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

[Skipper]

That was what Star Trek built its empire on.

Very metaphoric.

 

[BillJ]

Very metaphoric.

Iunno? It seemed to work, we're sitting here 55 years later discussing it.

 

[Skipper]

Iunno? It seemed to work, we're sitting here 55 years later discussing it.

What I meant, that I don't think there's a metaphor here It's clearly racism based on skin color. They even do a parallel with the Earth's past in the episode.

 

[BillJ]

What I meant, that I don't think there's a metaphor here It's clearly racism based on skin color. They even do a parallel with the Earth's past in the episode.

It was the 60's. Sometimes, subtlety came with a side of sledgehammer.

 

[Michael]

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.

I understand all that. And I don’t think anyone is arguing they had some moral duty to change societal prejudices about LGBTQ+ people or something like that. But they could have done more. And I personally don’t buy the argument that it would have lost them money.

Perhaps we as fans put Star Trek on too high a pedestal.

Definitely. Star Trek is important to me, but I realize it’s just some escapist television franchise and not the blueprint for a perfect future utopia some fans seem to want to make it out to be. But …

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).

… while I agree that it’s a product meant to generate profit (well, duh), don’t you think this is a bit of a limited view of what Star Trek (or any kind of fiction or media for that matter) is and can be? Wouldn’t you agree that culturally Star Trek plays an important role in shaping how we see the world? How we tell stories and what stories we tell gives you a snapshot of who we are as people, and on the flipside of that it can also influence our opinions and challenge our perceptions. When stories are capable of doing that, we tend to view them as good, special and important.

So that’s what people wish Star Trek would have done for LGBTQ+ issues. Being a trailblazer and champion for an unjustly marginalized, persecuted, discriminated and criminalized group of people, trying to do what only stories can do: Show a world where they are normalized, valued and loved.

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 think you misunderstand. The point isn’t that all evil Mirror Universe characters were gay. It’s that all gay characters were exclusively evil Mirror Universe characters. And of course they were likely not trying to say anything with that. But that doesn’t automatically make it not be problematic. It was a mix of them both trying to please the “male gaze” (because “lesbians are hot”) and having a shorthand for characters that are depraved and deviant to telegraph to the audience that they are “evil”. And I’m sorry, that’s just problematic. No amount of “they didn’t do it on purpose”, “they weren’’t aware of that”, “they were just doing it for money” or “everyone was doing it” changes that.

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.

Well yes, Tieran probably still thought of himself as male, even though he was now living in a female body. And in the course of the episode he (now presenting as a she) marries (!) a man (to advance his claim to the throne). That does make it “something homosexual”, even if — yet again — the writers were very likely not necessarily seeing it that way. They also have Tieran — again: a man — try and use sexual advances to seduce two men (one of his subjects and then later Tuvok). So they were yet again using homosexuality (or promiscuity) as a shorthand for depraved/deviant/evil.

Funny how that works, that in that era of television they were just not really able to easily portray gay people. Except when they did and they were always bad people for some reason.

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.

Not your fault, but we’re going a bit in circles at this point, because this was already discussed pages ago. Beverly just not being into women is of course not a problem. The way she’s telling Odan off, though, rubs many people the wrong way, because she’s saying it’s a “human failing” to not be able to continue a relationship with Odan, which some take to imply them saying there aren’t people perfectly capable of doing that.

 

[Skipper]

I understand all that. And I don’t think anyone is arguing they had some moral duty to change societal prejudices about LGBTQ+ people or something like that. But they could have done more. And I personally don’t buy the argument that it would have lost them money.

In fact, I found no relevant evidence that other TV shows before TNG had lost money or viewers for having a "gay episode". And how exactly were they supposed to lose them? Even in 1992 I think it would have been suicidal for a company to pull ads from a TV series because it dared to talk positively about homosexuality. And I have no clue how the syndication model worked, but worst case? A local station might have refused to air that particular episode. I don't really understand how TNG would have lost money in that case, because I assume it was given in advance.

I don't really think "money" was a big factor for this particular creative decision.

 

[BillJ]

I don't really think "money" was a big factor for this particular creative decision.

Hollywood is an American business, the only reason they make the decisions that they do, is because of money. Simple. Full stop. Every decision is a financial decision.

 

[Skipper]

Hollywood is an American business, the only reason they make the decisions that they do, is because of money. Simple. Full stop. Every decision is a financial decision.

Ok. Could you please point me to a TV series before TNG that lost money for airing a single gay episode, thanks?

 

[Michael]

Hollywood is an American business, the only reason they make the decisions that they do, is because of money. Simple. Full stop. Every decision is a financial decision.

Let me reply to that by saying that I’ve been working as an art director in an ad agency for 15 years at this point. I have of course been doing that to earn a living, pay the bills and have a good life where I’m able to pursue my passions and hobbies. But I’ve also been doing that because being creative is the only thing I know how to do, the only thing I learned and the only thing I ever wanted to do. When I’m working on a job for a client I’m doing that as a service to the client, as a way to make money AND to satisfy my own needs of being creative and doing something that I consider meaningful in my life. I love being able to tell stories with art and graphic design, create something that makes someone laugh, surprises someone, moves someone or makes them see something differently. That’s what in my eyes makes working as a designer so special to me. And that’s not contradicted by me also making a living while doing that.

I have a hard time believing I’m the only creative person in the world who feels like this. In fact I suspect many of the people working behind the scenes to create Star Trek have felt and feel like that about their work.

 

[Skipper]

I have a hard time believing I’m the only creative person in the world who feels like this. In fact I suspect many of the people working behind the scenes to create Star Trek have felt and feel like that about their work.

Right. And there is one thing that I don't understand and that no one has explained to me yet. If even vaguely hinting at homosexuality in a "family-oriented" show would surely spell financial disaster and probably destroy the Star Trek franchise forever, why didn't they have any qualms about showing evil lesbians making out...?

I'm a little confused.

 

[Jayson1]

A interesting thing is when it comes the Mirror Universe Kira is I don't think she started off just being a evil character. I mean she is a baddie in a sense but in the first episode they were going for some complexity so I guess I wonder does it matter if a gay character is bad if they are also complex? Would for example Walter White be bad in terms of gay representation if he was gay and still as complex and awesome as he was written on the show?

Granted Mirror Kira is not on that level but if they hadn't went for the more cartoonish aspects in the following episodes I think you could favorable compare her character to the likes Garak, Damar.Weyoum and Dukat on the show. Sometimes in not if a character is good or bad by real world ethical standards vs being complex and well rounded by fictional standards. Plus another thing is Mirror Kira despite the campy stuff is still liked I think as a character. People liking the character is one of the reasons they went back several times so she did win fans over and enjoyed the show and I would say most of the episodes, except for the last two. It's hard not to have fun watching those episodes even if only the first one even comes close to being deep.

 

[Jayson1]

Right. And there is one thing that I don't understand and that no one has explained to me yet. If even vaguely hinting at homosexuality in a "family-oriented" show would surely spell financial disaster and probably destroy the Star Trek franchise forever, why didn't they have any qualms about showing evil lesbians making out...?

I'm a little confused.

DS9 didn't have the rep as being as much of a family show as TNG. It was suppose to be the more gritty, by Trek standards when compared to TNG. Plus people's attitudes were already changing as tv itself was already becoming more gritty. It existed at the same time as "Ellen" and later "Will and Grace."

TNG spent most of it's run in the 80's and early 90's were DS9 was mostly in the mid to late 90's. Also DS9 was kind of ignored once it was clear it was not going to be the success TNG was thus Behr and those writers had a little more freedom to push the envelope.

 

[The Wormhole]

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.

Don't know about David Gerrold's story, although another popular story about Berman being supposedly homophobic has been debunked. That story goes that when First Contact was being filmed, when they were getting ready to film the scene where Lt Hawk would reveal being gay, Berman supposedly stormed onto set screaming that there was no way that sort of thing would be allowed on his watch. However, in the same interview where Neal McDonough denied Hawk was supposed to be gay, he denied there was ever any such incident on set, or that Berman was even present while his scenes were being filmed.

Granted, Berman is a rather unpleasant individual to put it mildly. This is the guy who responded to allegations of sexual harassment with the statement "a woman's job on television is to look pretty." But there doesn't seem to be much to back up the claim that he's homophobic.

 

[Oddish]

Granted, Berman is a rather unpleasant individual to put it mildly. This is the guy who responded to allegations of sexual harassment with the statement "a woman's job on television is to look pretty." But there doesn't seem to be much to back up the claim that he's homophobic.

Guinan reminds us that "in the eye of the beholder" works for a lot of things, and I think homophobia is one of them. Clearly, the decision to include gay characters was largely Berman's. Equally clearly, he didn't do it. However, we don't know his motivation. Maybe he didn't want to give up viewers, and thought that including gay characters would have that effects. Or maybe he was homophobic himself; it was pretty pervasive back then. Whether catering to other people's homophobia or acting on his own, the result was the same. And since he has no published or verifiable anti-gay statements, we can't know which.

 

[BillJ]

The only person who can actually answer any of the questions posed here, is Rick Berman.

 

[Oddish]

The only person who can actually answer any of the questions posed here, is Rick Berman.

True... but this is interesting: https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-first-contact-lt-hawk-originally-gay/

 

[PoorSailorsAirline]

I don't have much to chirp in here: I grew up with the TNG through ENT era, do have a bit of a perspective, but I'm pretty sure anything and everything I'd have to say is covered somewhere in the preceding 13 pages.

Perhaps there's one extra twist though: I always saw ENT "Unexpected" as a slapstick comedy canned episode. Maybe that was wishful thinking, because now I've got this little question of, was that actually supposed to be a not-too-subtle attempt at being gender-bendy?

If so, that puts the episode in a very different light. A lot of the 'campy, funny' parts were so over-the-top that now they almost seem misogynistic. They had Trip acting out so many 1950s-esque frazzled housewife tropes ("I'm hungry...I'm still hungry", "I'm going to have to get new clothes", etc.). The script had Trip do everything but complain that Phlox made him switch to Marlboro Lights until the baby is born and he might he not fit behind the wheel of the Oldsmobile. It's like watching guy-gets-pregnant-in-The-Brady-Bunch.

It's possible I'm vastly overthinking this. They did put Trip in a (somewhat?) related situation in Cogenitor, which was treated with more dignity all around. Just glad Unexpected wasn't ENT's only foray into this territory, because it's not just odd handling of the gender part, it's also kind of offensive to pregnant people in general.

 

[Jayson1]

Guinan reminds us that "in the eye of the beholder" works for a lot of things, and I think homophobia is one of them. Clearly, the decision to include gay characters was largely Berman's. Equally clearly, he didn't do it. However, we don't know his motivation. Maybe he didn't want to give up viewers, and thought that including gay characters would have that effects. Or maybe he was homophobic himself; it was pretty pervasive back then. Whether catering to other people's homophobia or acting on his own, the result was the same. And since he has no published or verifiable anti-gay statements, we can't know which.

My guess is he was likely homophobic. I mean it seems like he was racist and sexist as well though not I would imagine in a Far Right kind of way. Still with that even being possible my guess is it was still the issue of loosing money being the main motivator. They guy was a bean counter at heart and very rigid in allowing TNG take any risks right down to not waning the music to be to good. Even admitting gay people existed was seen I would guess as being to risky due to just how rigid he was in making sure TNG stayed not only family friendly but even becoming to nerdy as well because the guy didn't even seem to like the science fiction genre.

 

[Skipper]

On Berman and homophobia: I tried to do research on this topic and practically everywhere it is given as an established fact. But the only first-hand testimony I have found is Gerrold's.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Berman has been very quiet over the years since leaving Trek. I imagine a book or podcast or something would be fascinating and full of rebuttals for these accusations as well as reasons why certain choices were made.