I'm unconvinced that it really had the level of impact you're crediting it with.
"The Outcast"
- Thread starter TroiFan4ever
- Start date
That's because nothing will be enough for you and yours until I wrap myself in a rainbow LGBTQ flag and cheer wildly for any cause they advocate, no matter whose else's rights get stomped on in the process.
In other words, instead of rethinking a position, you feel I should stop thinking altogether.
I'll give it credit for at least being some level of "visibility" which at that time was still rare, even if there were other shows doing a better job. It would've been an even bigger mistake to have never addressed it at all (I guess) given the nature of Star Trek's reputation for that very thing. I can give them a little credit for the attempt (which I think I did in my 1st comment) even if it still disappoints.
I like to think of Trek as a show about a positive future, that should be trailblazing these things instead of pussyfooting about them, & this undoubtedly fell short of that, but if it had been an A-Team episode, I doubt I'd be as critical lol
I like to think of Trek as a show about a positive future, that should be trailblazing these things instead of pussyfooting about them, & this undoubtedly fell short of that, but if it had been an A-Team episode, I doubt I'd be as critical lol
Basically, I figure that TNG was still reliant on its older, more conservative fans who grew up with TOS, and didn't want to alienate them. They made a more direct effort on DS9, and while most of the response I saw was positive, I'm assuming there was a negative response we didn't see, given that neither VOY nor ENT made any effort to have a gay character, even in the background.
I guess they thought that America's institutional homophobia was too strong a bear to wrestle to the ground.
I guess they thought that America's institutional homophobia was too strong a bear to wrestle to the ground.
TOS still got away with more in a far more difficult decade. "Turnabout Intruder" had Lester (inside Kirk's body) getting somewhat seductive with that doctor. Technically a woman, yeah, but what you see is William Shatner being lovey-dovey with a man.
And the extremely homoerotic "Price of the Phoenix" was published in the 70's as an official Star Trek novel, with full support from Roddenberry.
Iirc Frakes wanted Soren to be played by a man. Okay, that would have been probably too much for that decade, so I understand why they chose an actress. But was it necessary to also specify that Soren identifies as a "she"? Isn't it enough for the relationship to look straight on-screen, but you need to make it sound straight too? Up to pronouns and everything else? That seems to me as overkill in the crusade for making the episode "not too gay". Why would an alien species that reproduce asexually even have any notion of gender or "he/she" pronouns, to begin with?
And the extremely homoerotic "Price of the Phoenix" was published in the 70's as an official Star Trek novel, with full support from Roddenberry.
Iirc Frakes wanted Soren to be played by a man. Okay, that would have been probably too much for that decade, so I understand why they chose an actress. But was it necessary to also specify that Soren identifies as a "she"? Isn't it enough for the relationship to look straight on-screen, but you need to make it sound straight too? Up to pronouns and everything else? That seems to me as overkill in the crusade for making the episode "not too gay". Why would an alien species that reproduce asexually even have any notion of gender or "he/she" pronouns, to begin with?
I like the story and relationship between Riker and Soren and the tragic ending. I don't feel this even is a LGBT story so much really and more one about the possibility of reconditioning in any society to weed out the undesirables, although obvious parallels for conversion therapy.
People seem to like giving this episode a kicking for not doing enough but I feel that's not its fault and more on TNG and Star Trek as a whole. Even DS9 with Ira and flying under the radar never had a truly gay character. They did "Rejoined" which is still mostly "The Outcast" again. Where's the actual gay character? Where's Gay Nog or Gay Alexander or Gay Nog and Gay Alexander are a couple? How's that for actual taboo relationships in Star Trek while also being actual gay characters? Even RDM's Battlestar Galactica had the gay romance between Gaeta and Hoshi shuffled into a web series and it wasn't until Caprica in 2010 they had a proper gay character.
People seem to like giving this episode a kicking for not doing enough but I feel that's not its fault and more on TNG and Star Trek as a whole. Even DS9 with Ira and flying under the radar never had a truly gay character. They did "Rejoined" which is still mostly "The Outcast" again. Where's the actual gay character? Where's Gay Nog or Gay Alexander or Gay Nog and Gay Alexander are a couple? How's that for actual taboo relationships in Star Trek while also being actual gay characters? Even RDM's Battlestar Galactica had the gay romance between Gaeta and Hoshi shuffled into a web series and it wasn't until Caprica in 2010 they had a proper gay character.
This is where Trek's "progressive" claim fails mightily. It protests too much that this is the strong claim towards discussing LGBT issues is a nebulous script and weak romance of the week.
Why wouldn't they? We don't reproduce asexaully and have a concept of non-binary.
And they've undoubtedly seen other sentient species, nearly all of which are sexually dimorphous.
Yeah, but we have that concept because we previously have a concept of the binary, and just find it non-applicable in certain cases. For example, you could think of yourself as neither tall nor short. But that's because you understand there are tall and short persons in the world. If we had all the exact same height, why would an individual think of himself as "tall" all of a sudden? Most likely, we wouldn't even have words to define those characteristics.
That's not the same thing. We are already conditioned to accept two genders which makes it easier for us to understand the concept of a third. A species which only has one gender would only think up one set of pronouns and would have no reason to ever bother with a second set. They wouldn't understand the concept of a second gender because their biology means they've never even considered of gender being something that could be different in someone else.
iirc the species in question *had* genders before this period where they decided to start forcibly suppressing them, and i don't think indicated that they were one *sex* , but it's been a few years since i saw it. i vaguely recall something about arranged marriages, or arranged parentages...
To Airin, good points. But as Korblborp pointed out, the aliens explain they used to have two genders before "evolving" to have just one. And, as others might've stated in this thread, before, during, and after that transition it's quite feasible for them to have been in contact with species with two or more genders. So, words for multiple genders in their society is likely.
Or, dare I say, there might be two sexes in local wildlife...
Shocking, I know.
Shocking, I know.
Similar threads
