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

[Skipper]

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.

This is from a 2011 interview where they asked him about gay characters.

Why were there no gay characters on TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise? Was that your decision or the studio’s?

Berman: It was not the studio’s decision. I know that when Gene (Roddenberry) was alive he was very ambiguous about the idea of a gay character or gay characters on the show. He felt it was the right thing to do, but never quite had any idea of how he was going to do it. As Michael Piller had said many times, the idea of seeing two men or two women in Ten-Forward holding hands was not really going to be an effective way of dealing with it. So Gene basically didn’t do anything about it, and then when Michael and I were involved with the concepts of the stories on the show, we just felt it would be better to deal with concepts of prejudice against homosexuality and topics like AIDS metaphorically, in ways other than human gays on board the ship. So we developed a number of different stories that dealt with same-sex relationships, that dealt with metaphorical diseases that were similar to AIDS. But they were all done in alien fashion to try to get people to think about these things as opposed to just hitting it right on the head, which would be having a gay character on the ship. It’s something that Michael and I discussed. It’s something that Brannon Braga and I discussed, that Jeri Taylor and I discussed, and we never really got around to coming up with a way of just adding a gay character. So we tried to deal with it in a more abstract science-fiction way.

There are a couple of points that really don't convince me.
1) blaming Roddenberry: virtually every source I found says he was very ready to introduce gay characters but it was the others who vetoed it. Then practically from the third year he no longer had decision-making power. If they really wanted to introduce queer characters he certainly couldn't have stopped them.
2) failing to find a convincing way to introduce LBGTQI+ characters and therefore being forced to use metaphors: gay people simply exist. And they're not mystical creatures that you need a three-episode saga to introduce them and explain their origin. It's like saying "we can't find a sensible way to introduce a red-haired character so we're forced to only show blondes and brunettes."

It's interesting (and here I tend to believe him) that he says that it wasn't the studios' interference and he doesn't even make it a financial issue but simply a creative one. It would have been much easier for him to blame these factors but he still places the responsibility for this choice solely on him (even if perhaps his reasons are not convincing).

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone here to explain how money would be lost by making an overtly "gay" episode.

 

[Skipper]

(By the way, I'm reading right now a lot of material on Next Generation's financial model to understand where the money came from and how it could have lost it).

 

[Jayson1]

This is from a 2011 interview where they asked him about gay characters.

Why were there no gay characters on TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise? Was that your decision or the studio’s?

Berman: It was not the studio’s decision. I know that when Gene (Roddenberry) was alive he was very ambiguous about the idea of a gay character or gay characters on the show. He felt it was the right thing to do, but never quite had any idea of how he was going to do it. As Michael Piller had said many times, the idea of seeing two men or two women in Ten-Forward holding hands was not really going to be an effective way of dealing with it. So Gene basically didn’t do anything about it, and then when Michael and I were involved with the concepts of the stories on the show, we just felt it would be better to deal with concepts of prejudice against homosexuality and topics like AIDS metaphorically, in ways other than human gays on board the ship. So we developed a number of different stories that dealt with same-sex relationships, that dealt with metaphorical diseases that were similar to AIDS. But they were all done in alien fashion to try to get people to think about these things as opposed to just hitting it right on the head, which would be having a gay character on the ship. It’s something that Michael and I discussed. It’s something that Brannon Braga and I discussed, that Jeri Taylor and I discussed, and we never really got around to coming up with a way of just adding a gay character. So we tried to deal with it in a more abstract science-fiction way.

There are a couple of points that really don't convince me.
1) blaming Roddenberry: virtually every source I found says he was very ready to introduce gay characters but it was the others who vetoed it. Then practically from the third year he no longer had decision-making power. If they really wanted to introduce queer characters he certainly couldn't have stopped them.
2) failing to find a convincing way to introduce LBGTQI+ characters and therefore being forced to use metaphors: gay people simply exist. And they're not mystical creatures that you need a three-episode saga to introduce them and explain their origin. It's like saying "we can't find a sensible way to introduce a red-haired character so we're forced to only show blondes and brunettes."

It's interesting (and here I tend to believe him) that he says that it wasn't the studios' interference and he doesn't even make it a financial issue but simply a creative one. It would have been much easier for him to blame these factors but he still places the responsibility for this choice solely on him (even if perhaps his reasons are not convincing).

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone here to explain how money would be lost by making an overtly "gay" episode.

I think the loose of money would come from lower ratings and less money being spent on adds by companies. I think such a episode would create some controversy but I do doubt it would have hurt the show in those ways but from someone like Berman who is risk adverse I am guessing he might fear those things. I generally feel that he was just a very conservative person who didn't like to take risks and also didn't understand how just doing "a very special episode" dealing with the issue wasn't enough.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Thing is, gay people are not an "issue" that needs to be "addressed", they just are. So 2 guys holding hands in Ten Forward would have been all anyone needed.

 

[Oddish]

On Berman and homophobia: I tried to do research on this topic and practically everywhere it is given as an established fact.

So basically, everyone accused him of it, but he was never caught on record. So he's either very sly, or was wrongfully accused.

Berman: It was not the studio’s decision...

That guy was waffling more a truckload of Eggo's.

Again, no way to be sure. But I got the sense he had his reasons, and knew it was problematic to express them.

I think the loose of money would come from lower ratings and less money being spent on adds by companies. I think such a episode would create some controversy but I do doubt it would have hurt the show in those ways but from someone like Berman who is risk adverse I am guessing he might fear those things.

And that's plausible, using the analogy that I used earlier. Very few people in the 90's would have stopped watching Trek because the characters were all straight.

Thing is, gay people are not an "issue" that needs to be "addressed", they just are. So 2 guys holding hands in Ten Forward would have been all anyone needed.

Honestly? I think if that had happened, it would have been like "The Outcast", the LGBTQ community would regard it as insufficient. Stamets and Culber might not have happened until 2017, but at least they were full speed ahead, no ambiguity.

 

[Takeru]

There are a couple of points that really don't convince me.
1) blaming Roddenberry: virtually every source I found says he was very ready to introduce gay characters but it was the others who vetoed it. Then practically from the third year he no longer had decision-making power. If they really wanted to introduce queer characters he certainly couldn't have stopped them.
2) failing to find a convincing way to introduce LBGTQI+ characters and therefore being forced to use metaphors: gay people simply exist. And they're not mystical creatures that you need a three-episode saga to introduce them and explain their origin. It's like saying "we can't find a sensible way to introduce a red-haired character so we're forced to only show blondes and brunettes."

Let me play devil's advocate.
1) Roddenberry tended to tell people what they wanted to hear so him publicly saying he was ready to introduce gay characters does not mean he really wanted to. He was also known as the "allegory guy", not literally but I've heard stories how Star Trek deals with present day issues through allegorical storytelling instead of addressing them outright since I was a child. Roddenberry rejecting gay characters in favor an allegory is more believable than him championing their inclusion but being stopped by others (like he wasn't stopped from having a female first officer on TOS but said so anyway).
There are just as much stories from various sources that Berman saw his job as running the franchise like Roddenberry would have and him saying he and Piller decided to develop allegorical stories fits that mindset.
He may still have been homophobic but his explanation does not sound completely made up after the fact or like an excuse.
2) True, but this seems to have been a common mindset during that time, when you look at the list of episodes from other shows you posted in the OP the majority of them are issue episodes that wouldn't work if the LGBTQ character wasn't part of the community. They either teach the straight characters a lesson or face some prejudices and problems based on their sexuality/gender identity, they rarely just happen to be gay with their story being about something completely unrelated. With the supposedly enlightened characters of the 24th century teaching them a lesson wouldn't be necessary, so the only "reason" to have LGBTQ characters would be to face some problems and prejudices and with that you're already halfway into allegory territory.

I still think it's embarrassing that the franchise didn't have LGBTQ representation until it was 4 decades old but I also think labeling Berman as a raging homophobe who personally stopped it from happening is too convenient. Behr even said they never asked if Garak could be gay on DS9, so Berman definitely didn't stop that.

Thing is, gay people are not an "issue" that needs to be "addressed", they just are. So 2 guys holding hands in Ten Forward would have been all anyone needed.

That would have felt like a copout. Straight relationships play out on screen, from casual affairs to longterm relationships, we even see straight people getting married on screen but gay representation is two extras holding hands in the background? That's only slightly above "Well, we didn't say the nameless extras in the background weren't gay, so imagine they are" when it comes to the quality of representation.
While I agree that being gay does not have to be justified in story and the character should just be gay they should actually be characters with something to do and not just nameless extras in the background while Riker and Geordie talk about the ferengi being annoying.

 

[Michael]

Don't know about David Gerrold's story, …

Maybe I’m misreading you, but if you’re genuinely curious which Gerrold story I was referring to, it’s the one that was relayed here earlier.

One thing I find interesting to note about the whole “Is Berman a homophobe?” debate is that — and I didn’t realize that before — he’s actually the co-author of both “Cogenitor” (the quasi non-binary episode) and “Stigma” (the HIV/Aids awareness allegory), having written both together with Brannon Braga. So even if he actually is a homophobe, I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t completely shy away from writing LGBTQ+ stories, even if — like he says in interviews — he prefers to write them as allegories exclusively. The results can only be seen as mixed as well.

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

I found this Berman quote from the article interesting:

“That was really the wishful thinking of some people who were constantly at us. But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands.”

I have a hard time believing the bolded part being accurate. You’re telling me there are no two background characters in the entirety of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager that are shown as a couple? Not in Ten Forward, not on the Promenade, not anywhere?

And even if that’s true, I’d have to wonder why they would have wanted it that way. Doesn’t feel realistic at all to not have couples in these places.

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.

I would be interested in a tell-all book like that as well. Although my suspicion would be that he’d use it more to be self-congratulatory instead of self-critical. From the interviews I’ve seen with him he seems like someone who’s either telling how he did something great or was kept from doing something great by the studio executives. Although that’s certainly not a trait exclusive to Berman.

 

[Skipper]

I'd just like to add that I've never heard anyone who worked in the Star Trek writer's room say anything like, "We had this great idea but the studio vetoed it!" as sometimes happens in other series. I recently saw "Chaos on The Bridge" and one of the Paramount producers who worked on the series said that it was fine for them to give whoever was managing the series at the time (Roddenberry and his lawyer at the beginning, Berman later) creative freedom if they guaranteed him stable income. They were more worried about the series not going over budget than about some controversial episodes (and at the risk of repeating myself, in the second episode we have orgies, stories of rape and super-sexual robots). I suppose if it had really gone too far the studio would have intervened, but Berman was probably very good at knowing where to draw the line. Then, of course, the series, being sold in First-Run Syndication, was also free from network interference as well. This is to say that the decision not to introduce LBGTQI+ themes (except in the form of allegories) weighs 99% solely on Berman's shoulders.

What would have happened if they really had broadcast a "controversial gay" episode? I imagine little. We're talking about one in 26 per season. If any station was truly afraid of viewer reaction, they simply wouldn't have broadcast it. Would they lose viewers? Who knows, but they would have made more for the controversy (there is no such thing as bad publicity). And honestly, I haven't found a single case of a show losing viewers and advertising revenue for airing a "gay" episode in the 90s (but I'm happy to eventually be corrected).

And then, it's not like every episode of TNG was a masterpiece. I would have been more concerned with keeping the quality high to keep viewers coming back every week rather than imagining that who knows what scandalous theme would make them run away. And I mean, they did an episode where it clearly said "Hey, it's not like terrorists are always wrong" and that said Ireland would be united in 2024 while The Troubles were going on. So it's not like there was a real problem with doing a "controversial" episode every now and then.

And in any case Berman himself confirmed it. It was never about "money".

 

[Jayson1]

Thing is, gay people are not an "issue" that needs to be "addressed", they just are. So 2 guys holding hands in Ten Forward would have been all anyone needed.

I agree but for someone like Berman in 1989 or so I can see why they wouldn't think that way.

 

[Skipper]

I have a hard time believing the bolded part being accurate. You’re telling me there are no two background characters in the entirety of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager that are shown as a couple? Not in Ten Forward, not on the Promenade, not anywhere?

I want just to re-quote myself:

the Next Generation episode, "The Offspring"

According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, "When a man and a woman are in love..." and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands. But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, "This show is beyond that. It should be 'When two people are in love.'"

We were spared what would probably have been the most homophobic scene of the entire franchise only thanks to Whoopi Goldberg's stubbornness. I think this goes to show what the opinions of those in creative control of the series were on this topic.

 

[Jayson1]

Let me play devil's advocate.
1) Roddenberry tended to tell people what they wanted to hear so him publicly saying he was ready to introduce gay characters does not mean he really wanted to. He was also known as the "allegory guy", not literally but I've heard stories how Star Trek deals with present day issues through allegorical storytelling instead of addressing them outright since I was a child. Roddenberry rejecting gay characters in favor an allegory is more believable than him championing their inclusion but being stopped by others (like he wasn't stopped from having a female first officer on TOS but said so anyway).
There are just as much stories from various sources that Berman saw his job as running the franchise like Roddenberry would have and him saying he and Piller decided to develop allegorical stories fits that mindset.
He may still have been homophobic but his explanation does not sound completely made up after the fact or like an excuse.
2) True, but this seems to have been a common mindset during that time, when you look at the list of episodes from other shows you posted in the OP the majority of them are issue episodes that wouldn't work if the LGBTQ character wasn't part of the community. They either teach the straight characters a lesson or face some prejudices and problems based on their sexuality/gender identity, they rarely just happen to be gay with their story being about something completely unrelated. With the supposedly enlightened characters of the 24th century teaching them a lesson wouldn't be necessary, so the only "reason" to have LGBTQ characters would be to face some problems and prejudices and with that you're already halfway into allegory territory.

I still think it's embarrassing that the franchise didn't have LGBTQ representation until it was 4 decades old but I also think labeling Berman as a raging homophobe who personally stopped it from happening is too convenient. Behr even said they never asked if Garak could be gay on DS9, so Berman definitely didn't stop that.


That would have felt like a copout. Straight relationships play out on screen, from casual affairs to longterm relationships, we even see straight people getting married on screen but gay representation is two extras holding hands in the background? That's only slightly above "Well, we didn't say the nameless extras in the background weren't gay, so imagine they are" when it comes to the quality of representation.
While I agree that being gay does not have to be justified in story and the character should just be gay they should actually be characters with something to do and not just nameless extras in the background while Riker and Geordie talk about the ferengi being annoying.

You know I am curious about something. I think we all know about the various inclusion of gay characters in tv back then and even earlier going all the way back to shows like All in the Family and Maude. But does anyone recall how much inclusion their was in family based entertainment? Lots of talk about how Trek never even acknowledged the existence of gay people but look at Disney. I don't think they had any openly gay character in any of their movies until just recently. All because of it's rep of wanting to be family friendly. Was their much gay representations in shows that aired in their early time slot shows?

 

[Takeru]

You know I am curious about something. I think we all know about the various inclusion of gay characters in tv back then and even earlier going all the way back to shows like All in the Family and Maude. But does anyone recall how much inclusion their was in family based entertainment? Lots of talk about how Trek never even acknowledged the existence of gay people but look at Disney. I don't think they had any openly gay character in any of their movies until just recently. All because of it's rep of wanting to be family friendly. Was their much gay representations in shows that aired in their early time slot shows?

I honestly don't now when it happened for the first time on those shows, but it's still a relatively big deal today, see The Owl House for example.

But Disney, Nickelodeon etc. were never known for being particularly progressive and wouldn't have touched the issues Star Trek did deal with with a ten foot pole until a few years ago in their family entertainment. Star Trek has prided itself as a progressive show since very early on, that creates expectations and makes them not delivering on LGBTQ representation worse.

 

[Jayson1]

I do agree. It is a black mark on Trek but generally speaking it is good that at least Trek was not regressive in saying being gay was a bad thing. No gay panic or homophobic jokes. No negative stereotypes. One good thing also is we at least didn't get the "Code of Honor" version of a episode showcasing a gay community.

 

[BK613]

In the end though, I wonder how well they would have done. My money is on them botching it and instead of complaining on the absence, we'd be here bitching about the number of 80s gay stereotypes they squeezed into the character.

 

[Skipper]

In the end though, I wonder how well they would have done. My money is on them botching it and instead of complaining on the absence, we'd be here bitching about the number of 80s gay stereotypes they squeezed into the character.

they would have had the most fabulous uniform?

 

[Oddish]

look at Disney. I don't think they had any openly gay character in any of their movies until just recently. All because of it's rep of wanting to be family friendly. Was their much gay representations in shows that aired in their early time slot shows?

Even when they did, they kind of overstated things early on. In the new "Beauty and the Beast", LeFou was supposed to be their first "openly gay" character... nope. Yeah, Josh Gad played him as crushing hard on Gaston, but he was closeted at best. And the supposed "gay moment" was him and another male character accidentally dancing together.

In the end though, I wonder how well they would have done. My money is on them botching it and instead of complaining on the absence, we'd be here bitching about the number of 80s gay stereotypes they squeezed into the character.

I think that's right. It seemed to be the norm for gay characters back then. Still, given that Starfleet characters dressed in uniform, wore short hair, and didn't seem to be that into makeup (aside from the kind that turned them into aliens), it might not have been as bad as all that.

 

[UssGlenn]

early on Trip became one of my favorite characters of that show. Simply put, he’s the only one in the episode who instinctively is doing the right thing.

since they wrote it in a way that makes Archer seem like he considers himself morally superior because if his denial to help

we've moved on from this discussion but, Archer, being a representative of Earth, making his decision from a realpolitik perspective. So his decision is based on purely pragmatic practical considerations, without regards to morality or ethics.

the LGBTQ community would regard it as insufficient.

I can see the conundrum. During a time when it's still controversial there are no half measures. I can see the writers not having a good idea about making a statement that is "enough" for the audience yet still makes sense in universe for characters where its a non issue.

 

[Takeru]

they would have had the most fabulous uniform?

They could have introduced the crop top variant of the uniform.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

They could have introduced the crop top variant of the uniform.

 

[David cgc]

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.

There was that, like, five minute period right before the Fifty Year Mission came out where Berman was throwing UPN under the bus for everything people hated about ENT. "Temporal Cold War? Totally the network's idea, they wanted us to still be going further into the future even with a prequel. We wanted to do some prestige-TV shit before it had even been invented and not even start flying out into space on the ship until halfway through season 1, but the network wouldn't let us." There was a bit of a reappraisal of him here. Then there was a new book where everybody who worked on Trek between 1987 and 2005 itemized everything Rick Berman had ever done to piss them off, and boy, did the bloom come off that rose, and his reputation actually got worse than where it had been.