[fireproof78]

Perhaps we as fans put Star Trek on too high a pedestal. That it's selling a message. But the reality is probably much more basic than that. They are selling a show for profit. If a message makes them more money, you'll see more of it. If not, you won't. And if a message would lose them money, they'll avoid it like a plague (that would be for any issue BTW).

Damn straight.

 

[Jayson1]

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.

I agree but that I think is less of a issue with the episodes themselves so much as simply not having any other gay representation at all. Kind of like how the "The Outcast" on TNG is actually a good episode and actually has something to say about conversation therapy but it sort of stands out do to having no positive representation to sort of add another layer.

If they had even one crewmember who was gay and was just a normal regular crew person and not just their to be a metaphor for a single episode then it would play differently. In fact it might even add to that particular episode because you would see their perspective on what the J'Nail we're doing to their people. If anything it would show a contrast in how Starfleet treats people who are LGBTQ vs to how the J'Nail do.

 

[Damian]

I think of everything mentioned, with hindsight being 20/20, that "The Host" is the one where you have to stop and think about what is being said. They could've probably rewrote Beverly's lines at the end to better encapsulate that it was she who had the problem.

I agree it was a bit clumsy. I think they threw in the new host being female for a bit of a twist, or even shock value. Before that scene I admit I hadn't considered the possibility the new host might be female.

But I never interpreted that scene to mean homosexuality was some sort of issue in the future. It was an issue for Beverly as an issue, sure, but because she was not a homosexual and she was just unable to cross that bridge. Not because she was homophobic, but just because she was a heterosexual. I more interpreted the line to mean that at that point in time in the future sexual orientation still mattered. That humanity had not reached a point where sexual orientation no longer mattered. I never took it to mean that homosexuality was a bad thing, or the reverse, that Beverly was a bad person or homophobic because she was 100% heterosexual.

 

[BillJ]

I agree it was a bit clumsy. I think they threw in the new host being female for a bit of a twist, or even shock value. Before that scene I admit I hadn't considered the possibility the new host might be female.

The one thing that always bothered me is “who did the operation?” Crusher reports on it like she did it, yet was shocked when a female came in.

 

[Jayson1]

The one thing that always bothered me is “who did the operation?” Crusher reports on it like she did it, yet was shocked when a female came in.

Never thought of it that way. I suppose it might have been a Trill doctor who came along who has more experience with those kind of things and we just never saw that doctor.

 

[BillJ]

Never thought of it that way. I suppose it might have been a Trill doctor who came along who has more experience with those kind of things and we just never saw that doctor.

Even if, it seems odd that Crusher was that far out of the loop for someone she supposedly cared a great deal about. She was the physician for the entirety of Odan’s stay on the Enterprise.

 

[Jayson1]

I agree but I guess that was the thing we are suppose to not notice to make the twist work in the end.

 

[Oddish]

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.

I think the issue is that we needed to replace the Talibun with something that would be strong enough to hold it off when we left. Sadly, we failed, and the Talibun is back in power. And they might be too busy torturing their own subjects were their perverted version of Islam to attack us, but their "guests" are another story. I expect they've already put out the welcome mat for the unknown group who will ultimately unleash the next 9/11 on us.

By contrast, reforming the Vissian culture would be nice, but it wouldn't be self-defense, the way trying to reform Afghanistan was.

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.

That was Cogenitor's vastly inferior sibling.

Like "Tuvix" on Voyager and "In the Pale Moonlight" on DS9, and possibly "I, Borg" on TNG, this was supposed to be the "main character has to make tough moral decision" episode. Difference is, most of the Trekkie community seem to support Picard and Sisko, but they seem to think that Janeway and Archer acted wrongly.

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.

After "Crossover", I could see her not only letting Quark make a Kira hologram, but running the program herself.

 

[Skipper]

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).

Yep. I put that list up because they said in the other thread that they were so brave to make "The Outcast" in 1992, as if there had never even been a mention of homosexuality on TV before. This is the plot of an episode of Northern Exposure that aired a year before "The Outcast".

A gay couple, Ron Bantz (Doug Ballard) and Erick Hillman (Don R. McManus), buy a bed and breakfast from the conservative and homophobic Maurice.

Yep. A gay couple. On network tv. My point was that 1992 wasn't some dark dystopian time where the censors would arrest you if you even hinted about homosexuality in television series and then you were forced to talk about it obliquely. TNG would have easily done an episode where it was talked about in a more direct way (I don't know, a homosexual lieutenant kidnapped by a homophobic race and in the end Captain Picard convinces them to release him thanks to a Great Speech explaining that humans were once homophobic too , but have now evolved beyond this pettiness). Instead they preferred to use vague metaphors and analogies without any real reason compelling them to do so.

In my opinion, it says more about those who had creative control of TNG than it does about the era in which they filmed the episode.

 

[Jayson1]

Northern Exposure was a show for adults. It aired in a 9 PM timeslot I believe. TNG was seen as a family show that would sometimes air around 6 PM. Use to be just having gays kissing in a movie could make your movie go from being PG-13 to rated R. Their was differences in how even then in how you showed it.

 

[BillJ]

Instead they preferred to use vague metaphors and analogies...

That was what Star Trek built its empire on.

 

[Damian]

The one thing that always bothered me is “who did the operation?” Crusher reports on it like she did it, yet was shocked when a female came in.

The new host walked in before the operation. She said something like she was there for Odon, or the new host for Odon. Something along those lines. It might be fair to ask whether Crusher would have known the host was a female before she boarded the Enterprise, but the operation was done after Beverly first saw her. Beverly is a doctor first so doing the surgery she probably just did her job like always. Then after the operation is when they had their discussion.

They probably didn't discuss it before because the new host would have no idea what she was talking about since she didn't have the symbiont yet. It would have been a pointless discussion.

 

[Skipper]

Northern Exposure was a show for adults. It aired in a 9 PM timeslot I believe. TNG was seen as a family show that would sometimes air around 6 PM. Use to be just having gays kissing in a movie could make your movie go from being PG-13 to rated R. Their was differences in how even then in how you showed it.

I am not talking about gay people making out on screen. I mean acknowledging that homosexual people exist. And we are talking about a tv show where in its very second episode a giant orgy was hosted on the Enterprise, Tasha talked about rape and Data flexed his sexual skills.

 

[Jayson1]

That was what Star Trek built its empire on.

Not just Trek but most science fiction and even non-Sci Fi in the past. Lost of fiction is based on metaphors and allegories.

 

[BillJ]

I am not talking about gay people making out on screen. I mean acknowledging that homosexual people exist. And we are talking about a tv show where in its very second episode a giant orgy was hosted on the Enterprise, Tasha talked about rape and Data flexed his sexual skills.

Unfortunately, society doesn't move forward together, all at once.

 

[Jayson1]

I am not talking about gay people making out on screen. I mean acknowledging that homosexual people exist. And we are talking about a tv show where in its very second episode a giant orgy was hosted on the Enterprise, Tasha talked about rape and Data flexed his sexual skills.

Both of those examples were in season 1 and have Roddenberry's impact all over it. This was before the show I think was fully seen as family oriented show. I

 

[BillJ]

The new host walked in before the operation. She said something like she was there for Odon, or the new host for Odon. Something along those lines. It might be fair to ask whether Crusher would have known the host was a female before she boarded the Enterprise, but the operation was done after Beverly first saw her. Beverly is a doctor first so doing the surgery she probably just did her job like always. Then after the operation is when they had their discussion.

They probably didn't discuss it before because the new host would have no idea what she was talking about since she didn't have the symbiont yet. It would have been a pointless discussion.

Thanks. I combined two scenes in my head. Been a while since I've watched the episode.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

Exactly. This is a crucial point regarding the criticisms. Supposed first interracial kiss, anyone?